James Gregory's Blog

I should get me one of these Mustangs

2008-07-03T12:40:00.001-07:00

I sold my Saleen to save money on gas. Perhaps I should sell my Toyota and buy one of these Mustangs to save even more gas.

What's Your Position on Fireworks?

2008-07-02T12:20:00.000-07:00

I work for Phantom Fireworks. In California, the general public is permitted to purchase and use safe and sane fireworks during the week of Independence Day. These fireworks do not shoot up into the air like the ones you see at ballparks and professional displays. Safe and sane fireworks are the kind that sit on the ground, primarily. They might flare up and roll around on the ground or they might shoot out an array of colors no more than 10 feet high.

Now, given the recent fires here in California, and given the Governator's plea for Californians to not buy fireworks this year, how do you feel about them, Californians? Non-Californians? Do you think they pose a threat? Do you think they should be banned?

A lot of people in California were saying that fireworks should be banned by the Governator, stating that they are dangerous and annoying. Do you think safe and sane fireworks are dangerous?

I'm curious to read your thoughts on the issue.

Biblical Studies Carnival XXXI is Here

2008-07-02T10:10:00.001-07:00

Ketuvim posted the latest Biblical Studies Carnival, the 31st edition.

I did get mentioned in this carnival. There were some intriguing posts in June. Check out the carnival and see if anything suits your fancy.

Biblical Studies Carnival XXX is Here

2008-07-01T15:08:00.000-07:00

No, it isn't an adult website. It is a place where a month's worth of biblical studies blog posts is summarized and linked to. Check out the 30th edition here.

Sadly, I did not get a mention this month. That is two months in a row that I submitted my Ephesians Sentence by Sentence posts and did not get a mention. Two months ago I submitted it too late. But this month I submitted it early on to help make sure that it would get noted. Unfortunate.

Maybe if ev epheso does a Greek Roundup again I will be mentioned.

Biblical Studies Carnival XXXI is going to be coming out at Ketuvim here in the next week or so. Keep your eyes out for it!

Polygadating: Reflections on The Bachelorette

2008-07-01T12:22:00.001-07:00

This show is rather rediculous. The original, The Bachelor, is even more obsurd. But I will only focus on The Bachelorette for now. Why is it rediculous?

I think the show is rediculous for several reasons. First, it promotes polygamous relationships. It might not be marriage, and yet, outside of this fantasy show, no one in their right mind, except for a small few, would want to date someone who is dating several other people. We are not talking about casual dating here. That's a different issue. We are talking about dating with the intention of marrying. This show is rediculous because it violates the accepted social practice of exclusive dating, which is expected in dating with the intention of marrying. It gives the impression that it is acceptable to date a host of people at the same time in an effort to pursue all of them in the hopes of marrying all of them.

Second, it gives a false sense of love and commitment. Male suitors are pitted up against each other. Especially as the number of contestants draws thinner, the bachelorette compares them with each other and determines who she is least likely to either fall in love with or marry, and so she sends that one home. The male is seemingly heartbroken and so is she, at least for a moment, but then, like a flip of a switch, she can turn her frown upside down and share a glass of wine with her remaining suitors. All along she states that she is falling in love with several of them. The question is, if after the season is over, and if she really did love several of the suitors, then is she going to carry those feelings for those other men into her marriage with her chosen ones? I submit that true love cannot easily or quickly be dropped, so when she enters into marriage it is likely that she still has feelings for those other men, if indeed her feelings are genuine. This carry-over is very problematic as it would likely strain the marriage. And the system adds to the problem. Commitment is only as good as a rose--there is no guaranty. Commitment involves trust, but there are only a limited number of roses, and someone has to go. It's a game, not a relationship.

Third, the suitors have to cope with the fact that they have to share the bachelorette. Some of them have decency morals, which put them in a poor position for the show. One guy didn't want to kiss her because he knew she would also be kissing like ten other guys. He didn't want to share that with all those other guys. But that's the problem with polygadating, it necessarily requires sharing intimate things like kissing.

Since intimacy is shared, there is no commitment to the relationships, and it defies exlusive dating, the accepted standard for dating with the intention of marrying that person, it is no wonder that so much drama occurs on the show. Relationships already involve a great deal of drama, but this show magnifies it in a very unhealthy way.

What do you think? Is polygadating really all that bad? Is it unhealthy? Why do you watch this show?

What are the records of the previous participant "winners"? Are most of them still married? Does anyone know?

Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 4:8

2008-06-30T18:59:00.000-07:00

διὸ λέγει· ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he took captive captivity, he gave gifts to men.".

Paul is here talking about what Christ has given as a gift, and he is using Scripture to support his statement. Paul is quoting from Psalm 68:19 in the Masoretic Text (MT) or Psalm 68:18 in the Septuagint (LXX). Paul did not quote either the MT or the LXX. There are significant changes between Paul's version and both the MT and the LXX. For example, Psalm 68:18 in the LXX has the second person, as does Psalm 68:19 in the MT, whereas Paul's version has the third person. Also, both the MT and the LXX have "receive gifts," not "gave gifts." The language is too similar, and yet the texts are not the same. What's going on?

