Just returned from Portrait Innovations in San Antonio (Bandera) and got some most excellent results, thanks to Vanessa. Of course, my kids are endearingly beautiful subjects!
Not sure of the copyright laws I may be breaking, but had to share at least one sample (friends and family will receive Portrait Innovations printed copies via snail mail).
Many know that I have been making my way through the collected letters of C. S. Lewis (on to volume 2!). In the period of his conversion to Christianity from theism in general, Lewis pondered why it is that people esteemed the Inferno so highly and Paradiso very little. I had never read any of The Divine Comedy, but always intended to (especially as I learned more and more about Dorothy Sayers). So, I am probing Paradiso and thoroughly and completely and ecstatically enjoying it! Dante’s awareness of the limits of reason (hence, general revelation) and the need for God’s gracious revelation of Himself is inspiring. He is certainly indebted to the Scholastic theologians but, as an artist, his communication of theology sounds so focused on God’s sovereignty and humanity’s need for an alien righteousness that, I swear, Dante sounds like Martin Luther. How glorious!
While C. S. Lewis enjoyed the Everyman (now a Random House property) edition of The Divine Comedy (I am guessing Allen Mandelbaum’s translation), I am reading the translation by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I may get around to the Sayers translation, but I rather doubt it; I highly recommend the ‘cheapo’ Barnes and Noble $7 edition, not only because of the Longfellow translation, but also because of the fabulous notes by Peter Bondanella and Julia Conway Bondanella. I am guessing that this is a husband and wife duo of brilliant scholars and great writers; I read their Italian Renaissance Reader several years ago and remember liking it. In any case, pick up a copy . . . and keep an eye on my footnotegenerator for quotes that drew my interest.
[Image: University of Birmingham, Centre for European Languages and Culture]
Using my keen sensory instincts (and a couple of ‘where are you’ phone calls), I felt an update was in order.
The entire Jones clan has been enjoying San Antonio and South Texas, never more fully than our stay on Mustang Island. As much as we were able being the pale landlubbers that we are, we lived as Beach Bums, dividing our time between the beach, the pool, and the dining room table. Karen, the most Scandinavian of all of us, actually got a tan (and a burn). The rest of us lived under the protection of SPF 50+ (seriously). Most wonderful was the opportunity to watch our kids play with their three cousins, Grace, Faith, and Cole. I cannot remember when my children ever had such freedom over a four day period to simply . . . play. Many, many thanks go to my father for ‘picking up the tab’ for the entire adventure and joining us in the water, watching all of the aquatic life!
Another note should follow regarding the ‘where are you’ phone calls: just prior to our beach trip, I went to SeaWorld and completely submerged my swank Blackberry Pearl. These devices do not function after such stunts. Nor does Verizon hand over a new one when you have already declined to insure said device. So, all calls to my battle-damaged mobile will go to Karen’s operable mobile. In about 30 days, I’ll pick up a new one (maybe I’ll try an LG Dare to tide me over until Verizon gets the iPhone).
Let me also thank those of you holding us in your prayers as we continue our search for a place to serve and care for Christ’s flock. We continue waiting and praying . . . and praying. This time in San Antonio has been beautiful in terms of helping our kids bear the adjustment of leaving friends and neighbors in Portland, and also in terms of allowing Karen and I the refreshment of family and the Word. His Grace Alone.
As many know, I am taking an extended vacation right now and, amidst goofing-off with my kids, spending time with family, and looking for a church home, I am pushing my nose deeply into some great books. While in Vancouver, WA, I thoroughly enjoyed Shusaku Endo’s Wonderful Fool, a marvelously mystical and restorative story, especially from the perspective of the Gospel. I also enjoyed Frederick Beuchner’s Eyes of the Heart: A Memoir of the Lost and Found (you know, I attended Wheaton College never knowing that he was once a prof). I also had fun with John Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God (odd that I had never read this).
