Eternal Perspectives

From David E. Garland’s comments on 1 Cor 1.10 in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

To be ‘in the same mind’ (en to auto noï) refers to a Christian mind-set that may include being able to judge ‘what distinguishes good and right from what is evil and wrong’ (Edwards 1885:17). To be ‘in the same purpose’ (en te aute gnome) refers to having the same goals and opinion about the truth.

As Garland notes, it is instructive that Paul, in addressing the factions that had arisen in the Corinthian church, argues theologically and does not rely on his apostolic authority.

Would that all of us might be in the same mind regarding what is right and what is wrong, and that we would all have the same goals – submission and obedience – as well as the same opinion – that the Bible is God’s revelation and is true as he is true – about it.

Someone else has said it better than I ever could. Ever think or feel this way about your own church?

[S]tatus was tied to a variety of factors: ‘occupational prestige, income or wealth, education and knowledge, religious purity, family and ethnic group position, and local-community status . . .’

‘Most individuals tend to measure themselves by the standards of some group that is very important to them – their reference group, whether or not they belong to it – rather than by the standards of the whole society.’ One could possess high status according to certain markers but low status when it came to others, creating a status dissonance that fed an internal restlessness and a greater desire to achieve the dignitas that one believed was one’s due’

[It involves] schmoozing, massaging a superior’s ego, rubbing shoulders with the powerful, pulling strings, scratching each other’s back, and dragging rivals’ names through the mud . . .

Most, if not all, of the problems . . . were hatched from the influence of this setting. Values that were antithetical to the message of the cross – particularly those related to honor and status . . . in which power manifesting itself in ruthlessness and self-advancement is thought to be the only sensible course – percolated into the church, destroying its fellowship and its Christian witness as some members sought to balance civic norms with Christian norms . . . Socially pretentious and self-important individuals appear to have dominated the church. It is likely that they flaunted their symbols of status, wisdom, influence, and family pedigree and looked down on others of lesser status. They appear to have wanted to preserve the social barriers of class and status that permeated their social world but were nullified in the cross of Christ.”

Apparently, they have no religious scruples about being well integrated into a pagan society that is inherently hostile to the wisdom of the cross. . . . Their faith appears not to have created any significant social and moral realignment of their lives. They face little or no social ostracism, and the lack of external pressure contributes to their internal dissension.

‘The church is not a cohesive community but a club, whose meetings provide important moments of spiritual insight and exaltation, but do not have global implications of moral and social change.’

This is not a description of any present-day church but of the church in Corinth to which Paul wrote his letters. It is taken from David Garland’s introduction to 1 Corinthians in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; he quotes from Meeks, Stansbury, and Barclay in the sections above.

In a sense, however, it is a present-day and any-day church: what was true of people then is true of people now and in the future. The struggles of sinful people then remain the struggles for all of us in our own lives and churches, and the solutions proffered by Paul remain the solutions that we need to implement today.

You have to love the irony and justice found within the pages of our holy Scriptures.

Consider the following: In the account found in 2 Samuel, David has been forced to flee the city of Jerusalem because of the insurrection led by his son Absalom. The writer says,

Then King David reached Bahurim. There a man from Saul’s extended family named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached. He threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the people and the soldiers who were on his right and on his left.

As he yelled curses, Shimei said, “Leave! Leave! You man of bloodshed, you wicked man! The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule. Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed!”

Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head!”

But the king said, “What do we have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this?’” Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, “My own son, my very own flesh and blood, is trying to take my life. So also now this Benjaminite! Leave him alone so that he can curse, for the Lord has spoken to him. Perhaps the Lord will notice my affliction and this day grant me good in place of his curse.” – 2 Sam 16.5-12 (NET)

David’s sensitivity to God and his restraint in not presuming to know the purposes of God are a reflection of both his humility and his patience. It is too easy for many of us to react or respond inappropriately when we feel we have been attacked unjustly. Like David, we do not feel we have done anything wrong; perhaps, unlike David, we too often defend ourselves or rebuke the other person for their words or deeds.

