Scott Fillmer

Linus in his great wisdom instructs Lucy well, sound theology is a great comfort to the mind, but I wonder how that would be written in the 21st century. I try to read a small dose of poetry every day in my quest to understand this complex and powerful form of literature, and this one, “Theology” by Paul Lawrence Dunbar was so funny, sad, and true, I had to share it today. Some days it seems there is such a Christianity culture shift going on in our country that Christians themselves are trying to re-write what it means to be a Christian.

The New Hipster Christian

Each generation sort of does this and re-defines how they see the Church and tries to make it their own, which is fine, better to revive and revitalize the church than leave it all together (which many young people have done too). The danger is when we re-write the Gospel message to meet our pop-culture needs, and turn Christianity into our own personal Jesus (as Depeche Mode put it about a decade ago). Christian theology isn’t something a generation can choose to define, it was defined for us, by Jesus himself.

A recent article in Christianity Today by Brett McCracken entitled “Hipster Faith” (also from his book Hipster Christianity) put it so well. This pretty much nails it.

It’s [hipster Christianity] a world where things like the Left Behind book and film series, Jesus fish, and door-to-door evangelism are relevant only as a source of irony or nostalgia. It’s a world where Braveheart youth-pastor analogies are anathema, where everyone agrees that they wish Pat Robertson “weren’t one of us” and shares a collective distaste for the art for Thomas Kinkade. The latest incarnation of a decades-long collision of “cool” and “Christianity” is in large part a rebellion against the very subculture that birthed it.

It’s a rebellion against old-school evangelicalism and its fuddy-duddy legalism, apathy about the arts, and pitiful lack of concern for social justice. It’s about a rebellion against George W. Bush-style Christianity: American flags in chruches, the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and evagelical leaders who get too involved in conservative politics, such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.

They prefer to call themselves “Christ-followers” rather than “Christians.” They cringe at the thought of an altar call, and the prospect of passing out tracts gives them nightmares.

Nothing is inherently wrong there except I do find that the “hipster Christians” do not give anyone the respect they deserve, like the aforementioned Dobson and Falwell, but I don’t see them giving due respect to hardly any of their “elders” per-say. They may disagree with the method (I always hated the thought of door-to-door myself) but much of their theology is very sound. We all far pray to our own culture, it is just part of being alive. You can follow me and my exploits around on Twitter just like you can McCracken, but where do we get our theology today.

Theology, Get it Wherever You Like

So they/we get theology from CCM (Christian Contemporary Music), and the pop-trends of the day. The latest craze that includes us older generations with Glenn Beck (see Beck Wants to Lead, But Will Evangelicals Follow? and a great article by Dr. Russell Moore God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck). Beck calls for a return to God, and then on Chris Wallace’s program (see video) Beck made it quite clear that he totally understands the Gospel message, and the differences between the LDS Church (Mormon Church) and Christianity. Sometimes it seems that the only ones who can’t see the difference, and there are plenty of differences, are us Christians.

I guess the question is, who are we looking to for our theological base and teaching, Beck? I don’t want to just pick on Beck, I like his show. While he is a super pop-culture-talking-head and has many good points, should we really be taking our theology from Beck? He would probably even say that’s not a good idea. Luckily, Christians today can go right to the source and skip all the middle men. The unchanging God of Abraham is still there for us. We are the ones who change, not Him.

I was going to post the poem, “Theology” by Paul Lawrence Dunbar here as well but this post is too long already, so look for it in the next post shortly.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Reflections on Religious Pluralism in our Culture
• How Ancient Near East Writings Clarify Scripture
• People are not Called to Misssions
• Coldplay Releases Prospekt’s March [EP] in the U.S. Today
• Results of Rick Warren Interview With Obama and McCain?

This morning just when I opened my eyes this is what I saw above. My face just happens to face east right out a window, and this morning these low clouds turned into a beautiful sunrise. The colors fade so quickly but the brilliance produced in a matter of five minutes is just amazing. As I write this there are virtually no colors in the sky and the sun has retreated behind the thick clouds but what a great surprise to wake up and see the colors of a sunrise.