Lately, however, I have fallen in love with C. S. Lewis again by digesting his letters as collected and edited by Walter Hooper, the private secretary of Lewis in his later years. I am a few pages shy of completing Volume 1 and hope to crack open Volume 2 by Friday. Even though Volume 1 was published some eight years ago, I was happy to see that Volume 3, the final volume, was completed by Hooper just January of last year.
I mention this because I have gathered so many wonderful quotes of Lewis that help unfold his worldview and artistic development prior to both his conversion and his professorship at Cambridge (see my quotes thus far at footnotegenerator.com).
I know almost nothing about this organization, but found on their site an excellent summary of epistemology and apologetics by Jerram Barrs called, “Epistemology: Philosophy of Knowledge” (reminded me of his teaching notes . . . notes I have shamefully let slip from my memory). But I noticed several other great articles through Christian Heritage, Cambridge, and recommend anyone and everyone to take a tour (archives). The Ranald Macaulay (of L’Abri) articles are gems!
This Bart Jan Spruyt paper was recommended to me by Don W during a seminar I was giving at Intown on T. S. Eliot. It has been posted by the Edmund Burke Foundation, a conservative body based in The Netherlands.
This is a paper given by Dr. Jan Spruyt (secretary of the foundation and Leiden Ph.D.) in July-August, 2004, at Oxford. The topic of the conference was “Order and Liberty in the American Tradition,” and Jan Spruyt’s paper concerns the relationship between T. S. Eliot and C. S. Lewis. I know nothing (seriously) about Dr. Jan Spruyt’s publications, articles, radio commentary, etc. Nor do I understand Dutch. So, don’t harass me if I’m quoting a radical; I’m too ignorant to know better.
However, for those (like me) who love Eliot and Lewis, Jan Spruyt’s paper is absolutely brilliant! I recommend it not just because Eliot and Lewis have been heroes of mine for some time (Eliot first), but because the paper says a few things about literary communication in general. This topic matters to Christians. God, with His holy finger (check out Exodus 31.18), wrote down words. Likewise, He “commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing (Belgic Confession, Art. 3).” God is the Holy Publisher (Heidelberg Catechism, q. 19)! It follows, then, that Christians (especially Christians!) ought to be well-aquainted with literary communication.
Why this particular paper? It’s about Eliot and Lewis . . . isn’t this enough? Here are three (personal) reasons:
Becoming informed readers. First, we need an introduction to the craft of literary criticism from guys like Eliot and Lewis. All of us, myself included, have a habit of literary ineptness. That is, we usually don’t know why we prefer one piece of literature over another; lacking this critical faculty, we run the risk of becoming creatures of mere ‘taste,’ liking one piece of literature over another . . . on a whim and for little-to-no-reason at all. A sloppy example might be settling for Diet Coke because it is sweet and bubbly, rather than cultivating a liking for Chateau Petrus Pomerol, which many believe to be the finest beverage in the history of beverages. Okay, on the one hand this is silly. But, on the other hand, Jan Spruyt recounting Eliot and Lewis’s differences of literature suggests that it is good for us to consider being a little bit more critical of what we read; our literary taste for romance novels (or, in my case, Bill Bryson travelogues) may need to be tempered with doses of better stuff every once in a while. Sir Francis Bacon says it this way (in “On Studies”): “Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.” We need help telling which books are which! Let’s learn to follow the trails of literary critics.
Becoming humble readers. Second, a lack of willingness to challenge our own tastes with the tastes of others may be an act of rebellion. That’s a little harsh, but a refusal to explore why everyone thinks Jane Austen is such an excellent novelist may be, in effect, an attempt to turn our tastes into an idol. For example, one of Lewis’s critiques of Eliot is that his poetic style and form were Modernist novelties, ways of disintegrating poetic notions that came before him and were accepted by large figures (e.g., Homer, Virgil, Dante, et al.). Jan Spruyt hears Lewis saying, “There exists a clear difference between poetry which reflects disintegration and disintegrating poetry.” At some level, Lewis believed the Modernism of Eliot to be a sign of an enlarged personality bringing about chaos. It would seem that, as a writer or as a reader, one mustn’t give personal tastes too much authority.
