Monthly Archives: November 2011

Bearing the image of God and the name of Christ

5. “Is our representation of Christ not part of the mission?” This final question aptly summarizes the biggest criticism we’ve seen to our book (we”ll say more about this concern tomorrow). Trevin probably speaks for others when he says, “DeYoung and Gilbert believe we must represent Christ, but it seems like they connect this representation so tightly to verbal proclamation of the gospel that little room is left for representing Christ through love and good deeds.” Later he concludes, “Christ-likeness is a part of the mission, and we cannot and should not separate proclamation of Christ from the representation of Christ we offer through our acts of service.” Let us reiterate: we believe with all our hearts and preach it from our pulpits with passion that Christians must live lives of love and good deeds. Holiness (in all its public and private expressions) is irrefutably, indispensably, and irreducibly part of being a follower of Jesus Christ. It’s one of the reasons God chose us and saved us (Eph. 1:4).

But what does it mean to say our good deeds “represent” Christ? We aren’t sure if Trevin is saying: we demonstrate what it means to have Christ in us, or that we re-present Christ in the world, or both. We agree with the first option, but don’t see in the New Testament that we are supposed to be incarnations of Christ’s presence in the world (again, we aren’t sure that’s what Trevin is suggesting). More to the point, we wonder what it means that “Christ-likeness is a part of the [church’s] mission.” If this means our good works adorn the gospel and win a hearing for the gospel then we totally agree. But we do not think Jesus sends the church as church into the world to adopt schools, remedy unemployment, make a contribution to the arts, or plant trees (which is not what Trevin says here, but what we have heard others say and are arguing against in our book). We have many good things to do as Christians and many good things we could do, but everything good does not equal the mission of the church.

via Some Answers to Some Nagging Questions | 9Marks.

I’m completely sympathetic to asking the question “what does it mean to say our good deeds ‘represent’ Christ?”–but there is no question that an answer must be sought because the Bible unambiguously supports Trevin’s position.

First, lets point out that representation is tightly related to being an image-bearer. That puts us back at creation: humanity is created in the image of God and humanity’s progressive dominion is representative of God himself.

Second, that image-bearing is restored in Christ who is the image and representative of the Father.

Third, we thus have the Church as the light doing her mission simply by being light:

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

“Awake, O sleeper,

and arise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

The exposure here is not any kind of mission to reveal what evil is (Paul rules that out as “shameful”) but rather simply a life that transforms the world because it represents God and is used by Christ to end darkness.

I think asking “what kind of works” should be done or encouraged in the Church is a worthwhile discussion. Maybe some strategies are problematic. But the simple claim that our good works represent Christ and are part of the Church’s kingdom-building mission should not be controversial.

Note: as much as I appreciate Ed Stetzer’s link, my last post was not a review of any book but an interaction with blog posts. Same here.

The Omni/Prayer Pardox — a practical problem

Leave a reply

And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

via Luke 18 – ESVBible.org.

It really struck me, listening to sermon yesterday, that I need to pray more often and more passionately. So I’ve decided to do so.

But this parable was mentioned in a way that really brought home why, 1) some Christians find it difficult to pray often, and 2) when they do pray tend not to express their feelings about the issues in their lives that they are praying about.

The issue is simply this: the same belief that God is omnipotent and can do what we ask leads us to find it impossible to imagine that God can be “worn down” by our prayers. Why ask more than once? If God says “No” the first time, what could possibly change?

We infer from omnipotence that God is impervious.

We don’t pray as much as we should and when we do pray no one would ever guess it is to the same God who inspired the Psalms of David.

And I really don’t have much of an answer for how to handle this.

But two thoughts come to mind and I’ll throw them out for what they might be worth.

ONE: God seems more interested that we grow to trust in his empathy for us than in our belief that he is omnipotent.

I don’t mean that “omnipotence” is less important. I mean that it is actually the easier claim to believe. The other belief is a much more difficult one for us to hold to in sincerity. Notice that the challenge of the parable is to ask the disciples not whether or not God is able to deliver but whether or not he is willing.

TWO: We learn to pray from examples and practice, not from premisses by which we deduce how we should behave.

A bare belief in God’s omnipotence simply does not automatically deliver the prayer life of David or anyone else int he Bible. And teaching the proposition is not going to lead to right worship or prayer. You have to look at what God upholds as a healthy prayer life and you have to emulate it. You have to show it to your children and/or anyone else you are discipling. Just telling people God can do anything and that we have access to ask him for what we want will not be enough.