I was only able to take a few shots and by the time I got over to the pond (last photo) the colors were already just about gone, (time sequence of the shots was about 2-3 minutes). You can click on each photo to see a larger image, hope you enjoy them as much as I did when I ran out in the grass in my bare feet.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Some Mornings the Sunrise is Like Fire in the Sky
• How To Do a Photo Walk in the Backyard with Creativity
• Fall Colors Arrive on My Tree Swing in Alabama
• The Dog Days of Summer, Version 2010
• Rare March Snowstorm in Auburn 2009

Do we recognize how much we need God’s love in our life, or put a different way, how much do we desire that love that only God can fulfill? Our lives are so busy, we tend to just push away this desire or we may not even think about it at all. But even when we do contemplate God’s love, we can only express it in terms that a limited human mind can do (like below), in terms of things that are familiar, but it’s so much more than that.

I came across a familiar poem today that expressed, in worldly terms, how much one can desire the love of another, and it reminded me more of whether we desire God at least like this, or is it only this powerfully expressed for the things of this world? If we can express worldly love “like the hot needs the sun, like honey on her tongue, like oxygen, I need your love”, how much greater is the love God has for us? Without the desire for God’s love, and for His Glory, we are just about in the same shape as my widow pictured above, broken.

I have gone over the words below about twenty times now, it’s pretty powerful (even more when put to music), but how much more should we desire God’s love… probably more than we need to take our next breath.

I Need Your Love

Like a desert needs rain
Like a town needs a name
I need your love
Like a drifter needs a room
Hawkmoon
I need your love

Like a rhythm unbroken
Like drums in the night
Like sweet soul music
Like sunlight
I need your love

Like coming home
And you don’t know where you’ve been
Like black coffee
Like nicotine
I need your love (I need your love)

When the night has no end
And the day yet to begin
As the room spins around
I need your love

Like a Phoenix rising needs a holy tree
Like the sweet revenge of a bitter enemy
I need your love

Like the hot needs the sun
Like honey on her tongue
Like the muzzle of a gun
Like oxygen
I need your love (I need your love)

When the night has no end
And the day yet to begin
As the room spins around
I need your love

Like thunder needs rain
Like a preacher needs pain
Like tongues of flame
Like a sheet stained
I need your love

Like a needle needs a vein
Like someone to blame
Like a thought unchained
Like a runaway train
I need your love

Like faith needs a doubt
Like a freeway out
I need your love

Like powder needs a spark
Like lies need the dark
I need your love

I need all the love in your heart… and I need all the love in your heart…

~ Hawkmoon 269, U2

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Music Makes the Mind Come Alive with Words
• Tick Tock Goes the Clock by Jacques Marciano
• Ode to Pachelbel Canon in D :: Poem
• The Spirit Phaneroō in Tiberias :: Poem
• A Father’s Love Letter to His Child

I thought I would post something a little more lighthearted than my last few posts, and I have wanted to get back into doing my weekly series called Friday Feet, so here it is. My last Friday Feet post was one year ago, almost to the weekend, so I think it is about time to pick it back up again. Seeing that this is the last weekend before football season starts, the push is on over at our place to get as much grass cut as we possibly can so we can skip the process over the football weekend when Auburn plays Arkansas State.

Too bad it doesn’t feel like football season outside… it still seems to be hovering around 100*F every day but I know colder weather is on the way. We do have quite a bit of grass to cut out here so I thought I would get a head start and go out and start cutting today. Some people hate cutting grass but I really don’t mind at all, it gives me time to transfer my studies from in front of the computer to my headphones. Of course I am sitting on various sizes of John Deere tractors that propel me ahead, otherwise I probably wouldn’t like it.

I really find that changing your routine and environment are as important to study, contemplation, and worship, as going to church on Sunday morning. Jonathan Edwards often got on his horse (literally) and went out into greener pastures for several hours at a time to refresh his mind. I know the connection between cutting grass and Edwards’ contemplation is a stretch, but it clears the mind as much as running or cycling does for some.

Jonathan Edwards Resolved #1

Edwards wrote two types of pieces that are now referred to as Miscellanies and Resolutions. His resolutions are one of the most fascinating short pieces he ever wrote. These are not your ordinary resolutions, and today, I am reminded of Edwards’ first “resolved”.

