Drinking God's Goodness

"The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matt 3.10) This is God's pronouncement through John the prophet. But what right does God have to demand fruitfulness of us? How can God look at us, pictured as plants, and demand that we grow fruit? It's like Jesus walking up the fig tree and finding no fruit and cursing it on the spot (Matt 21.18-19). That story has always been a little disturbing. Is it any less disturbing that God threatens to cut us down and burn us if we don't produce good fruit?

Yes, it's disturbing. It's disturbing to say that God has the right to demand of us whatever he will. He is God, we are his creation. "Let us get this one thing straight. God can do anything he damn well pleases, including damn well. And if it pleases him to damn, then it is done, ipso facto, well. God's activity is what it is. There isn't anything else. Without it there would be no being, including human beings presuming to judge the Creator of everything that is." (Virginia Owens)

But I've been noticing lately another reason God has the right to demand fruitfulness of us. And that is this: we've been drinking his goodness our whole lives.

"Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." - Heb 6.7-8

This is really a remarkable picture for us. There is a field, and there are various plants in this field. The farmer waters the field. The water falls on all the plants equally. The farmer comes to the fully grown plants and finds that some tomato vines have used the water to make tomatos. But lots of other plants have been very happy to drink up the farmer's water, but they have made thorns.

God pours out his grace on both the righteous and unrighteous (Matt 5.45). But not everyone returns to God what his grace deserves. His grace deserves fruit "of repentance" (Matt 3.8), "good" fruit (Matt 7.19), fruit of the kingdom of God (Matt 21.43), fruit that's not like "the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things" (Mk 4.19), fruit that comes from being joined with Jesus (Jn 15.4,5), and fruit that proves you are a disciple of Jesus (Jn 15.8). We must answer the question, "What does this fruit actually look like?" but for right now I just want to say this: whatever it is, you do not want to be found without it. God has commanded us, and that's enough. But we have also, for our whole lives, been drinking in God's sun, God's rain, God's nature, God's able bodies, God's families, God's people, God's words, God's mercy, God's money, God's safety, God's house, God's wife (some of us), God's education, God's food, God's job, God's health, God's music, God's logic, God's language, God's senses, God's pleasures, God's free country, God's gospel. And would he find us happily lapping up his treasures, very sweely enjoying all his good things, and producing no fruit? We have drunk in the rain often falling on us, and I feel for us particularly it has fallen very very often, and what have we done with it? The rain is free - it is grace and grace is not a payment for fruit - but it will serve to further condemn us if we fail to produce it. A free gift cannot create debt, but it does create shame in the one who has wasted it.

So what is coming out of your life? Because God knows what he has put into it.

There is hope because of God's great patience with us. Here's an obscure little parable I love:

"A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, find! If not, then cut it down.'" (Lk 13.6-9)

We are "using the soil"; we are "drinking in the rain"; are we using it to grow fruit?

I recommend one of two things: either start producing fruit, or stop drinking God's goodness.

You have one more year.

"Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case" (Heb 6.9)

Do you love your pet?

http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/Home_Page.html

I just want to know how much money they're making.

Happiness

Brothers, I have a confession: I'd like to be happy. My wish is, obviously, built on a couple of presuppositions: 1) I don't think myself currently marked by steady happiness, 2) I think I should be happy, 3) I think happiness is attainable. (Others are contained, but I'll leave off there.) This post isn't a defense of already-reached conclusions. I picture myself like a muddy, half-naked, rain-soaked street urchin with my hand clenched and raised to knock at the door of a great stone castle; through the side-panes of the door I can see a roomful of glad-hearted noblemen feasting at a table laden with delicacies, dressed warmly in rich furs and seated by a blazing fire. Not sure why, but that's the image that came to mind. So, I'm going to draw a rough sketch of what I consider happiness to be and how I think we can go about having (or maybe 'catching' is a better word...) it.

