Editing and The Chicago Manual of Style

I have a copy of The Chicago Manual of Style, so that's the one I'm using.  The SBL manual might be more useful for a theology paper, but I don't have a copy.

In any case, the possible ways of referring to books cited in the text are so complicated that I despair of mastering them.  Today I changed, for about the third time, the way of citing a chapter that has an author different from the author or editor/s of the book in which it occurs.  Navigating The Chicago Manual surely competes in complexity with navigating the city itself.

Editing

I'm editing today, working on the Ph.D. thesis of a friend.  It's about the political theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, and a very interesting work it is!  It reflects on Niebuhr's use of Augustine's City of God, so I'm getting insights into that work, too.

Today the surroundings are Atlanta Bread Company (read "great pastries, okay coffee") and music provided by Pandora.com, specifically my JSBach channel, so I'm getting music like Dietrich Buxtehude's Sonata for 2 violins, viola da gamba, & harpsichord in C major.  Rock on!

Sermons in Ecclesiastes

We're getting sermons in Ecclesiastes at church (City Presbyterian Church, Denver) these days.  This is one of my favorite books for the following reasons:

1) It affirms the good things of creation as good--wine, women, wisdom, material wealth, building, careers, learning, etc.
2) It admits that pursuing these good things for their own sakes satisfies the pursuer for only a limited time.
3) It expounds the inner hunger that we all have for a significance that goes deeper than self-indulgence, and for a meaning that lasts beyond death.
4) Its continuing theme of vanity "under the sun" points us to a world that transcends this one as the place to seek that deeper and more lasting satisfaction.
5) It eventually focuses on the (relatively) humble goal of taking satisfaction in good work, loved ones, and faithfulness to God, which
6) leads us to look to Jesus here and now for using well the good gifts we have from God and living within a lasting sense of significance and satisfaction in him.

Knowing the outline does not, of course, make following it easy.  Having a map doesn't smooth out the terrain, but it does help us detect false paths.

112th birthday of Jorge Luis Borges

Happy birthday, sir!  Google celebrates today with the following image:

"Utterly Empty"?

Dr. Danny Carroll preached at City Presbyterian Church (Denver) today.  He teaches Old Testament at Denver Seminary, and I'm always glad to hear his expositions of Scripture.  Today he preached from Ecclesiastes 1:12-14 and 3:1-15.

Along the way he made the point that the meaninglessness that so harshly oppresses the author is in fact part of the meaning of life.  That is, since God "has also set eternity in the human heart" (3:11), no non-eternal pursuit can fill that spot.  Only God himself can fill it.  Thus this ache at our inability to satisfy that hunger is itself a window on what our lives mean and where we are headed.

I wonder how well the maxim, "The journey is the destination," fits that perspective.

Sunday's Coming

This isn't new, but it still amuses:     Sunday's Coming

“Why a Death?” A Meditation for Good Friday, 2011

(Sorry for being so late in posting this.)

            Some people think that re-reading a novel is pointless, since you already know the ending.  But some novels are so well written that part of the joy and profit in reading them is to watch the story go by again, to get to know the characters better, to relish the insights the author has in what it means to be human.

            We revisit Good Friday each year for similar reasons.  We know that Easter is coming, but want and need to see the day of crucifixion again, to understand it better, and to be shaped by it.  We mustn’t undercut the seriousness or darkness of the day.  But neither can we understand the day if we try to see it apart from the resurrection.

How ought/must/can one pursue theology? From where you are.

This question has several important answers, all of which help me to see more clearly, all of which strengthen my hand, all of which help me to be more faithful.

Tonight's answer:  You can only pursue theology from where you are.  [Tonight's answer is dedicated to Shane Goodwin.]

Perfectionism

I am tempted to write blogs by sketching them out in a MSWord document first, then editing, letting it sit, polishing, rewriting, then finally posting after it's perfect.  Writing immediately onto the blog puts one in danger of mistakes.  Even my edit-as-you-go mode does not catch all mistakes, especially the mistakes of tone and nuance.

Perfectionism is one of the temptations that will appear in other essays, but it also deserves a place of its own.  "Write nothing until you know everything about the topic, then write with perfect clarity, balance, precision, and thoroughness."  That's the voice that keeps one from writing at all.

The Authority of the Bible (a lecture given Feb. 24, 2011)

… the highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks in it. … Yes, if we turn pure eyes and upright senses toward it, the majesty of God will immediately come to view, subdue our bold rejection, and compel us to obey.

Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.7.4 (pp. 78, 79)

This is why we believe the Bible. The Holy Spirit has so worked on our hearts and minds that we hear “God in person” speaking in it. This is also why we continue to believe the Bible, why we go back to it again and again, why we respect and maybe even fear the Bible a little.

To define more tightly what it is that we believe about the Bible, we ask what is the over-all message and gist of the Bible, or does it even have one?

Yes, the Bible does have very strong themes common to every book in it. The strongest theme, and the one that ties together the whole book, is the message of God with us. The Old Testament has a great variety, containing law, history, lyric poetry, erotic poetry, moral tracts, and love stories. And all of them depend on the theme that God is with his people, providing for them both materially and spiritually. The book of Exodus, for example, describes God’s deliverance of his people from slavery in Egypt. Psalm 23 describes God’s care for the individual believer. Even Job, who cries out, “Why have you made my your target, so that I am a burden to myself?” (7:20), is troubled precisely because he knows God to be good and just and loving: “But as for me, I would seek God, and I would place my cause before God, who does great and unsearchable things, wonders without number” (5:8). God’s message in the Old Testament is that he makes for himself a people, that he is with his people, and that he rescues them from their trouble.

When we get to the New Testament we find much the same message, but it centers on the person Jesus the Messiah, who is God with us.

Comparing Barth to Packer

I read books by J. I. Packer long before I read Barth, and his work was an important component of learning to think through theological issues, including doctrine of Scripture.

Comments on C.D., I/1, §2

§2.1

The first half of the section seems to consist largely in Barth’s reaction against some of his contemporaries, especially Brunner,

A condensation of C.D., I/1, §2

§02 The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics

1. The Necessity of Dogmatic Prolegomena

Prolegomena are the discussions and expositions of how knowledge is attained in a science. Here we ask on what ground dogmatic prolegomena are necessary. 

Can Non-believers Do Theology?

Let me turn that question around: Can non-believers not do theology? If Jesus is “before all things and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:17), then how can any act or statement avoid having its existence in relation, one way or another, to Jesus Christ? If “sin” as such is not just transgression of a moral code, but the acts and attitudes of rebellion against God, then how can they not also be theological statements about the nature of the world and one’s independence from and opposition to whatever “gods” might be out there?

Blogging Barth

Several people are blogging through Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics I/1 in six months! Daniel Kirk instigated this project and has the list of bloggers on his web site, Storied Theology.

Summary of content:

§01 The Task of Dogmatics

1. The Church, Theology, Science

Dogmatics is theology as a science, i.e., as the Church’s self-examination of its speech about Jesus Christ. Like other sciences, it has a definite object of knowledge, it treads a definite path of knowledge, and it must give an account of this path to itself and to others. Although the label “science” is not necessary or especially important, we claim it because we thus 1) bring theology into line with other human concerns for truth, 2) protest the usual pagan concept of science, and 3) reckon the other sciences as part of the Church in spite of their protests.

2. Dogmatics as an Enquiry

We presuppose that dogmatics as enquiry is both possible and necessary. I.e., we can know the true content of Christian talk about God because Jesus Christ is the revealing and reconciling address of God to us. And that content must be known humanly, i.e., in creaturely form which is never clear and unambiguous. Thus dogmatics is always humble and always having to make a fresh start. The Church is challenged to know itself and to ask what to say today.

3. Dogmatics as an Act of Faith

Dogmatics is impossible except as an act of faith in obedience to Jesus Christ. Since faith is God’s gracious address to man, then by presupposing faith dogmatics also presupposes at every step God’s free grace, which he may at any time give or refuse. Thus we can only proceed by saying, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

Note on translation:

The paragraph at the bottom of p. 13 begins, “2. Dogmatics as an enquiry presupposes that the true content of Christian talk about God must be known by men.” I found this confusing, since the ensuing paragraph does not explain why men have to know the content of Christian talk about God. But the G. T. Thompson translation ends the sentence, “… must be known humanly,” i.e., we can’t know it in any other way than in a human mode of enquiry. The ensuing paragraph makes more sense with this beginning.

At times like this I wish I had a copy of the German.

Comments:

From the beginning of section 1 Barth displays the resiliency of a theology that is truly and thoroughly based on God’s revelation of himself to us in Jesus Christ.

Is theology a science? Who cares what scientists think? Their concept of science is pagan, their certainty is quasi-religious, and their Aristotelian tradition is only one among others. And we only call theology a science as a favor to them! LOL!