#1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

I think I will chew on that over a few hours and a few acres of grass. Have a great weekend.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Thanksgiving Week on the Farm with Dad and John Deere
• Sunday is Our Day of “Rest” with a Husqvarna Chainsaw
• Saturday is Time to Cut Grass on a John Deere Tractor
• Ride on Mr John Deere Clears the Head :: Friday Feet
• Youth Boys Campout on the Farm :: Friday Feet

John 17:1-26 is often referred to as “The High Priestly Prayer of Jesus”, found only in the book of John, and is the longest prayer given by Jesus presented to us in the New Testament.  In a three part series, teacher and preacher Bob Deffinbaugh from Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, walks through this “Priestly Prayer” for us.  Deffinbaugh breaks up this long prayer into three different sections, which became three separate sermons, Part 1 (John 17:1-5), Part 2 (John 17:6-19), and Part 3 (John 17:20-26).  These three sections of course also find natural separations within the scriptures; Part 1 being “Jesus’ Requests for Himself” (17:1-5), Part 2 is “Jesus’ Intercession for the Apostles” (17:6-19), and finally Part 3, “Jesus’ Intercession for Future Believers” (17:20-26).[1]

As with everything that was recorded from Jesus by the Apostles, the Priestly Prayer gives us great insight into a life of prayer, how Jesus used prayer himself, and how prayer was also used to immediately benefit those who were standing nearby and heard Him pray.  One of the more fascinating points, at least to me personally, is the last, in which Jesus said some prayers so others would hear him praying for them.  This can have a very healing effect on those we are praying for, and as seen in scripture here, sometimes praying for those who are present in the room with us is important.  Jesus of course did not say all his prayers specifically so others would hear (and this should certainly not be confused with a heretical or pharisaical type praying), like His prayer in Gethsemane, but this is clearly what Jesus did in some cases as seen in John 11:42.

Jesus’ Request for Himself (17:1-5)

In Part 1 of the Priestly Prayer, Deffinbaugh describes the way Jesus speaks to the Father as a “conversational prayer”, a term that was somewhat of a catch phrase in the later half of the 20^th century church.  The term used here for “Father” in the Greek is pater, which Jesus uses three other times in this particular prayer.  In this case, pater is defined more as the relationship of paternity, the nearest ancestor, or the natural father, than a general male figure.  As many others have pointed out in addressing this prayer, pater is an indication that Jesus was in direct conversation with his own Father.

Almost as a side note, Deffinbaugh leaps into a complex conversation that compares the Priestly Prayer with the Prayer in Gethsemane, and briefly examines how the Synoptics handle the Prayer in Gethsemane, while John only records the Priestly Prayer.  His conclusion basically comes down to the uniqueness of John’s gospel, but the comparison is well worth the time that more extensive research requires.

Jesus’ Intercession for the Apostles (17:6-19)

Part 2 of the Priestly Prayer reveals how much Jesus cared for his disciples, and to what extent he had gone to make sure they were properly trained by their “master.”  As Deffinbaugh explains, Jesus’ method of discipleship was effective and at this point, coming to an end.

In the days of our Lord, there were no printing presses, no Bible concordance programs on CD ROM, no Internet web sites from which to download good Bible study materials… books were exceedingly rare.  Much learning took place by means of discipleship. A disciple followed his chosen “master” around, serving him, listening to him, and learning from him. This is the way our Lord taught, or “discipled” His disciples. They accompanied Him virtually everywhere He went. They listened and asked many questions, and they learned.

Jesus provides us here with yet another example of how we should pray ourselves.  This was Jesus’ last known prayer before his arrest, but he took this time between the upper room and Gethsemane to show how we can pray without ceasing.  Jesus prayed for his disciples before they even were his disciples (Luke 6:12), while they were being discipled (John 6:15), at the end of his ministry here (John 17:6-19), and then even when he was in heaven (Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25).[2]

Jesus’ Intercession for Future Believers (17:20-26)

In the final section of the Priestly Prayer, Jesus prays for unity between the future Believers who will belong to the one body of Christ, the Church.  Jesus points out that the ultimate fellowship with God will increase in eternity, whereas the goal of salvation is the future glorification, which is at least in part, to actually be with Jesus in eternity.  The Priestly Prayer as a whole gives us many lessons about prayer, but as Deffinbaugh concludes, “our Lord’s prayer reminds us that our faith should be proclaimed and practiced”, just as Jesus does right before he is arrested and executed.