First, I think that happiness is the necessary or inevitable end of a good expectation. By 'good' I mean 'ends which we deem profitable'--certainty doesn't always result in gladness of heart (Ex.: knowing that my sick relative will soon die would give me sadness). How we determine profitability is another discussion. By 'expectation' I mean 'hope'--the future realities of which we are by means of faith certain. So, as a hypothetical proof of my proposition, let's say I get word that someone who I love greatly is returning to me after a long absence; I cannot help but rejoice in that. As for Textual evidence the Apostle Peter immediately comes to mind: 'having not seen [Jesus] you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith: the salvation of your souls'. The believer's certainty about Christ--and particularly the progressive consummation of their belief--must end in joy.

Second, the measure of our happiness is directly proportional to the perceived value of the thing for which we hope. If you say, 'I'll give you a candy bar tomorrow,' I'll be excited, to be sure. Not nearly so much, however, as if you promised me an all-expense-paid trip to North Africa.

Finally, and arguing in reverse fashion, if we would have happiness we should aim at faith. Lewis said (thanks for sending this to me, David): 'Aim at this world and you'll miss it. Aim at the next and you'll get it and this world thrown in.' This is true of happiness as well. If we make temporal gladness our ambition, we'll likely miss it and damn our souls in the process.


Ten thousand little trails run off each propositional highway. These three are kind of a condensation of my explorations though. Run with me down a few of the paths, if you'd like...

Politics

We never talk about politics. My discussions with my parents have gotten increasingly political over the past 2 years, but it mostly stays in-house. Strange... we're in a comparatively highly-educated group, yet we don't talk about politics.
It's true that until recently I've had a quazi-Amish attitude toward politics: do what you want; just don't bother me. Coming to appreciate the "two-cities" analogy for Christian citizenship (cf. Chaucer's London and Canterbury) has convinced me the Amish way is out. No hats, barns, or laissez-faire political attitude; we have responsibilities here because we are really citizens.

So in the spirit of good citizenship let me tee up some free speech and see if anyone wants to free speech back.

After watching CNN's "God's Warriors" tonight I am convinced that democracy must die. Democracy is a provisional cure for disagreement. Ultimately we cannot and will not reconcile fundamental differences through discussion, as if our difference of opinion lies in one of us not having quite all the information. That's all discussion can bring: further information (in any form - relationship, scientific data, personal data, clarification of logic, etc.). Continuing democracy indefinitely is an admission of stifled progress. Democracy is a set of rules whereby we can live with people with whom we disagree. It is a proviso for a schoolyard sounded by conflicting reports about which game will be played b all. The sound reaches such a pitch that a compromised is agreed upon, not to determine the game, but to prevent violence. Areas are set up for groups to play this game or that, but the games all interfere and it would certainly be better if we all played at the same game? This is not the ideal is it? And what will finally remedy? Progress demands democracy die. If we all agree, then democracy dies from lack of need. If we all don't agree, progress demands the death of democracy. Will we go on like this forever?

... and from Eric Lehner

Hey guys, here's an article from Prof. Lehner on paper writing. I asked him the same questions I asked Nate plus a few more. Sorry for the formatting... blogger doesn't have the best editor.

How to Pick Your Topic:

1. Pick a topic of personal interest; if you don’t you will bore yourself with the project and find yourself unmotivated.
2. Pick a topic approved by professor; if you don’t you might be taking on a topic beyond the scope of what is deemed appropriate for the class.
3. Pick a topic of considerable difficulty; if you don’t, you will learn little and earn a grade that reflects it.
4. Pick a topic involving a level of controversy or tension; if you don’t, you will have little at your disposal to energize composition at the analytical level. It is critical that a graduate level paper move beyond reporting information to the level of analysis.
5. Pick a topic in which there is at least a some degree of existing knowledge; if you tackle a topic about which you have no knowledge whatsoever, you might be biting off more than you can chew.
6. Pick a topic for which there is sufficient available resources; if you don’t, then you might be forced to abandon your topic later in the semester and start again.
7. Pick a topic which is or can be sufficiently narrowed
8. Pick a topic as early as possible
   

Where to Start Your Research:

1. The first step is to build a select bibliography. These should be (1) sources of the highest caliber and (2) sources you intend to consult. Do not build a bibliography of the first sources you can lay your hands on. Instead, identify the most significant scholars in the field most relevant to your topic. The course bibliography should be of some help; if not, ask your professor. Once you are able to identify the key scholars and their sources, take note the sources that they consider to be the most valuable, and integrate them into your bibliography. As you build your bibliography, take into account the following:
   
   - Organization of sources: Use a organization system such as notecards, or a bibiliographic software package such as Citation or Endnote.
   
