Notes From Juls

Encounter With an Onion

2010-12-05T12:59:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine sent me a book entitled The Supper of the Lamb, by Robert Farrar Capon. It belongs to a genre all its own, something along the lines of "theological treatise meets the cookbook." In Chapter 2, ("The First Session"), he has his reader "confront" an onion, examining, peeling, and carefully studying it in order to make various discoveries about onions and their Maker. He also uses this encounter to say the following about "place."

You have, you see, already discovered something: The uniqueness, the placiness, of places drives not from abstractions like location, but from confrontations like man-onion. Erring theologians have strayed to their graves without learning what you have come upon. They have insisted, for example, that heaven is no place because it could not be defined in terms of spatial co-ordinates. They could have written off man's eternal habitation as a "state of mind." But look what your onion has done for you: It has given you back the possibility of heaven as a place without encumbering you with the irrelevancy of locations. This meeting between the two of you could be moved to a thousand different latitudes and longitudes and still remain the session it started out to be....

...What really matters is not where we are, but who -- what real beings -- are with us."

Now compare this to an excerpt from Sinclair Ferguson's book, Grow in Grace.

The order of spiritual experience has not changed since the psalmist's day. We too need to go to the place where God has promised to meet with us. That is no longer in Jerusalem. It is in Christ. No longer in a place, but now in a person.

Back to Capon:

"In that sense, Heaven, where we see God face to face through the risen flesh of Jesus, may well be the placiest of all places, as it is the most gloriously material of all meetings."

Amen!

Sunday Reading

2009-02-22T13:42:00.001-08:00

I'm finishing up a theologically-rich book edited by John Piper entitled Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. This book has been very thought-provoking, as it has shed light on some ways in which I am tempted to think unbiblically.

Recently I encountered the question, "Did God allow it or did He plan it?" (This was concerning the birth of a child with Down Syndrome.*) Some may say that it somehow relieves God of His responsibility if He only "allows" something. This is somehow the more comforting answer for some people, but I say, "NO!" My only comfort in hard situations is the knowledge that God has indeed planned it. For only then can I know that God is working His good purpose in my life. To quote from Beyond the Bounds,

From the smallest thing to the greatest, good and evil, happy and sad,
pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure--God governs all for his wise, just, and
good purposes (Isa. 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most
clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, "Does disaster come
to a city, unless the LORD has done it? (Amos 3:6) After losing his ten
children, Job says "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the
name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). Covered with boils, he says, "Shall we receive
good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10) . . . Let us beware.
If we spare God the burden of his sovereignty, we lose our only
hope. (emphasis mine)

*I also have a child with Down Syndrome, and am so glad to know that she is not an accident. God planned, before the foundation of the world, to create her and to put her in our family. That is a true comfort during the difficult times.

Thoughts on Frankenstein

2008-11-18T07:13:00.000-08:00

I have just finished reading Frankenstein for my son's Omnibus course, and was struck by the way that the monster "fleshes out" (sorry for the pun) the Biblical doctrine of man's depravity and slavery to sin. At the end of the book, he laments:

"I knew that I was preparing for myself a deadly torture, but I was the slave, not the master, of an impulse which I detested yet could not disobey."

And earlier, he confronts his creator with these words:

"Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful
and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more
horrid even from the very resemblance."

And yet, not only is he a "filthy type" of man, he is, as Harold Bloom says in his afterword, "more human" than his creator. He is more intelligent, thinks and feels more deeply, has more appreciation for beauty, and when he falls, falls deeper. Bloom doesn't discuss the sin issue, but it is interesting to me that the creation of Shelly's imagination is still subject to the Fall. And because he is "more" of everything that we are, his fall is greater ("how the mighty are fallen").

There is no redemption in this novel; the only rest for Frankenstein and for his creature is in death. Why death would be any better than earthly life is not explained, except in portraying death as a "rest."

I really like it when I find nuggets of truth in unexpected places. In a novel such as Frankenstein, they seem more valuable because they weren't necessarily intended to be found.

Little Peep

2008-05-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

Charles discovered a baby robin the other day, followed it around, and took some pictures of it. He then drew pictures of it in his nature journal, using the pictures as a model. He named the little bird "Peep."

Look at the lizard!!!!