“What is that to you?” is a profound biblical principle. “Each servant answers to his own master” is another expression of the same principle. Meddling in the affairs of others without scriptural warrant is not just wrong on the face of it, but it also is the reason why many Christians fail to meddle in their own affairs. When we take up something we shouldn’t, it is often because we want to be occupied so that we don’t have to take up something we should.

Objections crowd into our minds. Shouldn’t we be loving each other? Yes, of course, the way the Bible says to. As C.S. Lewis once memorably put it, don’t let your loved ones be recognizable by their hunted expression. So here is the Pauline principle again—tend to your own knitting. (via Tend To Your Own Knitting.)

Calvin knew that money wasn’t “sterile”

Leave a reply

Over time, however, Christians grew more careful in defining usury. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) defined usury as “nothing else than gain or profit drawn from the use of a thing that is by its nature sterile, a profit acquired without labor, costs, or risk.” This meant that if the lender lent money with labor, cost, or risk to himself he could charge interest without being guilty of usury. Likewise, Calvin talked about acceptable and unacceptable kinds of usury. Making money off the poor is one thing, but “if we have to do with the rich, that usury is freely permitted.” Surely, he argues, “usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal, to compensate his loss.” In short, “reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception” (Commentary on Exodus).

via Is It Wrong to Charge Interest on a Loan? – Kevin DeYoung.

This is an excellent summary by Pastor Kevin DeYoung. But I want to point out that Calvin was a more revolutionary thinker on the issue. Here is what an economist (one hostile to Calvinism and to Calvin especially) had to say about Calvin’s economic reasoning about interest:

Calvin’s main contribution to the usury question was in having the courage to dump the prohibition altogether. This son of an important town official had only contempt for the Aristotelian argument that money is sterile. A child, he pointed out, knows that money is only sterile when locked away somewhere; but who in their right mind borrows to keep money idle? Merchants borrow in order to make profits on their purchases, and hence money is then fruitful. As for the Bible, Luke’s famous injunction only orders generosity towards the poor, while Hebraic law in the Old Testament is not binding in modern society. To Calvin, then, usury is perfectly licit, provided that it is not charged in loans to the poor, who would be hurt by such payment. Also, any legal maximum of course must be obeyed. And finally, Cal vin maintained that no one should function as a professional money-lender.

So Calvin was much better than the Lateran Council, which looks rather superstitious when compared to him. And, if Calvin could be improved upon, then other Calvinists did so.

The honour of putting the final boot to the usury prohibition belongs to the seventeenth century classicist and Dutch Calvinist, Claude Saumaise (latinized name, Claudius Salmasius) (1588-1653). In several works published in Leyden, beginning with De usuris tiber in 1630 and continuing to 1645, Salmasius finished off this embarrassing remnant of the mountainous errors of the past. His forte was not so much in coining new theoretical arguments as in finally willing to be consistent. In short, Salmasius trenchantly pointed out that money-lending was a business like any other, and like other businesses was entitled to charge a market price. He did make the important theoretical point, however, that, as in any other part of the market, if the number of usurers multiplies, the price of money or interest will be driven down by the competition. So that if one doesn’t like high interest rates, the more usurers the better!

Salmasius also had the courage to point out that there were no valid arguments against usury, either by divine or natural law. The Jews only prohibited usury against other Jews, and this was a political and tribal act rather than an expression of a moral theory about an economic transaction. As for Jesus, he taught nothing at all about civil polity or economic transactions. This leaves the only ecclesiastical law against usury that of the pope, and why should a Calvinist obey the pope? Salmasius also took some deserved whacks at the evasions permeating the various scholastic justifications, or ‘extrinsic titles’, justifying interest. Let’s face it, Salmasius in effect asserted: what the canonists and scholastics ‘took away with one hand, they restored with the other’. The census is really usury, foreign exchange is really usury, lucrum cessans is really usury. Usury all, and let them all be licit. Furthermore, usury is always charged as compensation for something, in essence the lack of use of money and the risk of loss in a loan.

Salmasius also had the courage to take the hardest case: professional money-lending to the poor, and to justify that. Selling the use of money is a business like any other. If it is licit to make money with things bought with money, why not from money itself? As Noonan paraphrases Salmasius, ‘The seller of bread is not required to ask if he sells it to a poor man or a rich man. Why should the moneylender have to make a distinction?’ And: ‘there is no fraud or theft in charging the highest market price for other goods; why is it wrong for the usurer to charge the heaviest usuries he can collect?’