Deffinbaugh’s discussion on the prayer was certainly extensive, and for such a difficult section of scripture provided some good insight, and if you have the chance I would highly recommend at least a quick read through his sermons linked above.  His individual sections were at times slightly scattered, as with the brief discussion on the Synoptic Problem, one that is very complex, and something difficult to examine with such a short discourse.  Overall a very detailed explanation of John 17:1-26 and he offers very enlightening conclusions after each section.

[2] Ibid, 331.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• The Spirit Phaneroō in Tiberias :: Poem
• The Position and Argument for the Inerrancy of the Bible
• When Love Comes to Town, We Will…
• Jesus, I need Your Love (I Need Your Love)
• Critique of Reflections on the Psalms by C.S. Lewis

Truth is something that is a main theme around my blog and encompasses much of what I write about as well. Truth, or lack of it, can take many forms and many arguments, but there is an ultimate truth, or deception of the ultimate truth prevailing in our society today about salvation. This ultimately goes to answer the question, “is Jesus the only way of Salvation?” There are basically three options recognized by theologians today. Only one of them is found in the Bible, that of Exclusivism, the other two are heretical.

The two main heresies about salvation that run pervasively throughout our culture, are those terms referred to as Pluralism and Inclusivism. Below is a quick explanation of all three, then a brief reflection on the heresy called Pluralism (I will individually address the other two in posts at a later date).

Brief Explanation of Exclusivism

Exclusivism (when dealing with Salvation) is that eternal salvation of the soul found only through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who are called and have trusted Christ are saved. They are declared to be right with God, and all their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. No one, who does not trust in Jesus Christ has any hope of salvation, but may only expect to be judged and condemned to everlasting Hell.

Brief Explanation of Pluralism

Pluralism can be defined as saying “all religions lead to God”, at least all of the higher ones, for they are all in touch with the same spiritual realities. Each religion merely describes these realities differently. Thus, anyone who follows any of the “higher” religions may be assured that he really is in touch with God. This is the position of many Americans today. It is the unofficial position of most television networks and programs being produced, and is represented as the only morally sound position in many venues of public life.

Since this is so prevailing it needs no further explanation, but here are a couple of examples: “We [Muslims, Jews, and Christians] all worship the same God.” as said by Walter Abdur Ra’uf Declerck (quoted in The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Oct. 25, 2003). You can find quotes like this in hundreds of places all over local or national media, and the Internet is overrun with the same sentiment.

One of the leading voices in theological circles is from John Hick, a British Theologian who gives a very good example of this type of thought process.

The great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative [salvational] “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment.. . . The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which, or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. . . . Accordingly, by attending to other traditions than one’s own, one may become aware of other aspects or dimensions of the Real, and of other possibilities of response to the Real. . .

Brief Explanation of Inclusivism

This, in some sense, is more damaging to the ultimate truth, giving someone a false sense of their eternal salvation when it just doesn’t follow what Christ teaches in scripture. Satan’s best work sometimes can be seen taking truth and falsity and mixing them together into a lethal combination of false doctrine and incorrect theology. The danger here is that this comes from so far inside “the church” that many people are led astray.

Inclusivism says that Jesus is the only Savior, but He will save some who have never trusted Him. We can affirm that Salvation is only in Christ, without affirming the need to tell others about Him as they need not have faith in Him anyway. This is the position of some Catholics, who believe that other religions are more or less able to save depending on how similar they are to Catholicism. Thus, other denominations, and religions which teach that there is one God, or those which teach a high view of ethics will lead their followers to salvation. This is the view of many mainline denominations, and most theologians today as well.

An example is seen in the Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner when he says:

It is. . . quite possible to suppose that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions.. . . A lawful religion. . . can be regarded on thye whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation. . . The member of an extra-Christian religion. . . [is] an anonymous Christian.