Not so with David. He knew his limitations and did not jump to any conclusions about the work of God in his life. This was not easy for, as the text continues, the assault was on-going:

So David and his men went on their way. But Shimei kept going along the side of the hill opposite him, yelling curses as he threw stones and dirt at them. The king and all the people who were with him arrived exhausted at their destination, where David refreshed himself.” – 2 Sam 16.13-14

It is hard to miss David’s humility and patience.

It might, however, be easy to miss the conclusion to the matter. That comes years later when David is near death and is passing the scepter of the kingdom to his son, Solomon. In giving advice and instruction to his son, David says,

Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim. He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’ But now don’t treat him as if he were innocent. You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death.”

“Make sure he has a bloody death.” Forgive me, but I cannot help but smile at David’s words. There is a sweetness to the justice of God that is sometimes overlooked as we read the stories of the Old Testament. David was careful not to think he knew the mind of God in the matter of Shimei. Once he had seen God’s activity and recognized his vindication of his rule, however, David did not allow the sin to go unpunished.

David had an awareness of the special position he occupied in God’s purposes for Israel: he knew he, like Saul before him, was God’s anointed. As such, he was to be respected and treated with honor. His actions against Shimei were not those of a personal vendetta – if that were the case, he would have done something earlier when Abishai sought permission to separate Shimei’s head from his body. No, David’s action was because of Shimei’s offense towards God’s anointed leader of his people.

Personal insults should and must be overlooked, but would that we all had the passion and zeal of David for the institutions, words, and things of God.

Dr Albert Mohler has an interesting piece on Richard Dawkins and his defense of cultural Christianity. Dawkins says,

This [England] is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

“So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.”

Mohler’s article continues:

Dawkins expanded on those comments in an article published December 13, 2007 by The New Statesman. In this article Dawkins explains that Christmas is a part of his nation’s history and culture, and thus to be acknowledged, if not celebrated, by all.

He even threw some barbs toward the United States, suggesting that political correctness and a fear of offending anyone’s sensitivities was leading to a denial of the cultural significance of Christmas. All this is unnecessary, he insists:

For better or worse, ours is historically a Christian culture, and children who grow up ignorant of biblical literature are diminished, unable to take literary allusions, actually impoverished. I am no lover of Christianity, and I loathe the annual orgy of waste and reckless reciprocal spending, but I must say I’d rather wish you “Happy Christmas” than “Happy Holiday Season”.

It is a good post and it must be read in its entirety to be fully appreciate, so please go read it.

The reason for my own post stems from a comment Mohler makes. He says, “The thought of Richard Dawkins singing any carols with explicit Christian content is difficult to hold — unless the Oxford professor intends to sing of a faith he does not profess.”

My first thought was that Professor Dawkins ought to feel right at home in a lot of churches: he will be standing with many others who sing the words and, perhaps, speak the Christian jargon necessary for membership in evangelicalism. These tares in the pews are practical atheists and have more in common with Dawkins than Christ. As Jesus said, quoting Isaiah,

‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.

“‘They worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’”

Truth be told, I suspect I would enjoy talking and spending time with Dawkins far more than I would many of the pew-dwelling weeds on a typical Sunday at most churches. Certainly the professor’s heart is far from God but, unlike the practical atheists in the pews, he doesn’t worship in vain or cause trouble in the church by teaching his own perverted beliefs as though they were biblical.

On judgment day, when unbelievers appear before God before being sent to their final, torturous destination, I believe it will go much easy for the Richard Dawkinses of the world than for those who sought to lead the elect down the wrong path. God takes a dim view of those who endeavor to deceive His own.

This is a thoughtful and well-done piece on what Christmas was, what it has become, and what it could be once again. What if . . .

[HT DashHouse]

Make no mistake about this: the death of Sean Taylor was a tragedy.

The circumstances surrounding the professional football player’s death are irrelevant. Whether he lived a wonderful life or a detestable one, Taylor’s death is shocking and tragic. From the reactions of his Washington Redskins teammates, he was a good friend, good teammate, and good football player.

His death was sad.