Empirically, Salmasius also analysed the case of public usurers in Amsterdam (the great commercial and financial centre of the seventeenth century, replacing Antwerp of the previous century), showing that the usual 16 per cent charge on small loans to the poor is accounted for by: the costs of the usurers borrowing their own money, of holding some money idle, of renting a large house, of absorbing some losses on loans, of paying licence fees, hiring employees, and paying an auctioneer. Deducting all these expenses, the average net interest rate of the money-lenders is only 8 per cent, barely enough to keep them in business.

Of course, I hate the way this stuff is misused to justify consumer debt, but it is still quite right and it shows that Calvinists have nothing to be embarrassed about when they refuse to condemn the practice of lending money at interest.

Compound entropy of the mind.

Leave a reply

The problem with being poor is that you can’t afford to fix things and you can’t afford to buy things that don’t need fixing.

In this environment, every “entropic event”–the car/refrigerator/furnace breakdown, is a multiplying event in the mind. Any thing that goes wrong is a representation of a myriad of potential and imagined possibilities of like kind.

Each thing that goes requires repair brings into view all the other things that might or could conceivably go wrong. Each says to you, “Our name is Legion for we are many.” You wish you could ask for terms of surrender but the war never ends.

“Merely external” comments on 1 Corinthians 12

Leave a reply

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with ~~Christ~~ [Note: Paul must have originally written “the Church” and the transcribers accidentally blasphemed]. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit [if we are among the truly regenerate].

For the body does not consist of one member but of many [though there are “visible” members that really don’t belong to the body even though they seem attached]. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body [unless he is not elect in which case he actually is right to say he is not part of the body]. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body [unless he is not elect in which case he actually is right to say he is not part of the body]. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” [but if he doubts whether the hand really belongs to the body, that’s just fine] nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” [but if he doubts the feet are truly feet, that’s just fine] On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are ~~indispensable~~ [he meant to say, “unregenerate”], and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater ~~honor~~ [he meant to write, “condemnation”], and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another [once they have assured themselves that the others are really regenerate]. If one member suffers, ~~all suffer together~~ [“the others can find fault”]; if one member is honored, ~~all rejoice together~~ [“the others search for the heresy he is preaching”].

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it [except for those of you who don’t belong].

Is speech about “building the kingdom” some kind of theological sin?

Leave a reply

In Daniel 2, Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s vision and tells him that the kingdom of God is represented in his dream as a stone not cut by human hands.

So if there is some exegetical case to be made that the Bible never speaks of “building the kingdom,” I’m all for letting the Bible teach us how to speak.

But I get the impression that there is a theological or even soteriological criticism being made here. To speak of “building the kingdom” is to claim a place for human works or efforts that denies the exclusive power and work of God.

I remain open to a full exegetical study of how the Bible speaks of human work and the kingdom, but I do think the “theological litmus test” objection is sub-Biblical.

1. If Paul’s own afflictions can fill up what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions, then how can it be a problem to speak of the efforts of redeemed humans to build the kingdom?

So Paul says,

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Colossians 1.24).

And we say, “You need to be careful to not think that your own efforts, forgiven by God in Christ and given by the Spirit though they may be, have anything to do with building the kingdom of God.” That makes sense?

2. If it is theologically OK to speak of building the church, how can it be theologically problematic to speak of building the kingdom?

Again, Paul says,

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple (from 1 Corinthian 3).

So God’s efforts are primary (“but God gave the growth” etc) but none of this means that Paul can’t call himself a “skilled master builder” who “laid a foundation.” Each one, he says “builds on the foundation” and does so by “work” [!] that “will become manifest” in judgment. We even get paid “wages” [!!] for our “labor.”

And yet we act like this is the key to Protestant discernment!

Fearing where I might go, I will end this post without describing the intellectual milieu of Protestant scholarship in popular Evangelical preaching and publishing as found in the Reformed tradition, that allows for this sort of thing. May God remember my labors for his kingdom!