There are several theories about what Paul was doing here in Ephesians 4:8. Two of the leading theories are as follows: one, Paul is quoting an Aramaic Targum that has its rendering different from the MT and the LXX; two, Paul is utilizing midrash pesher, a practice that allows the interpreter to quote a passage of Scripture and adapt it to one's argument while at the same time interpreting it. The first option contends that Paul was quoting an Aramaic Targum. These targums were translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. These targums came rather late, so it is likely that Paul was familiar with them and he could have used them. Midrash pesher, the second option, was not uncommon. It was an acceptable practice and is found elsewhere in the New Testament. In regards to the first option, interestingly enough, the Aramaic Targum uses "gave gifts." It is possible that Paul was utilizing a targum. But what about the other differences? Midrash pesher seems to account for those differences. What we have here are a couple of viable possibilities. First, Paul was utilizing both targums and midrash pesher. If this is the case, then Paul was using a targum to quote from, but he adapted it to his own argument. Second, Paul was using midrash pesher alone. If this were the case, then all the differences are as a result to his adapting the text to his argument. In either case, Paul was following excepted practices and should not be considered as a poor writer who violated modern codes and ethics for quoting.

Paul introduces his quotation with a common introductory phrase: διὸ λέγει. Among others, this is one kind of phrase that Paul uses to introduce Scripture quotations. The use of the conjunction, διὸ, is to connect the gift of Christ from 4:7 to what he was about to quote. Paul is making an inference on the gift of Christ in light of Psalm 68:19.

The participle, ἀναβὰς, is temporal, but it is also contemporaneous to the verb, ᾐχμαλώτευσεν, and should be translated this way: "When he ascended on high, he took captive captivity." This phrase, "he took captive captivity." The greek is a fairly close rendering of the MT. The Hebrew phrase, שָׁבִיתָ שֶּׁבִי, literally, "you took captive captivity," is rendered, "you led away captives." Both the LXX and Paul follow this wording, so it seems best to render it here in Ephesians as "he led away captives."

The verb ἔδωκεν is contemporary with ᾐχμαλώτευσεν; Christ gave gifts as he led away captives. To whom did he give gifts to? To ἀνθρώποις. This word does not mean "men and not women." By "men" it means "human," which includes both men and women. Paul was writing according to the cultural customs of his time; women simply were not addressed, generally speaking. By using ἀνθρώποις, Paul was addressing both men and women while following First Century practices. We can translate it as "men," or, if we want to be gender inclusive, we can translate it as "humans," which is rather awkward, or we can say, "men and women," since this word does not exclude women.

Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led away captives, he gave gifts to both men and women."

Christ gave gifts to men and women. He led away captives. Christ is indeed victorious. Because of Christ, we are victorious. His ascension, when he sat down at the right hand of God and was placed in authority of all things, marked his supremacy over all things. We would do well to remember that Christ is supreme and is in authority over all things, which is why he can give us gifts, such as grace.

Wright on Colbert

2008-06-26T19:01:00.001-07:00

Check this clip out from the Colbert show. NT Wright made an appearance.

Click here to check out the video (it wouldn't embed here for some reason, so you will have to leave and go over to Spike TV online to watch it).

Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 4:7

2008-06-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

Ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. But to each one of us it was given the grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

In this sentence, Paul is continuing on with the idea of unity or sameness. In the previous sentence, Paul exhorted the readers to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He spelled out what is the unity and bond. Now he tells the readers why they are all equals. δὲ connects this sentence with what comes before it, but it is not contrasting anything, so "but" is not an appropriate translation. It would be best to leave it untranslated in english, so long as we note that this sentence is connected to the one before it.

To each and every one of them, including Paul the apostle, the grace of the Lord was given to them. They all had the gift, and therefore they were all equals. More than that, they all had the grace in accordance with the measurement. κατὰ marks the norm of similarity. What was similar in all of them was the fact that they all had the same measurement. μέτρον means "measure" or "measurement." In this case, it bears the idea of the result of measuring and is to be understood as a "measurement." But what was being measured?

The gift of Christ was being measured. What does this mean? Furthermore, how do we understand these genitives? First we have τῆς δωρεᾶς, and second we have τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The first genitive is attached to μέτρον. Is it in apposition (the measure, namely, the gift)? No, but rather it is a partitive genitive. The measurement is the part of the whole, δωρεᾶς. The second genitive is understood by many to be possessive (Christ's gift). Indeed, it is a possessive genitive. Who's gift is in view? Christ's. Christ's gift has been measured out and given to each and every one of the readers, including Paul.

Grace was given to each one of us in accordance with the normative measurement of Christ's gift.

In Christ, we are all equal. We are brought together in unity and peace. Let it not be mistaken: we are all on a level playing field. We all have the same gift. Christ's gift, grace, which was made possible by his own self-sacrifice, has been equally given to each and every one of us. Therefore, we are all equal. We should not think of any of us as being higher or superior to anyone else. The Apostle Paul put himself on the same playing field as his readers. Pastors, elders, and deacons are likewise on the same playing field as the rest of the congregation. Unity requires that we see each other on a level playing field. As a result, we should not think ourselves to be better than another.

It would be good to acknowledge that we are all equals in Christ, and that there is not a class or caste system in Christ. We do not enter into faith as though we are in a low ranking class and seek to move up in the system. We do not enter into faith as though we are placed into a single caste and can never get out of it. No, grace is equally given to all of us. There is no class and there is no caste. We are involved in a system of equality, for all have been given the same grace. If there ever is a time that we feel superior, we would do well to remember that in Christ we are equal. Feelings of superiority breed disunity and rancor. We must humble ourselves and in our equality maintain the unity of the spirit with the bond of peace.