   - Credibility of sources: Choose sources of academic credibility; if in doubt, consult your prof.; pay particular attention to the author rather than the title.
   
   - Usability of sources: Make sure they have an index or a very detailed table of contents.
   
   - Variety of source types: Don’t consult only books; periodicals and reference works should also be consulted as they often provide valuable specialized treatments.
   
   - Date of sources: The date of your material says whether or not you are interacting with current thought on the subject.
   
   - Number of sources: 1 to 1.5 per page of text
   
   - Sources to include in bibliography: Do not “pad” the bibliography; include sources that you consulted and which contributed to your understanding of the subject.
   
   - Utilization of sources: Do not expect all the sources to be equally beneficial; 1/4 to 1/3 of your sources will probably function as your main sources, the rest will be minor. Do not build the bulk of the paper on only one or two sources.
   
   - Perspective of sources: The bibliography should reflect a variety of perspectives.
   
   
2. The second step is strategic reading.
   
   - Create a list of the top five terms (names of important people, concepts, events) associated with your topic. This is just a starting point; as your understanding of the topic develops, you will not need to follow this procedure rigidly.
   
   - Prioritize the order in which you will work through the sources you have selected. A suggested approach would be
   
   ~ Begin with the basic sources first: survey your sources and divide them; divide the general from the specific, the surveys from the technical, the easy reads from the difficult. Read the general, survey, and otherwise easy materials first in order to firm up a foundational understanding of the subject.
   
   ~ Second, consult the most significant authors in the field.
   
   ~ Third, consult the remaining sources
   
   - Consult the index of each of books for the appearance of the key terms in the book. For electronic documents, conduct searches of the occurrence of the terms. For works without an index, you will need to skim read.
   
   
3. The third step is to begin a master outline. This will reflect all of your thoughts on the subject: every thought that you wish to explore, as well as every thought that you have found in your research. It should be updated on a daily basis, from the day you pick your topic until the day you turn the paper in. This outline is the ‘garden’ of your paper: it is here that you will ‘grow’ the argument of your paper and the organization of it. As the analogy suggests, the more you feed and water it, the more fruit you’ll pick from it.
   

How to take notes while reading:

1. Take useful notes: this means you need to be purposeful in the kinds of notes you take. If you don’t, the note will not be useful later on. Good notes will:
   
   - Recognize excellent forms of argumentation on the part of an author. Be particularly attentive to lines of evidence in support of or against a particular position, and assess them for their soundness. Spend the majority of your efforts in this kind of analytical reading, and as little as possible in the attending ‘factoids’ of the subject. When you must discuss these, make sure they are necessary to the development of your subject.
   
   - Summarize the key thoughts of another author in your own words. You should be able to summarize this in your own words, without plagiarizing. If you are not sure whether or not you are plagiarizing, or you do not know how to rephrase and summarize the thought of another author, consult one of the sources listed in the ‘additional reading’ section.
   
   - Remember that you can take different kinds of notes for different purposes:
   
   ~ location notes: tells the writer where to go to revisit a significant paragraph
   
   ~ quotation notes: the actual verbatim representation of another author (be careful to keep in context)
   
   ~ restatement notes: representation of an author’s idea with the writer’s wording and sentence structure
   
   ~ original notes: the student’s record of his own observation(s)
   
   - Links your notes to their sources: nothing is as perplexing as having a great note and forgetting where you got it from!
   

What is the best order to follow in the paper writing process?