Training, inducting; not just transmitting verbal information

Leave a reply

On Tuesday, Trevin Wax put forth “five nagging questions” about our book What Is the Mission of the Church? Kevin and I both know and like Trevin. He is a friend. We are glad he has gently raised some concerns with our book; we’d like to gently answer and correct his concerns. We hope to provide a lengthier response to some of the critical reviews out there in the coming weeks. But for now Kevin and I want to provide a brief response to each of Trevin’s nagging questions. The following is from both of us.

*******

1. “Can we reduce ‘making disciples’ and ‘teaching Christ’s commands’ to the delivery of information?” Trevin argues that disciple making is more than verbal teaching. It also involves modeling and mentoring. So doesn’t the Great Commission implicitly include loving our neighbor and our work in the world? Of course, Trevin is right that people learn by watching and partnering, not just by listening. We fully support Christian lawyers (or artists or politicians or computer programmers) coming alongside Christian lawyers to teach, model, and mentor what it looks like to be a Christian lawyer. Some congregations may even facilitate such opportunities, and rightly so. And yet, in the Great Commission texts the disciple making work is described as teaching, testifying, or bearing witness. And in Acts we see the mission of the church described not as Christians faithfully living out their vocations but as the word being verbally proclaimed. When Jesus sent his disciples into the world it was to speak. This proclamation was never thought to be the mere “delivery of information.” It was a saving, powerful message to be delivered on God’s behalf with Christ’s authority.

via Some Answers to Some Nagging Questions | 9Marks.

ON THE CONTRARY, I REPLY:

First: The Great Commission doe not describe disciple-making as “teaching, testifying, or bearing witness,” but as baptizing and teaching (in that order, for what it is worth, though I’m not sure how much that might or might not be).

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, by teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

(Note, I am taking both participles as instrumental because “teaching” is obviously instrumental to discipleship, as all agree; and thus must also be “baptizing” as a parallel verb to “teaching.”)

So it is not simply teaching, but induction into a community through a tactile ritual that is right at the heart of the Great Commission.

And the book of Acts shows exactly the same thing.

Second, in the book of Acts, the Word of the Lord is not simply the message, but the community of Christ, the Church. Acts 6.7:

And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

The growth of the Church is describes as the growth of the word of God. The community embodies the word as epistles written on flesh instead of stone (Second Corinthians 3.2-3). We see this again in Acts 12.24:

the word of God increased and multiplied

Meaning, of course, that the Church increased and multiplied (compare 1 Corinthians 12.12, where the Church is called “Christ”). There are a couple of other passages that might bear the same meaning, but it is uncertain:

And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. (Acts 13.49)

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily (Acts 19.11-20)

Thus Paul, we see in Acts 20, recalls his ministry as preaching but also modeling and mentoring:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Obviously, the word is central in this description. But just as obviously the alleged “preaching” of that word would have been an empty sign without a life lived among the people embodying the word of God.

And so Paul describes his own ministry and what should be the ministry of his disciples:

Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. (from Philippians 3)

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come (from 1 Thessalonians 1).

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living (from 2 Thessalonians 3).

Finally, read what Paul wrote to Timothy and ask yourself if Paul, as he asks Timothy to “train” himself, was not also trained by Paul. And is he not asking Timothy to “train” others?

If you put these things before the brothers,you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive,because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Is this not about “modeling and mentoring”? Does not Paul want Timothy to faithfully live out his vocation so that others will do the same in their various vocatiosn to glorify God and impact others? Is this not what Paul was recorded as doing in Acts? And is it not exactly what the Great Commission is about?

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you

The gods who are immortal are not vexed because during so long a time they must tolerate continually men such as they are and so many of them bad; and besides this, they also take care of them in all ways. But thou, who art destined to end so soon, art thou wearied of enduring the bad, and this too when thou art one of them?

It is a ridiculous thing for a man not to fly from his own badness, which is indeed possible, but to fly from other men’s badness, which is impossible…

When thou hast done a good act and another has received it, why dost thou look for a third thing besides these, as fools do, either to have the reputation of having done a good act or to obtain a return? (via The Internet Classics Archive | The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.)

Another blogger reviews my book

Leave a reply

I was particularly interested in the amazing story of how the Middle Earth books became such big “hits.” It turns out to be a far more complex story than I would have guessed. Not at all how I suppose a series like Rowling’s Harry Potter series is achieved these days. Without Tolkien though, I wonder how the fantasy market would look today.

Read the whole revew: Book Review: J.R.R. Tolkien (biography by Mark Horne) – CORYBANTER II: babble and banter, bypassing banality.