On Smug Graduates

2008-06-20T13:58:00.000-07:00

HT: Fred Ghansah

Here is an interesting post on the danger of being a master's or doctoral degree student (perhaps also undergraduate students too).

Check out this Blog

2008-06-18T11:44:00.000-07:00

Gegraptai (to write), has a nice series on Greek Readings. His latest post is out of Galatians. Click here to check it out.

Registered for the GRE

2008-06-18T09:56:00.001-07:00

I am a poor standardized test taker. I didn't score very high on the SAT. I took it twice and didn't break 1000 either time. I am hoping to do better on the GRE. My verbal skills have drastically improved thanks to college. Since I taught math this last year, which happens to be the same level as that of the GRE, I am confident that the math portion won't be anything I can't do well in. But still, a lot is riding on this exam. At $140 a pop, I can't afford to take it more than once, so when I take it soon, I have to make it really count.

The schools that I want to get into require a very high score on the exam. The average score of the students admitted into Duke, for example, is about 750 out of 800 on the verbal. I am hoping that with some practice I can get over a 700.

If you have taken the GRE before, what kind of tips and hints would you be able to offer me?

I Want to Use iWeb for Blogging, But I Won't

2008-06-17T18:21:00.000-07:00

iWeb 2 is pretty cool. It is easy and intuitive. Yet, it lacks several desirable features. Its commenting system is not very good. Its archive is unpleasant. Google can't crawl it because it saves all text as images. I thought about using it and set up a template for it, but I determined it wouldn't be worth it. I would have to give up Blogger's comment moderation, labels, archives, and search. I would also have to resize and edit the new blog post template every time I want to write a post. Posts have their own template in iWeb, but the default size is smaller than what I desire. I don't want the hassle of having to do all that work for a short post (or a long one).

Maybe when iWeb doesn't make text into images, it receives better comment moderation, a better archive, and labels, and it can save templates I will switch over to iWeb. Until then, I am sticking with Blogger.

In Memory of Mary Frances Gregory

2008-06-10T22:26:00.000-07:00

Dear Grandma,

I wish I could have seen you today. I wish I could have been there to hold your hand. The most I could say is that you were in my thoughts. I'm sad, Grandma. You're gone, and I am left here wanting more; as tears roll down my face, I am reflecting on what we have together.

I wish we were closer. I wish we had more memories than we do. But since we had so few memories, it makes the ones we did share all the more special and important. Grandma, thank you for all that you did for me. I know when I was little and you and Grandpa bought dress clothes for Janae and me. I didn't appreciate them very much; I didn't like to dress up. I think my face showed it, and the next time you bought me something, it was play clothes with Michael Jordan on the t-shirt, and I loved the outfit. I wore it all the time! I wore it too much, actually--you know how third grade boys can be.

All of those Thanksgivings, Christmases, Easter Sundays, and other get-togethers were difficult. I know you loved me. But I could sense some sort of tension in the air. I don't know what it was. And yet, despite the tension, I am thankful to have been there with you. Sitting, talking, eating; playing darts, sharing stories; sitting outside, watching hummingbirds. By the way, thanks for all of that cake you loved to make for me. You always did enjoy feeding me that wonderful desert. I think you enjoyed watching my face as I scarfed it down, as I am sure I didn't hide the pleasure that I had when I ate it.

In retrospect, it seems as though you loved to observe me. If that is the case, then I really wish we would have spent more time together, so that you could have observed me a bit more. I wish I would have come by unannounced. I wish I would have called more. I wish I would have written you. I wish, I wish, I wish. Now the time has past; I can't get it back; I have missed out on a wonderful opportunity to get to know you, and I am sorry.

But most of all, I wish I was there for you when you were in pain. I hope that the morpheme you were on was able to take the pain away, but I simply cannot relate to the situation and I do not pretend to know what it feels like. I just wish I was there. I wanted to be. I admit that I feel like I abandoned you in the final hour. I wanted to be there. I did. I regret not being there even though my economic circumstances prevented me from coming. If I could do it all over again, I would go. But again, I can't change that now. I am glad that Janae and Dad were able to be there for you and for Grandpa.

Well, Grandma, one final thing. I wish I would have shared my faith with you. All these years, you knew I was a Christian, but I never talked about it with you. I regret that. I am not ashamed of being a Christian. Yet, I never talked about it with you. I don't know if you were a Christian. I knew you were raised up in the church, but I don't know if you were a Christian. I think I failed you in that. I should have asked and I should have talked about it. I'm sorry.

Despite my failures, I know you loved me. Thank you, Grandma, for accepting me for who I am. I know I hurt your feelings on more than one account, but you forgave me and loved me unconditionally. Thank you for all the times you took me into your home in order to spend time with me. Thank you for those times when you did endure the discomfort of traveling in order to come see me across the state. Thank you for all the food you slaved over for me and for all the gifts and goodies you bought me. But most of all, thank you for loving me.

It is my hope that I will be able to love my kids and my grandkids and their kids with the same unconditional love, and to treat them with the same generous hospitality, and to sacrificially give to them in the same way that you did for me. You have set a fine example for me, Grandma, and I am truly thankful for it.