Not in spite of the aforementioned but rather because of it, I find myself troubled in the aftermath of Taylor’s death. Consider the following story from ESPN:

MIAMI — Thousands filled a university arena Monday for the funeral of Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor, with a video screen behind his casket showing highlights from his career.

The funeral comes a week after Taylor was shot in his home and days after four men were charged with killing him during the robbery. A lawyer for one of the suspects confirmed there was a fifth suspect.

Taylor’s casket was surrounded by bouquets, while the video display showed Taylor from his days with the Redskins, Miami Hurricanes and high school.

Commissioner Roger Goodell said it had been a “sad week” for the NFL family.

“It’s times like this that all of us struggle to find meaning in life,” Goodell told the mourners. “The NFL was proud of Sean Taylor… He loved football and football loved him back. But more importantly, it was what he was as a man and what he was becoming as a man.”

(No offense to Roger Goodell, but if the death of a football player causes you to “struggle to find meaning in life,” your life was overdue for a careful, honest, critical evaluation.)

I watched SportsCenter this morning and listened as the story was told again how Taylor was killed in his home on Nov 27th, just a week ago. Teammates were interviewed after the Redskins’ 17-16 loss to Buffalo yesterday. The players talked about how they missed him and how difficult it was to pull it together and play the game in his honor, and how they wished they could have won the game “for Sean.”

I was disturbed as I watched and listened. It was not because of anything that was said or done, but rather because of another story not picked up by ESPN – or any other major media outlet, to my knowledge – that told the story of two other young men who were killed on Nov 27th, too.

In contrast to the thousands of words written about Sean Taylor, here is the story I read about Isaac Cortes and Benjamin Garrison:

DoD Identifies Army Casualties

The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died Nov. 27 in Amerli, Iraq, of wounds suffered when their vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. They were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.

Killed were:

Pvt. Isaac T. Cortes, 26, of Bronx, N.Y.

Spc. Benjamin J. Garrison, 25, of Houston, Texas.

That represents everything I know about these two United States soldiers who died on the same day as Sean Taylor. Nobody interviewed their comrades or asked them if it was hard to go back into battle – or to continue in the battle – after the IED had cut short their friends’ lives. I don’t know if there are elaborate memorials scheduled for their funerals or if their local newspapers will write something about their lives and deaths. Being from major metropolitan areas, I doubt it.

And I don’t know if some commissioner somewhere will “struggle to find meaning” as a result of their deaths. I, for one, won’t because the lives and deaths of Cortes and Garrison made sense. They lived and died for something worth living and dying for, and their deaths are noble rather than senseless.

Taylor died a millionaire. He made a lot of money playing a boy’s game for the entertainment of thousands and thousands of people. His name is recognizable – at least for now – and his picture has been everywhere in the media.

Cortes and Garrison, I suspect, were not millionaires when they died. They fought a man’s war for the safety of millions and millions of people. They labored and died in virtual obscurity, never having been famous enough to be forgotten.

When I consider the two stories and contrast the responses of our nation to the death of a semi-famous athlete and that of two unknown soldiers, I am troubled. I wonder what in the hell our nation has come to that the tragic death of an athlete can garner so much attention and the deaths of two soldiers result in so little.

The death of Sean Taylor, as I said, was a tragedy, but he was no hero. The deaths of Isaac Cortes and Benjamin Garrison were every bit as tragic and, along with thousands of others who have sacrificed their lives for us, they are heroes.

As Christians, especially, we must be absolutely certain and careful to keep our values and priorities right. All three deaths are tragedies, but the deaths of Cortes and Garrison are qualitatively different from that of Sean Taylor. We need to make note of that fact and honor all with the honor which they are due.

Ben Witherington has stuck his finger in the Truly Reformed eye of many readers of Godblogs with his recent post “For God so loved Himself?” Is God a Narcissist? The essence of Witherington’s argument is that in saying that God’s glory is His highest motivation and greatest purpose, some authors are unintentionally (my word, not his) creating God in their own image of narcissism. Referring to what one (presumably Reformed) theologian had written, Witherington says:

. . . the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God’s self-adulation and praise.