1. The order of writing should always be determined by whether or not you have something in mind worth remembering. If you have something worthwhile in mind, write it down. If not, read until you do; then write more. At the end of your day, update your master outline.
   
   
2. 2 things to avoid as you write:
   
   - Don’t be a slave to your outline; if your research takes you in a direction not anticipated, then adjust your outline. Remember, the outline is simply a reflection of your idea of what the paper will look like. The more you learn, the more your picture of the paper will change. That means that the outline will constantly be changing, especially in the early stages. The research is the master, and the outline is the servant, not the other way around.
   
   - Don’t do all your reading, then all your writing. The reason why note taking is so critical along the way is that most students don’t have photographic memories, and thus they forget some of the best thoughts that they have had.
   

On Writing a Paper Against the Position of a Professor

1. It is generally not advisable to write a paper against the position of a professor without communicating your intent to do so beforehand. Beyond that, it is generally considered courteous to secure the permission — and advice — of the professor before doing so.
   
   
2. A paper that is critical of a professor’s position will normally be scrutinized more closely, and graded more critically, than other papers. For that reason, it is critical that such a paper
   
   - Accurately represent your professor’s position; failure in this area will make the paper guilty of creating a straw man of your prof’s position. An error of this kind will be very costly.
   
   - Accurately represent and interact with your professor’s line of argumentation; failure in this area will make your line of argumentation irrelevant.
   
   
3. Interact with what your professor considers to be the key sources on the issue; failure in this area will also render your line of argumentation irrelevant.
   
   
4. Subject your conclusion to the scrutiny of a third party who is sympathetic to the position of the professor. This may give you an unexpected glimpse of how your professor might respond.
   
   
5. Compare your arguments with a guide to logical fallacies as an extra measure to ensure that they are clear of faulty argumentation.
   

A Couple of Thoughts for Reducing Stress and Improving Results:

1. By far, the most helpful thing that a writer can do is to start early and visit the paper often throughout the course of the semester. If you want the paper to present a penetrating analysis, it will take time for your thoughts to mature; thus the paper should be viewed as a semester-long project, not a week-long or a weekend-long project. This will help create the extra time needed at the end of the project for putting the paper in proper form and for proofreading.
   
   
2. Make the most of automated computer functions, such as macros (helpful for creating special spacing and for switching from one language font to another rapidly), generating table of contents, generating bibliographies and footnotes, etc. These are huge time savers.
   

Additional Reading:

1. Tim Dowley and Beth Wright, eds. “A Short Guide to Writing Research Papers on the History of Christianity” in Introduction to the History of Christianity, CD-ROM (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006).
   
   
2. Henry A. Virkler, A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993)
   
   
3. Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox, 1993); see p. 57 for Fee’s advice on using quotations.
   
   
4. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual For Writers, 7th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2007). This edition of Turabian has for the first time, included as a part of the book, a complete 128 page guide to writing research papers, adapted from The Craft of Research, by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. This is perhaps the single most valuable summarization of paper writing strategy in print today.
   
   
5. “Academic Integrity” in Ph.D. in Theological Studies: Handbook for Participants (Deerfield, IL: Trinity International University, 2005), 22-25. This portion provides an excellent summary of what does and does not constitute plagiarism. It may be viewed in its entirety online at: http://www.tiu.edu/files/divinity/academics/phd-ths0506hdbk.pdf

Article on paper writing from the illustrious Nate Mihelis

Hey guys, I wrote Nate M. a while ago and asked him to write something up for us about how to research and write papers. I sent him a series of questions and he responded. Hope it's helpful.


How do you pick a paper topic?

Unless assigned by a prof, my paper topics are almost always based on one (or a combination of) the following criteria: 1) something I don’t know about or want to know more about 2) something I deem to be important; that affects my life 3) something that hasn’t received much attention 4) something that has received attention but is dangerously in need of clarification – articulation is one of the gifts God has granted me; the ability to take obfuscation and make it clear. 5) something that I think people just keep getting wrong and it ticks me off. Naturally, what I am currently reading often serves as a pool from which to draw.