Love, your grandson,

James Randall Gregory

I follow Christ's Translations

2008-06-07T09:49:00.000-07:00

No, I am not saying that I follow Jesus Christ's translations of the Bible. What I am doing is pointing out another blogger's translations.

I follow Christ--ἀκολουθῶ Χριστω--has translated 1, 2, and 3 John, and is currently in the process of translating Colossians.

Check out his translations. He is interested in feedback on his renderings (It might be too late to join in on the conversation concerning the letters of John, but at least the discussion on Colossians is still open.).

The Puritan Utopia and John Winthrop

2008-06-06T19:49:00.000-07:00

The following post was an exam essay for my class on American Church History:

The Puritans came to America and developed a utopian society that did not last very long. They quickly came across some tensions. Their basic ideals, evident in John Winthrop’s sermon, were challenged early on. The Puritans, although short lived, did provide the American Church with a legacy that focused on a high sense of morality.

In order to understand the Puritans, we should take a look at their reason for coming to America, their view on education and the effect it had on them, and their religious views. The Puritans sought a total reform of life (Noll, 42). They came to America for the reason that they thought they could achieve total reform (Noll, 42). The Puritans came to America after the English made their settlement there, along with the Pilgrims. They came to the Massachusetts Bay area, north of the Pilgrims, who settled in the Virginia area. They came in 1630 and were the largest English group to come; seven hundred colonists arrived in 11 vessels.

They had a high view of education. It was from the Puritan group that the first university came—Harvard. The Puritans made education a very important thing, requiring that there be a teacher for every 50 people (Noll, 44). As a result of their view of education, the area that they settled became “one of the world’s most literate places by the end of the century” (Noll, 44). What were their religious views like?

Their religious perspective was fixed on the Old Testament covenant. They believed themselves to be elected by God, which served as a social adhesive for the community. They focused on sermons; they had two—one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and each of them were two hours long and were in the plain style. The heart of the Puritans was their weekly gatherings (Noll, 45). There they chanted the Psalms in worship houses. The buildings themselves were plain rectangular meetinghouses at the village green. These meetinghouses were the centrally located being built at the village green, and they were also the largest buildings in the villages (Noll, 45). At the heart of their worship was the sermon (Noll, 45). The content of the sermons were quite constant: “individuals are sinners who need divine salvation; God has provided that salvation by grace, from his mercy alone; saved sinners now have the right and privilege to serve God by following his law” (Noll, 46).

And how did their public lives interact with their religious views? Their public lives were tied together with their religious practices (Noll, 42). They were quite restrictive when practicing religion. They did not celebrate holidays. They were “nervous about the use of pictures, drama, and decorations in church” (Noll, 44). What did they value? They were a religious group deeply devoted to the community, brought together by a basic set of beliefs and core ideals. Essentially, they were a utopian society.

The Puritans had four main beliefs. One, they perceived that a personal conversion experience was very important. Personal conversion was so important that it became a requirement for full church membership among the Puritans (Noll, 42). Two, the Puritans placed great importance on private devotional practices. Three, they were very much in favor of Bible reading. Four, the Puritans listened to sermons and thought them to be important. The Puritans, in addition to their religious beliefs, maintained three fundamental elements to their faith and presence in the new land. First, they held to a covenant with God. Second, they held to a community of believers. Third, the Puritans thought that they were a City Upon a Hill. They thought that the old world would look at them in the new world and they would be examples to them. These three fundamental elements are evident in John Winthrop’s sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity,” which he delivered when the Puritans arrived to Massachusetts.

Winthrop’s sermon rests on four main points. One, the persons involved in the Puritan group. Two, the work of the Puritan group. Three, the Puritan’s view on the end. Four, the means for the Puritans to reach the end. The first point deals with the Puritans as a community of believers that came together under the common perception that they all had fixed their attention on—the covenant with God. They were focused on the community and not on the individual, and as a community they were focused on the covenant with God. Winthrop said that the care of the community took precedence over the individual (p. 27, the first I.2ly). They were together, as seen in his third point, working towards serving the Lord. They were seeking to make their lives better by preserving themselves from the common corruptions that come from the world. As seen in his fourth point, they were setting out to make Christian practices the standard way of life for every person in the community. They were seeking to please God—who is jealous—so as to avoid punishment. They saw themselves as the vessel for which the world would be sanctified in the Lord when it came into contact with them. They also focused on God’s judgment that came onto those who failed the mission He gave to them. They felt that God gave them a mission to be a City Upon a Hill, and if they failed their mission they would be punished (cf. p. 28).

The Puritan community began to see some difficulties, however. Their utopia was quickly challenged by several factors. Declension was a problem for the community. Their utopian society was not working; with people backsliding, the vision became in jeopardy, for God, according to their view, was likely to strip them of His support and punish them. Furthermore, three people help to reveal the threats that the Puritans faced.