What’s wrong with this picture? How about the basic understanding of God’s essential and moral character?

This is an important subject to discuss: the nature of God is at the heart of this matter since, if Witherington is correct in his assessment of others’ writings, God is being maligned and perhaps even His name is being taken in vain (i.e., attached to something He is not associated with or involved in). There is a need to balance or correct the implication in the writings Witherington adduces, for the Christian hedonists among us may be unwittingly bestowing a new attribute upon God: narcissism.

I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God’s character, reveals that God’s character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.

Like so many discussions online, however, critical terms are left undefined. In this case, there are at least two: glory and narcissism, the former a biblical concept and the latter a psychological description. Perhaps a rudimentary definition of each will push the discussion or thinking in a more profitable direction and prevent arguments stemming from unshared assumptions.

Glory, as Withington points out in one of his comments, is a translation of two words found in Scripture, the Hebrew word transliterated as kabod and the Greek word rendered doxa. Of the former, VanGemeren says:

Nom. kabod. The nom. kabod is related only to the sense (c) of the vb. (contra HALAT, which includes weight as sense I.1, cf. THAT 1:798; but these passages, Isa 22:24; Nah 2:9 [10], are better understood as using wealth as emblematic of honor) and can be rendered honor or glory. According to context, the honor or glory can be that associated with dignity, wealth, or high position; respect or reverence from others; or the object of respect. Two specialized uses, discussed below, are the glory of the Lord as a technical term for his manifest presence, and “my glory” as a way of referring to oneself. This gives a simpler arrangement of the senses than either that of HALAT or BDB.

Harrison (in Elwell) adds that kabod,

denoted the manifestation of light by which God revealed himself, whether in the lightning flash or in the blinding splendor which often accompanied theophanies . . .

The word might be rendered in this instance ‘moral beauty’ . . . God’s glory is not confined to some outward sign which appeals to the senses, but is that which expresses his inherent majesty, which may or may not have some visible token

The Greek word for glory, doxa, was typically used in the Septuagint to translate kabod. Colin Brown observes that

doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the inheritance of the OT. . . . The meanings honour, fame, repute and in the case of the vb. to honour, praise, and the special uses to seek honour (Jn. 7:18; 8:50; 5:44; 1 Thess. 2:6) and to receive honour (Jn. 5:41, 44) belong to general Gk. usage.

doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the inheritance of the OT. The attempt to link it with Hel. usage (cf. Arndt. 202 f.) is untenable, for the magical texts quoted have themselves been influenced by Jewish thought. God is “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2), “the Father of glory” (Eph. 1:17), “the majestic glory” (2 Pet. 1:17). The expression “the glory of God” is frequent (e.g. Matt. 16:27; Acts 7:55; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:11; Rev. 15:8). The power of God can be mentioned along with his glory (Matt. 5:13 [many MSS]; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 19:1). The concept is also applied to Christ: to his earthly life (Lk. 9:32; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 1 Cor. 2:8), his exalted existence (Lk. 24:26; Jn. 17:5; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:21; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:16), his return (Matt. 16:27 par. Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26; Matt. 24:30 par. Mk. 13:26, Lk. 21:27; Tit. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24 [but this latter probably refers to the Father]), to his pre-existence (Jn. 12:41; 17:5) and also as an all-embracing epithet (Jn. 17:22, 24; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4, 6; 2 Thess. 2:14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8).

For the purpose of the discussion raised by Witherington, glory is perhaps best thought of as the manifestation, revelation, or demonstration of God in one or more of His attributes. Thus, to say that all things are done for the glory of God is to say that all things are done for the ultimate purpose of manifesting, revealing, or demonstrating who God is. It is in this sense that Witherington takes issue with those he feels are reducing God to the ultimate cosmic show-off.

Hence, the word narcissism is tossed about.

Narcissism is a personality disorder; a personality disorder, according to DSM-IV, is

an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.

