Andy Naselli

Breathing : Body :: Works : Faith

December 24, 2009 by Andy Naselli

Breathing is evidence of a living body, and good works is evidence of a living faith.
Not breathing is evidence of a dead body, and the absence of good works is evidence of a dead faith.
You can’t revitalize a corpse by mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and you can’t create genuine faith by good works.

That’s my paraphrase of Dan G. McCartney on James 2:14–26 (James [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009]). An 18-page PDF sampling of the commentary includes “Excursus 2: Faith, Works, and Justification in James and Paul” (pp. 272–79). Here’s how McCartney concludes his chapter on James 2:14–26 (p. 172):

James’s principal point is not in doubt, in any case: that which distinguishes living faith from dead faith is works of faith. By no means does any of this suggest that one could create genuine faith by works, any more than an effort at mouth-to-mouth resuscitation could revitalize a corpse.

There Is Only One Non-Perspectivalist

December 21, 2009 by Andy Naselli

I keep thinking about this statement that John Piper posted three days ago:

God never does only one thing. In everything he does he is doing thousands of things. Of these we know perhaps half a dozen.

her⋅me⋅NEU⋅tics

December 12, 2009 by Andy Naselli

–noun (used with a singular verb)

the art and science of interpretation, esp. of the Bible. Commonly distinguished from exegesis, which interprets the text by applying those principles.
the skill of all but totally ignoring the Bible while appearing to accept it.

The playful definition comes from Moisés Silva, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Text Form and Authority,” in Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 156:

During the past decade or two, biblical scholarship has shown a growing obsession with the issue of hermeneutics, a harmless enough word, but one occasionally used as a euphemism for “the skill of all but totally ignoring the Bible while appearing to accept it.” Although one may be excused for feeling irritated at the way the word is thrown about as the ultimate panacea, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss the issue altogether. It is so easy for us to read the evening paper and understand it—that is, interpret it accurately—that we tend to think of interpretation as an eminently simple process. In reality, we depend on a massive framework of assumptions slowly formed by innumerable experiences. As a result, those aspects of interpretation that appear to us to be the most obvious are often the ones that cause us the greatest difficulty. In particular, when we confront a text written by someone whose “framework of assumptions” differs significantly from ours, how can we possibly bridge the two? The attempt to answer that question is what hermeneutics is all about.

Rebuked about Harry Potter

December 4, 2009 by Andy Naselli

Earlier this week I mentioned how much Jenni and I enjoyed listening to J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

Several good-intentioned people rebuked me on the premise that Harry Potter is dark literature that Christians should avoid. I privately asked each person three questions:

Have you read Kevin Bauder’s series on fantasy literature (I link to it in my post)?
Do you have a problem with C. S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia or J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings?
Have you read any of the Harry Potter books?

Their answers were consistent:

No.
I’m not sure because I haven’t read them. (Some added a comment like this: But I’ve seen The Lord of the Rings movies, and I think Christians should avoid those, too.)
No.

I don’t mind disagreeing on this disputable matter. The underlying desire to glorify God by avoiding worldliness is commendable. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that people be more informed about this issue before admonishing others about it.

Update: I try to show how Harry Potter illustrates biblical theology in this 4-minute video:

Chesterton on Private Religion

December 2, 2009 by Andy Naselli

G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), “Introduction to the Book of Job”:

The modern habit of saying “Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me”—the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.

Harry Potter

November 30, 2009 by Andy Naselli

Jenni and I just finished listening to the best-selling book series of all time: Harry Potter.

Jim Dale masterfully reads the seven-volume unabridged audiobook. We’ve listened to a lot of audiobooks, and Jim Dale is by far the most gifted reader we’ve ever heard. Incredibly gifted.

The audiobook is 4.8 days long (about 115 hours). We thoroughly enjoyed listening to it on date nights and road trips. We’re sad it’s over.

The series is not without objectionable elements (e.g., the protagonist and his friends tell lies without negative consequences, and some of the language is not appropriate for children’s books), but overall J. K. Rowling’s story is brilliant, creative, intriguing, and entertaining. Its literary quality is not as exquisite as J. R. R. Tolkien or C. S. Lewis, but it isn’t junk food either (cf. Kevin Bauder’s series “The Christian and Fantasy Literature”). (Some of the movies, on the other hand, may qualify as junk food. Don’t judge a book by its movie.)

By the way, this may explain one of my Facebook status updates a couple of months ago:

If I become a professor at a college or seminary, I may suggest a different title than the typical “Professor of New Testament” or “Professor of Systematic Theology.” How about “Professor of Defense against the Dark Arts”?

That’s actually not a bad title. (Cf. my review of Focus on the Family Radio Theatre’s The Screwtape Letters.)

Update:

When you kiss your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God

November 28, 2009 by Andy Naselli

It’s the time of year that we play our Christmas playlists in iTunes, and I’ve been reminded several times how much I love listening to Kathleen Battle sing “Mary, Did You Know?” accompanied by my favorite guitarist, Christopher Parkening. You can download the track for just 99 cents.

Mary, did you know that your baby boy would one day walk on water?
Mary, did you know that your baby boy would save our sons and daughters?
Did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new,
And the child that you delivered, will soon deliver you?

Mary, did you know that your baby boy would give sight to the blind man?
Mary, did you know that your baby boy would calm a storm with his hand?
Did you know that your baby boy has walked where angels trod,
And when you kiss your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God?

The blind will see, the deaf will hear, the dead will live again.
The lame will leap, the dumb will speak the praises of the Lamb.

Mary, did you know that your baby boy is Lord of all creation?
Mary, did you know that your baby boy will one day rule the nations?
Did you know that your baby boy was heaven’s perfect Lamb,
And this sleeping child you’re holding is the great I AM?