Reflections on Religious Pluralism

Pluralism as described by John Hick, is now the mainstream of most media outlets and continues to invade our daily life, even in the church.  My personal experience with a pluralistic worldview has been mostly limited to the current media forms of our culture like the Internet, satellite broadcasting, and social networking entities, but more and more you can see this view prevailing in our government as well.  One can now see how easily a person can make the transition from the Truth of an exclusivist worldview, to being more inclusivistic, and then to pluralistic without perhaps knowing the transition has taken place.

Many who carry a pluralistic worldview today are not even aware that this is indeed the worldview that consumes their life, but it is the worldview that engulfs their life.  Just the fact that we live in a society where this view prevails puts many, if not most, of us in some type of pluralistic camp.  Author Ronald H. Nash wrote an excellent book on this topic titled Is Jesus the Only Savior? At the end of his section on pluralism Nash quotes John Hick from Jesus and the World Religions with the following propositions:

“If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith.  It would follow from this that the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved.”[1]

And Nash concludes the section on pluralism by saying

If I am a Christian exclusivist and discover after death that Hick’s version of pluralism really is true, I will have lost nothing except Hick’s good will during the life.  But if I am a pluralist and it turns out that Christian exclusivism is true, then the consequences for me will be very serious.

These two statements are fundamental to the pluralism argument today and the last statement shows how deficient pluralism can be.  In the media, where I have my personal experience with pluralism, I contend, is where most people in our culture have such a problem with an exclusivistic worldview when Hick says, “it would follow… a majority of the human race have not been saved. “

The media views what is or is not fair in two ways.  One, what is socially fair to all (they insist and desire that all roads lead to the same God), and two, how some said worldview of fair effects the profit margin of the product or service they are selling (if they don’t say all roads lead to the same God, or wide is the road to salvation, they will immediately exclude some potential sales to those who don’t agree, which we have said is most in the world today).  Exclusivism in the media’s eyes is not fair to all; therefore they will always tend to push their efforts to the pluralistic worldview.

A pluralistic worldview can be discussed or defended when dealing with a person or group one on one, but when dealing with an entity as large as a new media outlet or a prime time network program where pluralism is so ingrained in the essence of the production, you can not simply converse about Matthew 7:13-14.  In the case of the media, your only recourse in the end may be to refer to what drives the business, and that is profit (for the most part).  The sometimes not-so-simple task of refusing to do business with the group or funding them in any way would be one way of removing yourself from their pluralistic worldview, although it may not make a substantial difference.  Another way, as could be the case when dealing with the government, is to voice your argument to the appropriate person.

Unfortunately, Hick’s view that eventually all human beings will ultimately be saved from Hitler to Stalin and everyone in between is the prevailing view of our culture, even among Believers, and changing their mind will mean changing their hearts to see the saving grace of God Himself.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Reasons Why Apologetics is Important in My Ministry Today
• 3 Monastic Principles of Pachomius for Today
• The Pop-Culture Glenn Beck Theology
• The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards
• The Principle of Context from Joshua 7:1-26

Today is the start of another new semester. I love the start of the fall semester when it rolls back around. Everyone getting back into the groove of a busy fall schedule (down here that means football and basketball are not far away). Hard to believe how full my schedule already is at this point but along with my second Systematic Theology class, today I start Hebrew. There were many times over the last year or so that I had completely given up on ever being able to complete a cognitive language set, but some how it worked out this time, and today is day one. Since I can barely claim to be proficient in my own native English, Hebrew is somewhat intimidating to me right now, but I hope to look back in a year and know it was worth the work, and I managed to learn something along the way.

Step one was to learn the twenty three Hebrew consonants, which gave me a perfect opportunity to practice writing an acrostic poem, Of Hebrew from Alef to Taw. Trying to memorize totally unfamiliar information has never been easy for me, but working the information into a form of study works much better at solidifying the unfamiliar. This was my first attempt at learning the Hebrew letters and my first attempt at writing an acrostic poem. Makes me look forward to a coming semester full of firsts.