2008-02-12T12:32:00.000-08:00

Wordless Wednesday Post

2008-02-05T18:55:00.000-08:00

Mapwork for Beowulf

2008-01-22T12:15:00.000-08:00

Here is a list of mapwork activites that can be used when studying Beowulf. Use a map of Scandanavia, or Denmark. I like the free outline maps at the National Geographic website.

I. Find and label:

Denmark
Sweden
The Frisian (or North Frisian) Islands
Kattegat (body of water)
Kieler Bucht (body of water)
Flads River
Varde River
Islands of Fyn, Sjoelland, Lolland, and Bornholm
Copenhagen (capital of Denmark)

II. Put Beowulf on the map:

Draw a castle icon where Heorot may have been.
Label the "Land of the Geats"
Using a dotted line and ship icon, show a route that Beowulf may have taken when he voyaged from his land to the land of the Danes.
Draw a cross to show a possible burial place for Beowulf.

Have fun! I recommend using fine black marker or pencil for Part I, and colored pencils for Part II. Remember to shade bodies of water in blue, and land forms in a contrasting color.

Greek Refrigerator Magnets

2007-04-16T10:05:00.000-07:00

My children and I made these Greek alphabet refrigerator magnets out of polymer clay. We haven't found any for sale anywhere, so we're thinking of making more and selling them ourselves. They take a while to make though, so we'll see how it goes.

Why It's My Favorite

2006-08-24T12:45:00.000-07:00

Just read Jane Eyre again. (Long sigh.) It's not really the story at all that I love, though it's a great one; it's the thoughts that Jane has. She's so real. She is a flesh-and-blood Christian woman trying to make her way in the world. What's so novel about this novel is that Jane talks to God and thinks about God as a person, not an idea. Christianity for her is truly a relationship. Modern "Christian" romances throw this terminology around all over the place, talking about relationships with Jeus, etc., but for Jane to remember God when her life is falling apart, in such a personal way, is new for the 19th century. Bronte did it much better than Oake, et. al. do.

I've gotta run -- wanted to say more, but don't have time. This is why my blogs are so few and far between (5 kids will do that to a woman).

Oliver: Too Good to be True?

2006-08-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

At our last meeting, we were talking about how Dickens portrayed Oliver. Did he actually believe someone could be that good? Or, was he presenting us with a caricature of an innocent child, in danger of being corrupted?

In defense of Dickens' orthodoxy, I found two excerpts that might shed light on this. First of all, it looks like Oliver is meant to symbolize what is good and pure. From the "Author's Introduction to the Third Edition" I quote: "I wished to show, in little Oliver, the principle of Good surviving through every adverse circumstance, and triumphing at last..."

Secondly, Rose acknowledges the source of Oliver's goodness when she says of him "He is a child of a noble nature and a warm heart...and that Power which has thought fit to try him beyond his years has planted in his breast affections and feelings which would do honour to many who have numbered his days six times over."

In light of this, Dickens' original title, The Parish Boy's Progress makes sense. Here is a boy who tirumphs over evil. Yes, he is helped and rescued from harm, (as is Bunyan's Christian), but by the grace of God he stays on the path. Looking at it this way, I have a hard time agreeing with Susan Wise Bauer that that title would have been used satirically, but then, I haven't been agreeing with her that much lately anyway.

Thoughts, anyone?

Postmodern Jane Austen

2006-04-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, my husband and I watched the recently released Pride and Prejudice on DVD (Kiera Knightley, Donald Sutherland, etc.) I enjoyed it, but with this nagging feeling that something wasn't quite right (besides the fact Kiera's performance was not convincing to me). The "problem" was so subtle I almost missed it.

When checking out the Bonus Features, I took a look at the "Bennett Family Portrait." That's where it hit me. As several of the actors described the characters they were playing, I realized I was hearing a new, sort of humanistic twist on each of the characters. Mrs. Bennett is actually quite a heroic figure because she gives her all to save her daughters from poverty; Mr. Bennett loves all of his daughters so affectionately and would do anything for them. The family is happy, etc. etc.

Thinking back on the film after seeing this bonus clip, I remembered some scenes that illustrated this view. At the ball, after Mr. Bennett stops Mary from playing another tune on the pianoforte (and embarrassing her by doing so), you see him searching her out and consoling her as she weeps on his shoulder. This does not happen in the book.
Lydia, after getting married to Wickham, has none of the self-importance she portrays in the book -- merely a tragic sort of adoration for her new husband.
Mrs. Bennett's comments are toned down, especially her rudeness to Mr. Darcy and her favoritism toward Lydia.