Roger Williams wanted separation of church and state. As a result, he was kicked out of the Puritan settlement in 1636. The Puritans had a combination of church and state, where the leaders looked to the clergy for aid. When Williams got kicked out, he settled in Rhode Island and established an environment in which people can live and worship freely. He also respected the Indians and wanted to know how to evangelize to them. Anne Hutchinson was a midwife who got into religious conversations. She elaborated on sermons, believing herself to have a personal connection with God outside of the Bible. The Puritans put her on trial. As a result, she got banished from the settlement in 1638 and was later killed by Indians. Thomas Hooker was a minister who defied the Massachusetts government and was banished. He developed the area that later became Connecticut.
The Salem Witch trials did not help the utopian cause, either. The level of witchcraft in the area outside of Boston put the people in a very suspicious mood. They went so far as to try and execute 20 individuals (Noll, 51). These executions underscored the present tension in the utopia. Things were not going as anticipated.

Winthrop’s sermon helps us to understand these tensions. The Puritans thought themselves to be a community under a divine calling. They were together functioning in service to the Lord. When a few of them begin to think separate from the group, such as Hutchinson, the communal unity is put into jeopardy. When a few backslide, the group is thought to be subject to divine punishment, or even displacement. When they seek to separate the church from the state, the purpose of being a city on a hill cannot be maintained. The three elements fundamental for the Puritans—covenant, community, and a city on a hill—were challenged rather quickly in their history. Winthrop’s sermon highlight these elements, and the tensions that later arose demonstrate the reality that the elements were being compromised early on, so that the Puritan utopia would not last.

The Puritan legacy is found in the idea as the country being a City Upon a Hill. The idea that this country is an example for the rest of the nations to follow is taken from John Winthrop’s sermon and the Puritan perspective. This idea was directly related to their high sense of morality. Their fervor for morality was also carried throughout the country, especially in the First and Second Great Awakenings and the moral reforms that came later.

The Puritan society was a utopia that came under tension rather quickly. Their beliefs and ideals, as represented in Winthrop’s sermon, were challenged early and they never recovered from them. However, their belief in the City Upon a Hill has stuck with the country. Although short lived, their legacy has been long lasting.

--------------

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992.

Winthrop, John. "A Model of Christian Charitie." American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King, Jr. Michael Warner, ed. New York: The Library of America, 1999.

America, The Great Awakenings, and the American Church

2008-06-06T19:42:00.000-07:00

The following post was an exam essay for my American Church History class:

The First and Second Great Awakenings dramatically altered the religious landscape of the United States. It prepared the way for a religious tolerance that had not yet been seen in the new land. We will briefly describe the more important events and details of the two revivals and explain why they are important. We will briefly examine how they changed the church. We will see how the revivals reflected or responded to the broader context of American society and culture. We will also question whether or not they were the most important events in the history of the American Church up until the Civil War. To the more important events of the First and Second Great Awakenings we now turn.

The First Great Awakening was first sparked by Jonathan Edwards, a puritan pastor in West Massachusetts at a North Hampton Congregational Church. Although he was most famous for his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, he focused more on theological treatises, one of which, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, perceives that Christianity is not about outward displays of spirituality but about the inward reality of the heart as a result of Christ’s work and God’s love (Noll, 96). This inward reality, a personal conversion experience, is important, for it provides the basis for denominational change and for moral change in the people.

Following Edwards was George Whitefield, the chief generating force of the First Great Awakening. He was an amazing orator. Ben Franklin spoke highly of his ability to speak to the crowd. Whitefield went from Georgia to New England, preaching everywhere he went. Denied pulpits, he would speak in barns or open fields. He passed these practices on to John and Charles Wesley, which later became part of the Methodist way of doing things (Noll, 91). He was Episcopalian. Thousands came to see him speak, and many converted. In the fall of 1740, upwards of 8,000 people attended his sermons everyday for nearly a month (Noll, 91). He is important because he changed American history, not simply American Church history, by speaking all over the East Coast, converting a multitude of people, thus helping to cause Church growth in the colonies. This growth later became important for moral reform as many people in the colonies became saved and became Protestants.

As a result of the First Great Awakening, the American Church was beginning to see some changes. After the 1770s, Baptists became the third most popular church denomination, passing the Anglicans. The American Church became split into two groups—the Old Lights (traditional clerics) and New Lights (Whitefield supporters and others). An increasing number of people were “making personal profession[s] of their faith and joining a church” (Noll, 97). There were five ways that the First Great Awakening impacted American Church history.

First, revivals started a decline in the influence of old churches—Quakers, Anglicans, and Congregationalists—and in turn the number of Baptists and Presbyterians after 1740 increased. Second, the revivals stimulated the founding of new colleges. Third, the revivals drew many Native Americans and African Americans to Protestantism for the first time. Fourth, the revivals gave women added prominence in colonial religion. Fifth, the revivals fostered religious tolerance by blurring theological differences among New Lights; emphasis was on inner experience rather than dogmatic fine points.

The Second Great Awakening mostly occurred out on the Frontier. The revival started in the 1790s in Connecticut, but it spread out to the Frontier. It largely focused on the Second Coming of Christ, which required repentance of the hearers. In 1801 in Kentucky, men and women were reported to roll around like logs, they jerked their heads, and made animal noises, thus demonstrating spiritual manifestation of what they felt they were experiencing. They were concerned with a personal conversion experience that was manifested in the physical reality. The Second Great Awakening was influenced by the idea of the Jacksonian Democracy and the Market Revolution. It involved circuit riders, such as Francis Asbury. It involved all denominations. One of the products to emerge out of the Second Great Awakening was the “anxious seat”—a bench for ready converts to be prayed for. One of the basic premises of this revival was that sin was a voluntary act, and therefore people could live a life free from sin. It emphasized the role of women, encouraging them to give public testimonials. Women were even involved in this revival as itinerate preachers who traveled up and down the coast. The involvement was important because it later led to the movement for women’s rights. The Second Great Awakening welcomed slaves and invited blacks to preach. It was often directly challenging the practice of slavery. The involvement of slaves was important because it later led to the movement against slavery. However, due to the influence of Jacksonian Democracy, limits of equality were set into place, which eventually limited race and gender, leading to the justification of slavery and women’s subordination. The Second Great Awakening first justified slavery, but as later movements of reform came from leaders who came out of the revival, it was later abolished.

