13 October 2006

The Way I See It #169


Life’s too short to read a book you don’t love. At age 50 or younger give a book 50 pages to see if you like it. Over 50, subtract your age from 100 and that’s the number of pages to read before you bail on a book you’re not enjoying. And
when you turn 100, you get to judge a book by its cover! --Nancy Pearl (Librarian and author of Book Lust)
I don’t really believe a librarian is thinking about the way these words could be taken. Aren’t you glad your teachers didn’t have this philosophy in high school and college? Think of how bland and stupid you would be if you never read books that made you sleepy, books that made you angry, or books that made your head ache with bewilderment.
Let’s consider where this "read only what you like" way of thinking leads—Here is a perspective on life which is determined to live by the darkness of one’s own mind. These are ears which itch to hear only the echo of the emptiness between them. These are hearts which are hardened in their foolishness. These are necks which will bend only to the cruelest of masters: sin and death.
My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. He holds victory in store for the upright, he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless for he guards the course of the just and protects the way of his faithful ones.--Proverbs 2:1–8.

11 October 2006

Westminster Wednesday: Little Things That Kill

Ol' Sam RutherfordThis morning I was reading about the way the Puritans handled what the Anglican church called adiaphora, matters indifferent. Iain Murray’s notes here struck a chord.

[The Puritans] regarded their [Anglican] opponents’ habit of discriminating between essentials and nonessentials as a dangerous procedure. Dangerous, not because it claimed to exalt Christ and the Gospel to the supreme place, but because it failed to emphasize that the New Testament offers no safety to those who knowingly neglect the least of Christ’s commandments.
Samuel Rutherford says: “We urge the immutability of Christ’s laws, as well in the smallest as greatest things, though the commandments of Christ be greater or less in regard to the intrinsical matter, as to use water in baptism, or to baptize is less than to preach Christ, and believe in him, 1 Cor 1:17. Yet they are both alike great, in regard of the authority of Christ the Commander, Matt. 28:18–19. And it’s too great boldness to alter any commandment of Christ for the smallness of the matter, for it lieth upon our conscience not because it is a greater or a lesser thing…but it teeth us for the authority of the law-giver: Now God’s authority is the same when he saith, You shall not worship false gods, and when he saith, You shall not add of your own ring or pin to the Ark, Tabernacle, Temple [Exod 25:9; Deut 4:2?], yea, either to break or teach others to break one of the least of the commandments of God, maketh men the least in the Kingdom of God, Matt. 5:18…. The fact that a man may be defective in knowledge and practice, and yet be saved through being on the foundation which is Christ, provides no warrant for dividing up Scipture into essentials and nonessentials—placing rules concerning the visible church in the second category, as though they could be safely left unkept (“Scripture and 'Things Indifferent,'” in Puritan Papers, vol. 3, pp. 28–29).

09 October 2006


Think. Think. Think.I'm working through some scheduling issues taking some time to think through future blog content. I hope to return to blogdom when realdom stops spinning uncontrollably.