To say or imply that God is narcissistic is to diagnosis Him with a personality disorder but, as demonstrated by the definition of personality disorders, God does not qualify as having one: it cannot be said that His disposition or behavior is a significant deviation from what might be expected of a god, nor does it result in distress or impairment for Him. God’s character is stable and inflexible – He never fluctuates or changes – and it is pervasive: He behaves the same at all times in all situations. But the latter qualities are true of personality in general and not just personality disorders.

Narcissism, according to DSM-IV, is characterized by “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” Individuals suffering from it display

. . . a grandiose sense of self-importance . . . They routinely overestimate their abilities and inflate their accomplishments, often appearing boastful and pretentious . . . They may ruminate about ‘long overdue’ admiration and privilege and compare themselves favorably with famous or privileged people.

[They] believe that they are superior, special, or unique and expect others to recognize them as such . . . [and] generally require excessive admiration . . . Their self-esteem is almost invariably very fragile.

Individuals with NPD have a lack of empathy and have difficulty recognizing the desires, subjective experiences, and feelings of others . . . They are often contemptuous and impatient with others who talk about their own problems and concerns.

The DSM-IV does not discuss an important criterion in defining narcissism: are the claims of the individual true? Or, to paraphrases Mohammed Ali, “It ain’t narcissism if it’s true.” With God, of course, the claims He makes are true and the diagnosis of narcissism is misplaced.

The appearance of narcissism in God is not due, I would submit, to the manifestation of His essence but rather the ultimate end of all things due to His being.

In short, all things find their beginning, existence, and end in Him. Paul said of Christ Jesus,

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. – Col 1.16-17

In a sense, therefore, all things are for God’s glory, but that is not the same as saying that God’s primary motivation in every or any activity is His own glory. God’s glory is inevitable because of the nature of creation, but to say that it is God’s motivation is incorrect. If everything inescapably results in His glory, why would it be necessary for Him to be motivated by His glory?

Witherington, in his desire to balance or correct the untoward implications of a glory-centered view of God, makes various observations in his post and comments, some quite good and some not-so good. He writes, for example,

If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, one immediately notices that it is the Fall and sin which turned Adam and Eve into self-aware, self-centered, self-protecting beings. This is not how God had created them.

Is that an accurate statement? Certainly God did not intend Adam and Eve to be self-centered, i.e., more concerned about their own needs than those of one another, but Witherington is saying too much here. While Adam and Eve were not sinfully self-centered, they were self-aware and to some extent self-protective: obeying God was for them, as it is for all of us, a means of self-protection.

Was Jesus Christ self-aware and self-protective during His first advent? Yes, and even more to the point, God Himself is self-aware and quite protective of His own honor and glory. So two of the three post-Fall attributes that Dr Witherington cites are not applicable.

He also writes,

To JPM I would say there is indeed a reason why God loves us that is not simply because of God’s nature. It is because we are all creatures of sacred worth, made in God’s image.

God loves us in one sense for the same reason he loves Jesus– we bear God’s image and are of inherent sacred worth because of this fact. We of course since the fall are only God’s adopted children while Jesus is the only begotten Son, but nevertheless God loves his offspring, like any good parent would.

In other words, it is false to say that God loves us simply because God is wonderful.

This is another instance of saying more than what was intended. To say that God loves us – and Jesus – because we are made in His image is to inadvertently charge God with narcissism: it is maintaining that He loves us and Jesus because He sees Himself in us and, when He sees Himself, He cannot help but love us.

And, while it might be false to say that God loves us because He is wonderful (though it is wonderful that He does), it is not false to say that God loves us because He is love and is loving. God loves because it is His nature to love, unmotivated by what He finds in us or fails to find in us. It is who He is. He cannot do otherwise and remain true to Himself.

Despite its shortcomings, Witherington’s post is an important opening remark in the debate about God’s motivations and purposes in history. While it will most probably fall on deaf ears with the Truly Reformed – who never retreat or back off anything once said or written, especially by one of their anointed – Witherington’s observations may serve the rest of us well in thinking more accurately about who God is and what He is like .

Answers: (1) I don’t think it’s orthodox, although I’d stop short of calling it heretical. (2) The quote is from Gregory A. Boyd, founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN, and an open theist (the latter doesn’t make him wrong about everything, of course, but it does flavor his view of things). It appears in The Myth of a Christian Nation, pp 67-69.