Becoming Christian readers. Third, and this is well beyond my brain power (but not beyond Alan Jacobs’), it seems that Jan Spruyt’s paper helps us to see that literature captures images and ideas and themes that cannot be fulfilled in this world. Good literature, it would seem, can be a ’sign’ or a ’sacrament’ (Calvin said that God has given us many ’sacraments’) that points to something larger than itself, “a desire for something that cannot be found in this world,” says Jan Spruyt as he summarizes Lewis’s An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason and Romanticism (which I’ve never read). Literature, if it is worthy, ought to point to a reality that the Christian is personally aware of from special revelation. Jan Spruyt adds, “The way in which a man responds to art, would then tell us something about his general suitability for life.” Literature has a power to present to us glimmers of grace and mercy and justice and beauty that can only be fulfilled in God Himself coming to us and ransoming us into an understanding of True grace and True mercy and True justice and True beauty (see N. T. Wright’s argument in Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense). As such, a Christian ought to have more of an interest in literature than most, and out to be able to say more about and experience more from literature than most.
No real explanation other than Prof. Anthony Bradley’s quick riposte/blog (from, like, a million years ago).
Just caught Tony Reinke’s post regarding Lyle Dorsetts’ new book on A. W. Tozer. I know . . . I’m slow; look, some 10,000 new titles are published in America each month! Having gone to a CMA college (for a year and half, ’til I met my future wife and became hopelessly distracted), I digested a large number of Tozer books.
Regarding Dr. Dorsett, he is a professor at Wheaton College (learn more about him here), a delightful C. S. Lewis scholar, and student of great heroes of American Protestantism (including Joy Davidman, D. L. Moody, E. M. Bounds). I have enjoyed his writing style so much because, although he is a great scholar, he writes as a man who really enjoys the lives of his subjects, not just their literary output. Try reading his Spiritual Formation of C. S. Lewis in comparison to most other ’sophisticated’ studies of Lewis. Dorsett is not pretentious.
In any case, Tozer played a large roll in my spiritual development at age 21 being introduced to The Knowledge of the Holy by my future mother-in-law. I also discovered that she had a stash of Tozer books in the back of a linen closet (I can’t remember why I was snooping in there!) and she generously gave them all to me. As a budding theologian, I was deeply impressed by the bigness of God that compels the human heart to worship. It bugs me that Reformed folks ignore this wise and deep spokesperson for the Christian life. So, let’s all pick up a copy of Dorsett’s book, A Passion for God: The Spiritual Journey of A. W. Tozer.
Great, three uber-intellectuals (Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, John Piper), all graduates of Wheaton College in 1968, have taken time to describe this year as “A Year in Crisis.” Great! I hope that things took a change for the better in the following year, when I entered the world. I hope the college got stuff sorted out before I arrived in 1995. Read brief bios of the speakers here, and listen to their ruminations here.
My humble summary:
First, Mark Noll, the positive voice, noticed changes in four areas: politics (rise Evangelical mobilization and involvement), church music (positive rise in musical innovation, like Edwards’ revival of Isaac Watts), the intellectual life (there is an Evangelical mind), Christianity in the world (increase in number of Christians in far reaches of the world). In the open-forum part of the talks, he says that, just prior to the 60s, there was a seizure of the ability of Evangelicals to articulate the gospel because of internal fractures in the church, and this seizure inflicted Wheaton . . . and needed to be worked-on in the ensuing 40 years.
Second, Nat, after many thanks, reminisced on the culture shockwaves of the time (war, race relations), especially the philosophical doubt of the era. This was a time, amidst the doubt, to revisit orthodoxy (reading Whitefield, Wesley, and Edwards). Recovery of the past was a looming idea for Nat (”recovering the wisdom of the ages”), including three areas: worship music, the church’s community and intimacy, Evangelicalism’s rise over mainline denominations, and the growth of Evangelical movements (i.e. small parachurch ministries?).