The First and Second Great Awakenings were influenced by their surrounding cultures. The Second Great Awakening especially was influenced by culture. The Market Revolution—the push towards materialism and the market—gave a strong desire for the Church to lead moral reform. As a result, the Second Great Awakening can be seen as a response to the Market Revolution. And as the Jacksonian Democracy idea became prevalent. The common man was the focus of the Jacksonian Democracy; the common man was also the focus of the Second Great Awakening. As a result, the Second Great Awakening can be seen as influenced by or reflecting the Jacksonian Democracy.

Leading up to the Civil War, the First and Second Great Awakenings could be argued as the most important events in the history of the American Church. The revivals caused the decline of the Puritans and Anglicans and the rise of the Baptists and Presbyterians. With the rise of the Baptists in the South, social equality was being demanded, which did not suit well with the wealthy plantation owners (Noll, 101). The Great Awakenings provided the basis for social and moral reform that would come later, and were therefore very important not only for the Church but also for the country. But the Great Awakenings were America’s first true national events (Noll, 110). The revivals were the talk of the clergy throughout North America (Noll, 110). The revivals ended up “. . . linking larger and larger sections of the continent” (Noll, 111). The First and Second Great Awakenings also helped to influence church leadership. Coming out of the revivals came a model of leadership that encouraged the common people to rely no longer on clergy to perform religious duties, but instead, to do them for themselves (Noll, 112).

The First and Second Great Awakenings left a huge impact on the American Church. It changed the way religion functioned. It changed the way Christians thought about religion. It was the first national event, which is also why the revivals can be argued to be the most important events in the history of the American Church before the Civil War. They were both a reflection and a response to the culture, but their own effects were felt long after they occurred. They helped pave the way for later social and moral reform. The Great Awakenings were very important for the American Church and for the country.

-------------

Noll, Mark. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1992.

Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » Biblical Studies Carnival XXX Is On Its Way…

2008-06-05T18:56:00.001-07:00

Where is it?

The 30th edition of the Biblical Studies Carnival was supposed to be out two days ago. I've been eagerly waiting for it to come out. The wait is killing me!

Unspiritual Thoughts

2008-06-01T15:47:00.000-07:00

Theology of Alcohol

2008-06-01T15:40:00.000-07:00

Drumming Philosophy

2008-06-01T15:13:00.000-07:00

Brain Freeze Fix

2008-06-01T01:47:00.001-07:00

I was told this "trick" today. Do you think it is accurate?

Rub the roof of your mouth with your tongue.

There is a nerve there that when it gets cold it causes you to have a "brain freeze".

By rubbing the roof of your mouth, you warm up that nerve and release the brain freeze.

The "i" of the iPhone

2008-05-27T10:52:00.001-07:00

The iPhone is a very nice cell phone. For being a first generation product, it is quite good. But it isn't perfect; there are still advancements that need to be made. Without considering the bugs that hinder user experience, let's simply consider the purpose of the iPhone and how well it meets its purpose. But first we must determine the meaning of the "i" that makes the phone distinctive.

The purpose of the "i" in Apple's products since the iMac has indicated that it is Internet friendly. The iMac and iBook line was all about ease of use on the Internet. But then came the iPod. Now the "i" stood for something else--the individual. The iPod is a product where the user can place customized lists of music, videos, pictures, and other information that meet their desires. The "i" in iPhone has taken a bit of both of these meanings.

The iPhone is Internet capable, but it also is able to function like an iPod. The "i" represents, I think, a blended meaning. The iPhone is geared up for the Internet with the individual in mind.

This sort of evolution of the "i" is important. It demonstrates the background out of which the iPhone came forth and is therefore necessary for how it ought to be understood and how it ought to work.

The iPhone ought to be understood as a product meant for the individual. It is highly customizable. It is adaptable. It has a camera and an mp3 player. It has a calendar. It has all these features and more that are user-friendly. The iPhone excels in this aspect of the "i".

The iPhone ought to be used to meet the individual's needs with the Internet in mind. It is applied well to user function, especially in respect to the camera, calendar, etc. But when the Internet is also taken into consideration, the "i" is not quite so focused.

The Internet on the iPhone struggles in many ways. Safari for the iPhone crashes way too easily. Safari cannot view some of the most standard features of the Internet, such as java, embedded videos, or flash videos. Download times are quite long due to the Edge network by AT&T. The Internet friendly features found on the computers are not an option on the phone, such as drag and drop photo saving. Safari cannot run in the background, so a site cannot begin to download and continue it in the background as an email is being written, for example. As far as the "i" is concerned with respect to its initial meaning, the iPhone falls short.