Where do you start your research for the topic?

I usually start with something that can give me a high level overview to provide some proverbial “hooks” on which to hang the data I find. This can be online stuff (blogs – quality ones like Euangelion, Faith and Theology, NT Gateway, etc), googling the topic, even Wikipedia sometimes. But primarily my early and middle work tends to be in finding good books first and working from their bibliographies to broaden out. I tend to avoid journal articles and dissertations till later in the process as they are normally very specialized and 1) require some degree of understanding of the topic and 2) are most helpful in clarifying fine tuned details. As I draw my own conclusions and begin to articulate them in my own words, I’ve often found it helpful to email the authors I happen to be dialoguing most with. You’d be surprised at how quickly and warmly many of them reply. For example: Scot McKnight typically responds to emails in less than 5 minutes and Greg Boyd was more than happy to engage my thinking despite the fact I told him upfront that I was actually working on a critique of his position.


While you are reading how do you record good quotations or ideas?

I’m not terribly technologically efficient on this one. 1) I read with a pen when working on a writing project and underline stuff I think is important. 2) If I want to reference something in a book for later, I dog ear the bottom of the page so I can reference it later (bibliophiles HATE me for this) 3) After finishing with the particular book, I go back through all the dog eared pages and write down anything I need to remember on a legal pad with the page number and the author’s name. 4) Once I’ve accumulated this sort of data on a decent amount of literature I start grouping it together by commonality. Actually this sort of takes place as I’m working through the process. Typically, the common headings end up becoming sections of my paper.

Granted most of this process began back when Juno was top of the line email and far before I had my Mac and Blackberry. Incredibly inefficient I know and far from exemplary, but definitely pragmatic – It works!


What order do you use in the research and writing process?

I don’t recommend my approach here, but I’ll be as candid as possible. Generally speaking, every paper I wrote in college and seminary, I pulled an all nighter on with the exception of my two papers for exegetical methods I and II (it’s impossible to write a 75+ page paper in 24 hrs for me). The way I approach writing is delay execution on the actual document until the very last minute. I’ve been using this approach, as far as I can remember, since 5th grade. At least that’s when I first remember pulling all nighters on a project and being accused of the character flaw commonly referred to as procrastination. For over a decade I wrestled with a guilty conscious exacerbated by my parents and teacher after teacher for my proclivity towards procrastination; yet I simultaneously achieved A’s on the projects that resulted from such a “character flaw. It wasn’t until grad school that I reached the self-realization moment that: 1) I work best under pressure…including the self imposed pressure of waiting till the last minute to write; and 2) I really wasn’t procrastinating. You see, I may not start writing the paper till the last possible minute, but that’s not the same as starting the paper itself the night before. I research and research and research and saturate my brain with the data and sources pertinent to the topic under consideration weeks in advance. I finally realized that if I started writing early on I’d constantly be questioning what I wrote and reconsidering how to word things (by “procrastinating” there’s no time to reconsider). Also, I felt like I might be missing some data prior to crafting my sentences. Even with the longer papers like the two for exegetical methods, I blocked out the four days before it was due and cranked it out in about 2 ½ of them. One more thing here: I always have to proofread my papers out loud with at least an hour or so break from them when I finish (the longer the better). This allows me not only to check it for grammar, spelling, etc but also to hear how it flows. Many people have said that my writing has a very conversational flow to it and in retrospect this is probably why. It has to flow; I’m very particular and intentional in crafting my syntax.

While I never failed to achieve an A under such circumstances, it must be repeated and reemphasized that I do not recommend this approach. You need to know yourself and determine what works best for you. Also, this is not something I broadcasted to a lot of folks while in school and particularly kept most of my profs in the dark about. I don’t say any of this as a boast and hope it doesn’t come across that way; if anything it took me more than a decade to recognize the fact that that’s just the way God made me.