Question: Do the following statements (not necessarily the author of the statements) pass muster¹ with regard to orthodoxy? Why or why not?

According to the biblical narrative and church tradition, at some point in the primordial past, Satan managed to deceive humanity and co-opt us into his rebellion against God, seizing the world and making humanity his slaves. Jesus came into this world not only to take it back and free earth’s inhabitants but also to put an end to the war altogether. . . .

Now, through his death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished the task for which he came. He defeated the kingdom of darkness and set humanity free. In principle, therefore, the world has already been reconciled to God (2 Cor 5.14-21; Col 1.15-20). In principle, the wall of sin that separates humanity along ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and tribal lines has been destroyed. In principle, all have already died in Adam and been made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15.22; 2 Cor 5.14). In principle, we are already one new humanity in Christ (Eph 2.14-15). In principle. Yet Scripture as well as our own experience make it painfully clear that what is true in principle has not yet been manifested as accomplished fact (see, for example, Heb 2.8). . . .²

The author then explains that Jesus Christ is “the first fruit of the new humanity (Rom 8.29, Col 1.18)” and that we are also first fruits.² He continues

To be these first fruits, we must allow the kingdom to grow in us and through us. When we genuinely repent (turn from) our idolatrous allegiances to the world and submit to God’s loving rule, the kingdom gets planted in our innermost being . . . We learn how to walk in freedom from violence, self-centeredness, materialism, nationalism, racism, and all other false ways of getting life. . . .

As we grow in Christlikeness, we grow as conduits of the kingdom, increasingly manifesting the fact that we are ‘first fruits.’ Through our Christlike love, others are brought under the influence of the kingdom until, in time, it is planted in them and the process taking place in us begins to take place in them.

Bonus Question: Who is the author and in what work do these quotes appear?

As I think about these days in which we live, about the voices that hold sway over Christendom from the pulpit, and the captivating reasonings in well-constructed books, as well as in the reams of words written here online – as I reflect on these matters, I am reminded of Tolkien’s words in The Lord of the Rings, Book III, a chapter entitled “The Voice of Saruman.”

The Riders of the Mark have accompanied King Théoden of Rohan and Éomer his nephew, Gandalf and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to the stairs of Orthanc, the stronghold-turned-prison of Saruman, now the Wizard of Many Colors. The Riders eavesdrop on the speech of Saruman to their king.

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. . . .

“The Riders stirred at first, murmuring with approval of the words of Saruman; and then they too were silent, as men spell-bound. It seemed to them that Gandalf had never spoken so fair and fittingly to their lord. Rough and proud now seemed all his dealings with Théoden. And over their hearts crept a shadow, the fear of a great danger: the end of the Mark in a darkness to which Gandalf was driving them, while Saruman stood beside a door of escape, holding it half open so that a ray of light came through.”

Those who would mesmerize us with words and ear-soothing tones may still be found among us, drawing us under their spell with their seductive speeches and attractive demeanor. They are strong, powerful, and popular; by agreeing with them, we reason, we will share in those qualities. Those who speak roughly or without the allurement of rhetorical skills are dismissed as unfaithful, ignorant rabble. We will give them no hearing and will hearken instead to velvet-tongued orators whose voices we find comforting.

Such modern-day Sarumans hold open a door, and from the door emanates a warm, inviting, and seductive light. But the door is only half open, and thus we cannot see that the light streaming towards us is not generated by the glory of the Son but by the fires of hell.

Today is a typical day off for me, a time for relaxing and touching base with folks. The following email exchange with my friends is standard fare for such times.

It started with a slightly enhanced news story from FoxNews:

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:02 AM
To: 101 TNG
Subject: The times in which we live

Mother Says Baby’s Recurring ‘Bye Bye, Plane’
Comment Got Them Kicked Off Airplane

Thursday, July 12, 2007

ATLANTA — The mother of a 19-month-old boy says she and her son were kicked off a plane after she refused a stewardess’ request to medicate her son to keep him from talking.