The iPhone really needs AT&T's 3G network in order to improve the user experience on the Internet. Safari also needs to be enabled for actual Internet experiences. When the iPhone came out, Apple boasted that on it you could view the actual Internet and not a mobile version. Such is not actually the case. Media rich web sites are more and more common, which means the iPhone is not capable of showing the majority of the Internet as it really is. It is going to need to incorporate Internet standards before it can really do a good job.

Until the iPhone receives a better Safari and network, users will benefit from web applications designed for the iPhone. What is ironic and annoying about this is the initial claim about the iPhone, that it views the real Internet, was not true and that it does benefit from mobile Internet. Web applications are iPhone specific mobile sites. The Internet through Safari can be quite annoying in overall experience without these web applications.

I don't know if the "i" is meant by Apple to mean Internet friendly anymore. Perhaps it only means individual friendly now. If such is the case, they have excelled with the one exception of allowing the Internet to irritate the individual while using Safari. Perhaps they should have an "i" on the Internet like they used to.

What Would Be Enough?

2008-05-26T16:02:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard an argument against the existence of God that rests on the statement, "There is too much evil in the world"?

In my Hebrew Exegesis class on Saturday, we stopped for a moment to consider this kind of argument. The professor, Tony Petrotta, asked in response, "What would be just right? Fifteen percent less? Twenty percent less?" He was basically asking, "At what point does the amount of evil become enough, acceptable, or just right?" To say, "There is too much evil in the world," is to suggest either explicitly or implicitly that there is a level of evil that is acceptable. However, determining that acceptable level is purely subjective. Therefore, the question is not helpful.

So? What do you think of this response? Do you find it helpful? Frustrating? I don't know that I find it all that helpful. It may be a subjective matter, but I can see where people are coming from. The problem of evil is a problem nonetheless, even when we can't determine with an objective basis for an acceptable amount of evil. The truth is, no level of evil is acceptable. But evilness is evident. If the aforementioned question doesn't work, then it can be restated: "There is evil in the world." Upon this question, one could conceivably state, "Since there is evil in the world, and since God is supposed to be all good, there must not be a God." Although I would not agree, I can see where they are coming from.

I do find it helpful that the original statement rests upon a level of subjectivity. Most of the time the statement is parallel with contemporary issues of hunger, injustice, and war. But they are not ever considered as a result and consequence of human imperfection in an open system of cause and effect. It assumes that evil is entirely God's responsibility. But is it? I think not. Ultimately, we could say that God is in charge of all that happens and exists, and so he is therefore responsible to a certain extent. But humans also have a role and responsibility in what happens. Humans are not off the hook. Their role, action, and inaction need to be considered as the main reason for what happens in this world.

David, Tyranny, Democracy

2008-05-26T15:56:00.000-07:00

Was David a Tyrant Like Sudam Husein?

David was a warrior. He was kept from building the Temple because of the bloodshed he was involved in. In order to unify the people, was it necessary to have this kind of warrior-king? Was it necessary for a leader to come along and strong-arm the people? David used Joab as his hit-man, supposedly, for the "dirty work."

I ask if it was necessary because of who the people were. Clan based were the people of Israel, as are the people throughout the world we now refer to as Arab. They have never known democracy. It was only the likes of Nebachadnezzar, Senacherub, and, dare I say, Sudam Husein, that they can come under control. What do these people have in common? They were warrior-kings who strong-armed the people. The question is, was David any different? I think not.

This post is going to examine two things. First, was David tyrannical or was he the pleasant leader that fundamentalism portrays? Second, what does David's rule tell us about the people in that area in comparison with other leaders in that location, and what does that tell us about America's attempt to spread democracy to that region? To David's reign we now turn.

David was actually not a very nice king. He was more of a tyrant than we usually think. He killed or had killed disobedient people--people who threatened the well-being of his rule. The first person he killed as king (arguably) was the messenger who reported Saul's death. The messenger lied, saying, "I killed him." David had him killed but not for lying. He was killed for killing the king of Israel. Now that the king was dead, David had a situation to deal with. This messenger had apparently killed the king of Israel; if he has done it once, he can and may do it again. To keep that from happening, he has him killed. Although the text doesn't actually say that, I know some would want to see it and argue that this was the actual motive behind the messenger's death.

When David was made king, he had to face some opposition from Saul's descendants. His descendants were struggling to keep the throne. When there was a stand-off, David's men practically decapitated all of Saul's warriors to help secure the throne for David.

After those warriors were suppressed and it was clear that David was now in power, the commander of Saul's army joined David's side. All seemed to be well for the commander. But then, Joab, David's commander, took Saul's commander, Abner, out back and killed him. It seems as though David was further securing his position as ruler. If Abner once served Saul and opposed David, he can and may do it again. To keep this from happening, he had him killed. Again, the text doesn't say that, but I know some would argue that this is the real motive.

Then, the last few leaders of Saul's son's army became traitors and killed Saul's son. They took his head to David and tried to entreat David. But David had them killed. It seems as though they were traitors, so what was to keep them from betraying David too? So he had them killed to help secure his position as ruler. As before, the text doesn't say that, but some would argue this to be the real motive.

It seems that it wasn't until David had firmly secured his position as a proven warrior-king that Israel did not turn their allegiance over to him. When they did, he developed his own stronghold, Jerusalem, in the city of the Jebusites, which he took from them by force.