Of Hebrew from Alef to Taw

א  Alef is first and foremost to complete and appeals to thus
ב  Bet is on deck but gives no solace
ג  Gimel sounds familiar with no pivot or axis
ד  Dalet as in “day”, said slow, not of quickness
ה  He corresponds to the grass that cows eat
ו  Waw is the way to follow that drumbeat
ז  Zayin reminds of that great city on the hill
ח  Het seems like some mathematical problem to distil
ט  Tet has power and might to be used many ways
י  Yod is the smallest among those twenty-three displays
כ  Kaf comes back around again to explain that of Josiah
ל  Lamed roars across the kingdom much like Hezekiah
מ  Mem says be quiet now, the little one needs some rest
נ   Nun is more than halfway, now don’t be depressed
ם  Samek brings a circle of life that sounds like the fall
ע  Ayin proceeds with silence, just like a cat’s crawl
פ  Pe will furnish a prayer that might demand our response
צ  Tsade looks just like another minus the tail of nuance
ק  Qof incurs the wrath of a king going into combat
ך  Resh provides hope this exercise ends with proper format
ש  Sin runs through our blood and must come to repentance
ש’ Shin appears to be identical just one spot out of vengeance
ת  Taw is first and foremost to complete and appeals to thus; a text as old as He, but a genesis for us

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• How Ancient Near East Writings Clarify Scripture
• Reasons Why Apologetics is Important in My Ministry Today
• The Position and Argument for the Inerrancy of the Bible
• 3 Monastic Principles of Pachomius for Today
• Claims We as Christians are Called to Defend and Refute

I finally had a chance to get around to doing a review on the AT&T MicroCell, but in the end, the MicroCell review was different than I had anticipated.  I was so excited when I found out that AT&T’s MicroCell had come to Auburn a few months ago, especially because I have been desperately wanting to cancel our landline for years. I have NEVER (yes never) had a cell signal at my house, and no matter how many times AT&T doesn’t believe me, I still can’t make a cell call from my house, so the AT&T MicroCell I thought was finally going to be THE thing to be able to solve the cell signal issues we have here.

Well, I gave it about one or two months to test out to see if I would actually be able to cancel my landline, and at this point, no way. The concept is really cool, but there are far more negatives associated with the MicroCell than the positives. For me, since I have no cell coverage here, I am going to just keep it, after all, what else can I do with it.

The two big issues I have with the MicroCell is that the phone calls drop constantly (yes, even more than the normal cell tower), and the call quality is really like a bad Skype call. There is a huge delay (I’m talking 1-2 seconds) when talking with anyone, a noticeable echo, and occasionally there is just overall call interference. The fact that AT&T actually has a monthly fee that you can (not required) to pay on this “cell tower” is so laughable that it is an insult that they would even try to charge for what we already pay for with our AT&T/BellSouth landline, AT&T Internet service, and AT&T cell service. To charge me for a signal I already pay for it ridiculous.

So, about all the MicroCell is useful for on an ongoing basis is the ability to send and receive text messages, but I wasn’t able to do that before the MicroCell, so I guess paying $150 for text messages is probably not the best use of money either, but there was no way to know that before hand. If you are still going to get one, be sure to allow for plenty of setup time, along with other ridiculous requirements like making sure it is near a window (see photo below, that isn’t quite close enough) for the GPS signal, and also make sure it isn’t near your WiFi signal (how I don’t know, but that’s what AT&T says).

AT&T MicroCell Pros and Cons

I will start with the Pros since there really aren’t that many.

• You can send and receive text messages (if you couldn’t before)
• Voice mail works, you just can’t call anyone back
• If you really HAVE to make a phone call (like long distance), you can, but don’t expect much
• Range is about 5,000 Sq Feet, so you can get the signal in the whole house (if within widow shot)
• People think it’s cool to have one (I just threw that one in there, to make this list longer)
• You get this really cool AT&T M-Cell signal on your iPhone (that’s one doesn’t really count either)

Now for my list of Cons or reasons I would not recommend the MicroCell if you have another option available to you (we don’t)