Third, Piper, the most ‘grandfatherly’ voice, draws attention to this concern: ‘How has our view of the Bible and the grandeur of God developed over these last 40 years?’ He quotes Os Guinness’ (see his 20-page Evangelical Manifesto) and David Wells’ (who recently published a new work, The Courage to Be Protestant) admittedly negative picture of modern Evangelicalism. First, Piper presents twelve positive elements: the Jesus People Movement, defense of the Biblical inerrancy, emergence of intellectual Evangelicalism, reading of Puritans, renewal of worship exuberance, health of the pro-life movement, world missions contextualized on people-groups, aggressive missions to the 10-40 window, collapse of the Berlin Wall, rise of the church in the Southern hemisphere, Evangelical presence on the web, strong and doctrinally Reformed ministries. However, Piper (looking to Wells), cites three negatives points (i.e. “hollowing out of the confessional trunk of the Evangelical tree while the branches and leaves are still quite flourishing”): a hollowing out of God’s weightiness, confidence in the Bible, and “seriousness with which to pursue truth and doctrine” (citing sitcoms, ubiquity of technology, marketing, youth culture, everything Emergent, idolatry of achievement [i.e. David Brooks' "achieveatron"], etc., etc., which Nat pokes fun at).
Interesting things: Jonathan Edwards was mentioned by all (a lot!), although Mark admits that Wheaton College never required any of Edwards’ works! Denominationalism (in general) was bemoaned. Developments in worship music are good to all; Noll further develops the argument that historic hymnody brings to the forefront specifically the person and work of Christ. Only Piper cites the erosion of Evangelical ethics and character. The Pew Charitable Trust received accolades. Nobody mentioned the distinction between rural, urban, suburban, and exurban settings. Nobody mentioned science (until someone asked). Nobody mentioned art (design, architecture, etc.) at all. Nobody committed to modern Evangelicalism as being all good (Noll and Hatch’s leaning) or all bad (Piper’s leaning). Piper spoke too much (imho).
My long lost friend, Phil Henry (whom I’ve recently been trying to find) has time to host some two or three blogs, but his email address cannot be found. Ain’t the web helpful?! But, in my search, my hurting heart came across a comforting reminder from Isaiah 51 (see Isaiah’s Hope).
Check this out from verses Isaiah 51.12-16:
I, I am he who comforts you;
who are you that you are afraid of man who dies,
of the son of man who is made like grass,
and have forgotten the Lord, your Maker,
who stretched out the heavens
and laid the foundations of the earth,
and you fear continually all the day
because of the wrath of the oppressor,
when he sets himself to destroy?
And where is the wrath of the oppressor?
He who is bowed down shall speedily be released;
he shall not die and go down to the pit,
neither shall his bread be lacking.
I am the Lord your God,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar
the Lord of hosts is his name.
And I have put my words in your mouth
and covered you in the shadow of my hand,
establishing the heavens
and laying the foundations of the earth,
and saying to Zion, ‘You are my people.’
Phil reminded me that these words come to a people either currently in exile from their land (neighborhoods, family, friends, livelihood, prosperity, etc.) or perilously and certainly close to exile. But God’s comforting words are not “just you wait . . .,” or “I’ll get the bad guys,” or “this is to toughen you up.” The comfort is that their exile is not without company, that their abandonment never severs their relationship with the Holy God.
This is the Gospel of Grace, that God has invited us into a heavenly relationship with Himself through the atoning work of Jesus (both in His perfect life, and His substitutionary death). It was God who pursued the exiled people of Isaiah’s day. The same God, regardless of the weightiness of our circumstances, pursues us in Jesus. And because this relationship is founded upon the work of Jesus (and not me), this relationship is never contingent upon circumstances.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved . . . (Ephesians 2.1-5)