David also secured the boundaries by going to war with surrounding countries. But through those events David was responsible for the destruction and annihilation of those people. He used force to establish his position, both his kingly reign and his "capitol." It was also by force that he secured the nation. The Philistines he attacked and subdued. He killed thousands of Arameans at the Damascus border. Likewise, he killed thousands of Edomites. Others he destroyed in battle, such as the Ammonites.

But then came his famous mistake. He committed adultery (or was it rape, which is a forceful act?), lied, and then committed murder. He was likely securing his role as king by not allowing news that would corrupt his reign to be released to the public. He was keeping a hush on the matter. Not only that, but again, he seemed to have used Joab to do the "dirty work." He had Joab place the husband of Bathsheba, whom he had adulterous relations with, at the front lines and had him killed. But his relations with Bathsheba resulted in conception. The Lord, as a punishment, took the child from David. He seemed to mourn over it for a short period of time, but then suddenly dropped his weeping as if nothing happened. It seemed like the concealment was secure. With the baby dead, it could be that there was no illegitimate child to consider for bringing charge against the king, and therefore there was no reason to be alarmed. I realize this is conjecture, for the text does not say it, but I know some might say this was what was going on psychologically with David at this time.

Then he started to have to deal with some internal family issues. His eldest son raped one of his daughters. The brother of that daughter got upset with David for not making it an issue. Was David not making it an issue because he didn't want to draw attention to his poor family leadership, which could bring negative light on his kingly reign? So, Absolom, the brother of the daughter, Tamar, killed his half-brother, Amnon. David mourned over Amnon's death, but only for a short time, and then he moved on and mourned for Absolom. He seemed to have Joab do the "dirty work" yet again, for when in pursuit of Absolom, he speared him. This not only avenged the death of Amnon but also squashed Absolom's insurrection, thus securing David's position as king further still.

David also handed people over to others for appeasement. To the Gibeonites he handed over the remaining descendants of Saul, except for Jonathan's son, to be killed. In so doing, he won the favor of the Gibeonites and also removed more potential threats to the throne.

I would say that I do not agree with all of these points. David does talk about what Joab did to him when charging Solomon with the kingdom. He wanted Solomon to deal justly with Joab. It seems as though in David's mind Joab was not really his henchman. I would say that there are tyrannical elements in David's life, which is not clearly expressed in fundamental depictions of David as king.

So how much was David like a tyrant, and how similar was he to Sudam Hussein? I doubt he was torturous like Sudam, but he did allow for murder. He was a good king, but in what sense? He did allow for certain corrupt behavior. It seems like David did function as a warrior-king and did strong-arm the people at times in order start and maintain his reign.

If this sort of leadership was necessary for the people to be united then as it is now, what does that tell us about America's efforts to spread democracy to that region? I think it tells us that it won't work. That area has not known democracy in the last 5,000+ years. It is a region of clan-based cultures that are only "unified"--kept under control--through tyrannical leaders. David may have been a mild tyrannical king, but he was or exhibited tyrannical behavior. Sudam Hussein was similar. He used his tyrannical strong-arm to keep the Muslims under control. Yes, he was an extreme tyrant. Was what he did wrong? In our American idealism and ethnocentric minds, yes. But, when understood in light of that region, his tyranny was necessary. Now that he has been removed, the control is gone. Democracy has been substituted for Hussein and it is failing. Democracy is a foreign concept to them and it will not easily nor quickly have an effect. The clan-based system needs a tyrannical leader. I would say that someone more like David would be better than one like Sudam Hussein. But we are incorrect to think that democracy will work for that culture. Clearly it has not. Their way of life and their way of thinking is vastly different than ours.

What do you think? Was David a tyrannical king? Do you think as others do that David was an extremist and used Joab as a henchman, or are you more like me and you see David as being a warrior-king with some tyrannical behavior? Do you think democracy will work in that region? If so, why? Or do you think as I do, that democracy is not a compatible concept for their way of life and thought?

Mouw Muses on the Forgetful Messiah

2008-05-23T13:31:00.001-07:00

Over at Mouw's Musings, the President of the seminary I attend talks about his theology regarding God's generosity. He says that while he believes one comes to salvation by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he does allow room for God's divine generosity. It is through this divine generosity that those who come before Jesus Christ when they die can acknowledge him at that time and be permitted to dwell with the Lord.

Mouw reports to have received opposition from two different sides regarding this theology of divine generosity. First, his evangelical friends have criticized him for this position. It is too inclusive for most evangelicals and it opts for an idea of salvation that does not require a relationship with God through Jesus Christ in this present life. Second, his Jewish friend has criticized him for his position. Why must Jesus Christ still be acknowledged?

I find this intriguing and I have often thought about it without forcing myself to come to a conclusion. I had a professor at Simpson University who said that we cannot tell God what to do, but rather, God will bring anyone he would like into heaven. The thrust of this statement is the thrust of Mouw's theology of divine generosity. God can commune with anyone he wishes. We cannot decide for God whom he will permit to dwell with him in heaven. Not only that, but the biblical evidence has support for a more inclusive stance when it talks about every language being represented in heaven. Every language is equal to every language from any and every culture throughout the history of humanity, including before Christ, does it not? If such is the case, perhaps Mouw is being more biblical by holding to his theology of divine generosity.