Finally, bear in mind my context: the A’s, with a few exceptions, were not earned in a consistently rigorous academic setting. I attended NBBC (or NIU I guess…though I smirk just typing it) and CBTS. My college experience (lectures by and expectations from my profs and quality of work from my peers) was notably void of academic rigor and my seminary experience was hit or miss. Besides that, many teachers grade student papers relative to the quality of work of the rest of the class (whether consciously or not) and more often than not, the settings in which I was writing were populated by too many students with minimal intellectual interest and/or aptitude. Though that may sound arrogant to some, I assure you it actually comes out of a very humble and chastened reality. All I’m saying is: who knows if this approach would have held up as successfully had I attended Wheaton or TEDS? Maybe; maybe not. If I get into Tuft, Harvard or MIT next fall, I’ll certainly let you know if it works there too!

Boundaries and freedom

One oft-leveled attack on Christianity (or for that matter, any system of thought and authority), especially in this day of tedious identity markers ("I am a neo-Kantian through the lens of neo-Rawlsian interpretation")(groan), is something like this: "It doesn't let you be free." Free-thought is highly prized in today's intellectual economy. Not less free living. The call of a free, capitalist society, "you can be whatever you want to be" has echoed down through our vocational and fiscal choices into literally all of our other choices. For better or worse, young people today walk through a meat-market of identities and garnishes before they "pick one." Who will you be?

Now, it sounds very free and often looks very free, but is it free? Does systemized thought and cohesive identity enslave? It depends on what we mean by "free."
If by "free" we mean able, at any moment, for whatever reason, to break out of systematized thought/action and cohesive identity, then yes, avoiding systematized thought/action and cohesive identity does make us more free. Committing ourselves to anything - a religion or a square on a hopscotch court - does limit us. This is just the law of non-contradiction: a does not equal not-a. If you are a Christian you are not a Satanist. If your favorite color is blue it is not brown. If you are a communist you are not a libertarian. If you are on one of the two-legged spots on the court, you are not on one of the one-legged spots. The favorite color and the hopscotch aren't such good examples because they don't have any systematizing or identity-cohesivizing power. Long-term hobbies or much-practiced sports would better fit the point. If you want freedom in the sense of instant escape from any system of thought/action and cohesive identity, yes, avoid both. Avoid committing so you can change; and the power of freedom is change.

But if by "free" we mean being able, at any moment, for certain reasons, to take an action within systematized thought/action and cohesive identity, then avoiding those things is slavery. I can tell this is getting a little obscure so let's cut to my thesis and an illustration. (Thesis:) Truest freedom is only achieved within systematized thought/action and cohesive identity. (Illustration:) Imagine a 15-year old boy who has never had a music lesson in his life picking up a $50,000 violin. He can't read a bit of sheet music, and really all he knows about music at all is that Pharrell rocks and the Jonas Brothers suck. He picks up the violin and bow. He jams the butt under his chin and squawks a few horrible sounds out of the thing before putting it down. Then Kristen Campbell deftly plucks it from the floor and breaks into Tchaikovsky's Concerto in D major. Ah, but who has freedom? Is it that rigid musician who has subjected herself to the enslaving apparatus of systematized music? Or is it the boy who has a mind free and unhindered from all those strictures? Kristen has relentlessly behaviorized herself in music - she has trained her ear, her hands, her arms, her counting, her eyes, her chin. She has done this for thousands of hours; she has squeezed herself into the veritable mold of music. But the boy is unhindered and free and handles the violin in a manner that Kristen could not if she tried.

The point of the illustration should be apparent: freedom is defined by what we want to do. If we want to be free to handle the violin clumsily as no musician could; if we want to be able to put it down forever without a second thought, then we should avoid the systems of thought and action and cohesive identity of violinist. But if we want to be free to play on the violin music that has been recognized as great across generations and cultures, we should seek the systems of thought and action and cohesive identity of violinist. And think, is there any better live description of the term "freedom" than watching a musician whose instrument is an extension of her body, and who has played the piece 1,000 times?

Which freedom is better or more ultimately free?

There are a lot of yea-buts on this.