• Drops more calls than the regular cell towers do
• Major interference with the phone calls that don’t drop
• Major delay talking from person to person, like 1-2 seconds
• AT&T charges any data against your data use even though you are using your own Internet ISP (whoa)
• GPS signal is impossible to keep and reconnect if power goes out
• Setup, while not technically difficult, is a pain, and takes forever (45-90 minutes)
• If setup doesn’t work on your own, you are pretty much out of luck
• AT&T has basically no support for the MicroCell (i.e. anyone that knows anything)
• It costs $150 when AT&T should be providing cell coverage for their own customers
• Not supposed to put it near the WiFi signal even though it uses an ethernet cable itself
• Your only “allowed” to add 5 phone numbers that can use the signal (might be 10 can’t remember, but any limit is stupid)
• Any allowed numbers have to be manually added on the AT&T website, every time you want to change
• You will need a additional router if you don’t have an empty ethernet slots available
• They actually charge $15 a month for unlimited use that doesn’t count against your cell service (crazy)

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Apple and AT&T Unleash Another Round of Consumerism
• Apple Kills Music Service, Lala.com Now Shutdown and Discontinued
• How to Make a Custom iPhone Wallpaper Background
• Critique of Reflections on the Psalms by C.S. Lewis
• Apple iPad Goes Mainstream with Mom’s Birthday

This week I finished up a review and critique of a book I have been wanting to read for quite some time, Reflections on the Psalms by C. S. Lewis. I find it very difficult to actually provide an adequate “critique” of someone, like Lewis, who was obviously so much farther advanced in his own understanding of scripture, but this was the task at hand.

Part of reviewing books like this is now, fifty years since Lewis wrote Reflections on the Psalms, it almost has to be looked at in a synoptic fashion, taking all of Lewis’ works into account.  Lewis at the time hadn’t written a serious “religious work” in almost ten years.  He had received a scathing review of Miracles, published in 1947, and some say this was the reason he hadn’t written another “religious work”.

Nevertheless Reflections was, overall, a great book, and one that every Christian should try to read at some point.  If there was one aspect of Reflections that made me take notice, it was Lewis’ somewhat Anglican-esque view of scripture where he refers to some of the Psalms as “evil”, and slightly questions it’s proper place in the cannon.  I have always known Lewis’ theology to be slightly less than a “Reformed Theology”, but in Reflections it was made more apparent than in his other books I have read so far.

Below you will find part of the academic critique I gave on the book.  You can read the essay in full located at Book Critique of Reflections on the Psalms by C. S. Lewis.

Critique and Review of “Reflections on the Psalms”

Lewis’ Reflections has been widely criticized and praised, by both scholars and lay people, since it was first published in 1958.  With fifty years hence, an emotional review of Reflections’ strengths and weaknesses can be somewhat more objective than it could be in the late 50’s.  Lewis certainly provides a unique perspective on the Psalms, one that can still be seen as a unique study fifty years later.  His writing style, much like his other works, is easy to read, yet deep in thought.  Reflections transitions well from one subject to another, but the author has a tendency to move back and forth between sections of negativity to those sections, which contain a more positive evaluation.

Early on, Lewis tries to remove his own history of apologetics and religious knowledge from the rigors of scholarly criticism by stating the book is written for lay people, basically by a layperson, but this is hard to take at face value.  For an author of apologetic works likes Mere Christianity, and a professor at the prestigious University of Oxford in England, this request may have at the time, fallen on deaf ears.  If the reader is to take Reflections as a serious literary work on the Psalter, a conclusion hard to argue against, one must also evaluate the arguments and suppositions of Reflections as such.

Lewis’ use of modern day “common” language, or perhaps crude in some cases, which is used throughout the book, like “priggish”, goes towards his approach to appeal to the more modern lay reader, but his scriptural references and ideas have a much deeper meaning.  Lewis claims in the introduction to only be “comparing notes” and not to “instruct”, but Reflections helps the reader to understand ancient poetry and literature, and takes an more Anglican approach to the Psalms that is almost foreign to a modern day evangelical Protestant.  In this respect, Reflections largely instructs from beginning to end.   Lewis does not gloss over the most difficult issues presented, though he does leave the reader wondering what he has left out “as his own interests” led him to do.[1]

Where Lewis leaves himself open to criticism is in his view, and somewhat veiled ideas, of scripture.  As previously quoted, early on Lewis states that “all Holy Scripture is in some sense – though not all parts of it in the same sense – the word of God” leaving open to the reader which parts of the “Holy Scriptures” Lewis finds to be the true “word of God” and which parts he does not.[2] Only a few pages later Lewis explains.