So what you get is less of a moral story. When you read the book, or see the BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, you see the good, the bad and the ugly. Some characters struggle with faults and are aware of them (Darcy -- his temper and pride). Some characters discover their errors a bit late (maybe too late?), but repent nevertheless (Mr. Bennett- his neglect of his family). Others are entirely blind to their own hypocrisies (Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Collins). You see human beings in various stages of both ruin and redemption.

The new movie takes all of that away, leaving you with basically one message: that one should be careful not to form opinions of others too hastily. Everyone has a good side and just needs to be understood. We're all just trying to make it in this world full of pain, etc. etc. Even the soundtrack plays this up, with its melancholy melody.

I still think it's a good movie for many reasons. Being faithful to the book is not one of them. Did the director read the book? I can't help but wonder.

You'll never believe who said this!

2004-10-20T13:00:00.000-07:00

I love studing history! Just today, I came across these comments from a historical figure who lived in the 18th century. I'd love to see some guesses as to who penned these thoughts. I'll post the answer in a day or two.

I firmly believe it requires but a little philosophy to make a man happy in whatsoever state he is. This consists in a full resignation to the will of Providence, and a resigned soul finds pleasure in a path strewed with briers and thorns.
Need another clue? Here's one more quote:
"In this situation I was constantly exposed to danger and death. How unhappy such a situation for a man tormented with fear, which is vain if no danger comes, and if it does, only augments the pain! It was my happiness to be destitute of this afflicting passion, with which I had the greatest reason to be affected. The prowling wolves diverted my nocturnal hours with perpetual howlings, and the various species of animals in this vast forest, in the daytime, were continually in my view."
Happy guessing!
P.S. How do I get back to the left margin? Everytime I do a block quote, it's indented more than the last time. Help!

At Least They Get Some Interaction

2004-10-20T08:28:00.000-07:00

I was getting my teeth cleaned by a new hygienist, and, typical of dental workers, she was asking me questions about myself that I could barely answer, being that her hands were in my mouth. Anyway, she asked how many children I had (4), and if I was a stay-at-home mom (yes), and then, if I homeschooled (yes). "Is there an organization for homeschoolers?" she continued. I told her about the myriad of options, both at the state and national level, as well as the local groups sponsored by many churches. "That's good," she said. "At least they get some interaction." I had to let it go. After all, I was at a great disadvantage, only being able to utter a few syllables at a time. But what in the world did she mean? Well, I guess I know what she meant, but how is it that people think that the larger the group of children, the better the interaction? When you're at a party, or a restaurant, or the neighborhood pool, how many people can you relate to at once? With how many people can you have a good conversation at one time? 25? And remember your childhood? Which field trips were the most fun and interesting -- the ones where you were herded about in a large group, or the ones where you got to explore on your own, or get personalized attention? Anyway, I just need to vent a little. Five years ago, I would have needed to vent a lot more. Now, I'm more amused than anything, and feel a little sorry for this 50-something-year-old married woman with no children of her own who means well.

How thick is a Rhino's skin?

2004-10-12T19:00:00.000-07:00

I had just finished reading aloud a chapter from The Princess and the Goblin when my son S asked, "Mom, do rhinoceroses have thick skin?" What a mental leap! "Yes," I answered, wondering where this was going, not to mention where it came from. "If you shot two flaming poisonous arrows into it, would it die?" was his next query. Hmmm. Any rhino experts out there?

Edwards on Calvinism

2004-10-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

I've been reading a biography of Jonathan Edwards, and was very interested to find out his change of belief regarding the doctrines of predestination and election as he grew spiritually. Quoting from Ian Murray's biography, which is quoting Edwards' Personal Narrative:

"From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine
of God's sovereignty in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and
rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be
everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine
to me,"

and later, after coming to a new conviction on the subject:

"But I have often, since that first conviction, had quite another kind of sense of God's sovereignty than I had then. I have often since had not only a conviction, but a delightful conviction...Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so."

So what produced this change? It is what Ian Murray describes as the "Valley of Humiliation" in Edwards' life. Quoting again from Murray:

"He learned by experience, as others had done before him, that while those who have little awareness of the real nature of sin may assert man's ability to repent and believe, . . . those who know the true condition of human nature (italics mine) can find comfort only in the knowledge that God saves by his sovereign good pleasure adn for the praise of the glory of his grace. . . Men must be saved by sovereign mercy or not at all."