Kate Penland, who lives in Gwinnett County in suburban Atlanta, said she and her son, Garren, had boarded the Continental Express plane last month after an 11-hour delay in Houston on an Atlanta-Oklahoma flight.

Garren kept saying, “Bye bye, plane,” Penland recalled. And she said the stewardess objected.

“At the end of her speech, she leaned over the gentleman beside me and said, ‘It’s not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up,”‘ Penland told WSB-TV in Atlanta.

When Penland asked the woman if she was kidding, she said the stewardess replied, “You know, it’s called baby Benadryl.”

“And I said, ‘Well, I’m not going to drug my child so you have a pleasant flight,”‘ Penland told the TV station.

Penland said other passengers began speaking up on her behalf, and the flight attendant announced they were turning around and that Penland and Garren were going to be taken off the plane.

Members of the Atlanta Police Department bomb squad met the mother and her son inside the airport terminal following their removal from the Continental flight. Two APD officers, along with SWAT team members and representatives of Homeland Security, removed the boy from the resisting mother and took the child to an undisclosed location.

The boy was safely detonated a few hours later.

-30-

Dr Michael Russell
ΑΩ Counseling & Critical News Services

It then dawned upon me that there was more information to share.

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:44 AM
To: My Friends
Subject: IED and children

There’s actually a diagnosis for this in the mental health manual: Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED); 312.34 in DSM-IV-TR. I am not making this up.

I don’t think it’s any accident that this disorder is referred to as “IED,” the very same as the favorite weapon of terrorists: improvised explosive device (IED).

If anyone mentions to you that their child has been diagnosed with “IED” or Intermittent Explosive Disorder, do not be decieved or naïve. We all need to be on the lookout for these dangerous children and report them to Homeland Security, DPS, local police, Oprah, or Jack Bauer – anyone with the authority to dispose of them safely.

Dr Michael Russell
ΑΩ Counseling & Bomb Disposal Services

Not surprisingly, someone wrote back:

Mike,

Is this similar to Intermittent Explosive Internal Combustion (IEIC)?

Mark

Which spawned the final email on the matter:

Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:36 PM
To: TNT
Subject: RE: IED and children

Mark:

Thank you for your inquiry. I hope the following information will be useful to you.

This IED is actually a new and improved version of the spontaneous-combustion child (SCC), something we rarely see now in this age of personal computers, personal mp3 players, and personal fire alarms and extinguishers. Recent advancements in technology have made it possible to abandon the earlier, severely limited collateral-damage effects of SCCs and replace them with the explosive model now available in all but third-world countries.

The danger, of course, is in what may happen if/when terrorist organizations make additional enhancements. One such group, Al-Gorra, reportedly has a school for toddlers: students go from First Grade, Second Grade, Third Grade, and then Weapons-Grade Plutonium. It is feared that such devices will be used to make global warming a reality.

Al-Gorra’s philosophy is captured in some of their oft-repeated slogans: “It takes a village to raise a child to thermonuclear levels” and “No child’s behind left.”

This present dilemma only exists because America opposed “zero-growth” birth control in the 70s and 80s, refusing to spay and neuter all children in third-world countries (i.e., any that do not speak English as their native language).

But, as they say, hindsight is useless.

Your friend,

Dr Michael Russell
ΑΩ Counseling & World Domination Services

Someone on the mailing list then asked to be removed. Wonder what that was all about?

(Listening to Offspring’s “Why Don’t You Get a Job?” on the iPod.)

In response to a request or two, I am providing the Word documents that made up my doctoral dissertation, An Integration of Biblical Anthropology and Neuropsychology and Its Implications for Christian Education and Discipleship. You may read online or download them, if you like: please give me credit if the materials are used in presentations, lessons, books, articles, etc.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 – Psychology and Theology

Chapter 2 – A Model of Human Nature

Chapter 3 -General Revelation and Christian Psychology

Chapter 4 – Bible- and Brain-Based Learning

Chapter 5 – Conclusion

The Soul – diagram

The Heart – diagram

The Mind – diagram

Bibliography