At the outset I felt sure, and I feel sure still, that we must not either try to explain [the Psalms] away or to yield for one moment to the idea that, because it comes in the Bible, all this vindictive hatred must somehow be good and pious… and we should be wicked if we in any way condoned or approved it, or (worse still) used it to justify similar passions in ourselves.

So should the reader understand the Psalms “as the word of God in a different sense than Romans”, and if so, in what sense are they different?[3] This phrase, “in some sense”, is not isolated to Reflections.  In one of Lewis’ letters, written to Clyde Kilby on May 7, 1959, just after Reflections was published, Lewis again stated “if every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must in some sense by inspired.”[4] This interpretation of the Psalms may not adequately take into account the enormous context of the Psalms being a large collection of poems, written by many different authors, dating back to at least King David.  While the task of trying to summarize such context into a small book would be difficult on any account, Lewis’ view of the evil portrayed from within the scripture could need further examination, especially in light of current Hebraic poetry research, which has come about since Reflections.

Overall, Reflections shows itself to be a worthy and valuable text when taken in it’s own context of mid-twentieth century Anglican scholasticism.  Although Lewis may not have wanted to see Reflections viewed as a scholarly work, it is hard to put aside a masterful author such as Lewis, and he more than accomplishes his goals from beginning to end.  Reflections in the 21^st century may be best viewed as one part of a whole in the complete works of C. S. Lewis, but it still instructs and teaches a better understanding of the Psalms.  In a short but thoughtful work, Lewis “helps to remind us [that] we worship the one true and eternal God.”[5]

[2] Ibid, 19.

[3] John W. Robbins, “Did C. S. Lewis Go to Heaven?,” The Trinity Review (Trininty Foundation), no. 226 (November, December 2003), 2.

[4] W. H. Lewis, ed., Letters of C. H. Lewis, Revised Edition, ed. W. H. Lewis (New York, NY: C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd., 1988), 480.

[5] Lewis, 44.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Can We Actually Know the Attributes of God?
• The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards
• The Principle of Context from Joshua 7:1-26
• How Ancient Near East Writings Clarify Scripture
• The Position and Argument for the Inerrancy of the Bible

I thought this week I would try my hand at a piece of poetry constructed in iambic tetrameter. Not nearly as easy as it initially seemed it might be, and certainly not perfect either, below you will find Ode to Pachelbel Canon in D. Some of the iambs don’t exactly line up, but I stayed pretty consistent with the correct number of feet. I always use to say about art (mainly referring to my photography) that the less you had to explain a piece, the better it was, so not really sure how much explaining this piece needs, probably a lot.

The inspiration for this poem came from German Baroque composer Johann Pachelbel’s famous work called “Canon in D”, which I was listening to at the time of course. Pachelbel was a 17th century composer, from a somewhat Lutheran tradition, who wrote “Canon in D”, a piece of chamber music that was originally scored for three violins, and basso continuo, and originally paired with a gigue in the same key. A concerto (something usually composed of three parts) used three different types of instruments, with three violins, therefore the poem has three stanzas. Pachelbel’s “Canon in D” in our day has become basically a one hit wonder, if you could call it that, which is now popular at weddings and the like.

For what it’s worth, here it is.

Ode to Pachelbel Canon in D

Strings dance across the bars today
What does it mean, to whom they say
My praises sing to figure bass
Some go here, some try minor “A”.

Strings dance across the bars today
Is time short, some just fade away
My fraction of the whole appears
A crescendo is coming next my dear.

Strings dance across the bars today
Some jumping and shouting “Olé!”
They argue still, their voices raise
No matter, an applause, saves the day.

Other Posts Related to this Topic

• Jesus, I need Your Love (I Need Your Love)
• New Semester Of Hebrew from Alef to Taw
• Tick Tock Goes the Clock by Jacques Marciano
• The Spirit Phaneroō in Tiberias :: Poem
• The Complete Egoist by Arthur Guiterman