CD on iTunes!!!

My new CD is now available on iTunes! Check it out! 

(Well, buy it is what I mean to say!)

Also available to buy in hard copy at CDBaby.com!

Law and Gospel

From a sometime funny, sometime comforting, sometime scary post from the HB about taking final exams, and how this relates to the Law and the Gospel (read the whole post and understand why I am freaking out this week):

There aren’t multiple laws. There is only one law, “Do.” “Love God and neighbor perfectly.” There are, however, multiple relations to the same law. To those who lack a Mediator, the law demands of them perfect, personal, and perpetual righteousness. To those, however, for whom the law has been fulfilled by Christ, it no longer condemns. It reminds us of what we were outside of Christ. It continues to demand. It never gives what it demands, but we who are united to Christ, sola gratia et sola fide, can say, “Christ has given what you demand for justification.” We can now call the law a friend and a guide. We, who are in Christ, do not fear the curse of the law.

Top 20 Albums of 2007

...a little late, I know!

2007 was a year of much growth in my musical tastes and holds some of my best listening experiences to date. For that reason I thought it appropriate, even months later, to give my list of the my Top 20 Albums of 2007. Since everybody always skips ahead to see the top 3 or so, I'll start with 1 and work up to 20. I hope you enjoy!

1. Ode to Sunshine by Delta Spirit. This album (and their live show) has been revolutionary for me. Muchas gracias to my friend Matt Morgan for introducing me to his friends. Their melodies, textures, lyrics and energy send at least two of these songs into my "Top 50 Songs" playlist and make this album one of my favorites in many many moons. I'm not going to comment much more; you just need to hear it. Oh, and I should admit, I hadn't even heard them until 2008, but it still qualifies.

2. Neon Bible by The Arcade Fire. Come on all you critics who loved this album but don't think it stacks up to their previous release, Funeral. This is Arcade Fire, one of the most promising-to be-greater-U2-bands around, growing into maturity. You know, I've always loved pipe organ, but rock pipe organ to the metaphysically searching wailings of Win Butler? Come on!

3. Straightjacket by Steven Delopoulos. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard this for the first time, knowing that this is Steven Delopoulos of the CCM band Burlap to Cashmere. (I'm not saying that pejoratively; I am just sadly surprised any time something this good comes from CCM roots.) This is storytelling, depths-plumbing, beautiful folk music that sounds a bit like Cat Stevens with some world music sprinkled in for flavor. Cryptic and apocalyptic are the best descriptors of Delopoulos' lyrics. A must hear. You'll wonder where he's been all your music-loving life.

4. The Reminder by Feist.

5. The Trumpet Child by Over the Rhine.

6. The Ringing Bell by Derek Webb.

7. Once soundtrack by Glen Hansard & Markéta Irglová (and others).

8. Postcards and Daydreaming by Dan Mangan.

9. On Promenade by Doug Burr.

10. Sky Blue Sky by Wilco.

11. In Rainbows by Radiohead.

12. Raising Sand by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.

13. Boxer by The National.

14. Dressed Up for the Letdown by Richard Swift.

15. Cassadaga by Bright Eyes.

16. What the River Gave the Boat by Mark Berube.

17. Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga by Spoon.

18. Icky Thump by The White Stripes.

19. We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank by Modest Mouse.

20. The Shepherd's Dog by Iron and Wine.

Two Very Helpful Sentences on Confessionalism

From the Heidelblog:

Though it is true that we must conform to our confessions, there is a reciprocity. We must always be conforming the confession to Scripture.

ALBUM!

For those of you who aren't aware, my new CD is coming out in about a month. Check here for more info.

Learning from "The Golden Compass"?

Today my pastor sent out an email to our church regarding how we act in our communities and specifically about the new anti-God movie The Golden Compass. I thought it was very helpful, and he gave me permission to post it here:

One of the core values of Christ Presbyterian Church is that we are a church "in and for" our community. As I have unpacked that statement in new members' classes and the recent Discovery Sunday School class, I have talked about our need to "live in mission." What does this mean? It means that we do not retreat to our Christian-ghetto whenever we get scared of something in the culture or surrounding society. Instead, we see our culture and surrounding society as our mission field, filled with opportunities to express the gospel and challenge the prevailing narratives of the day.

As you have often heard me say, this idea of "living in mission" comes home first in our normal, everyday lives: do we engage our nonChristian friends and neighbors? Are we willing to partner with others in service to our community? Do we live in a purposefully outward facing manner that recognizes God has placed us in this exact time and in this exact place for the extension of his kingdom?

Why am I reminding you of this important aspect of the identity of our church? Because a new movie is coming out on December 7th that will challenge you to live in a proactive and not reactive way. The movie, of course, is "The Golden Compass." It is a film adaptation of Daniel Pullman's wildly popular "Dark Materials" trilogy, blatantly anti-Christian books aimed at providing young-people with a contrary narrative that undermines (and eventually kills off) God.

As Christians, we seem to have several choices in how to approach such a movie (and, believe me, this won't be the last of this sort):

1. we could boycott the movie, start a petition drive, call in to radio talk-shows, and generally make a public nuisance. I obviously don't think this is a wise way of interacting with the general public.

2. we could stick our heads in the sand, refuse to talk about the movie, refuse to let our families see the movie, refuse to acknowledge that the movie even exists, and pretend that such movies have no power over the imaginations of our friends and neighbors. Again, not a wise way to proceed.

3. we could inform ourselves about the movie, perhaps even read the books on which it is based, go with our friends to see the movie, and then engage them in honest conversation about the picture the movie presents:

• Do you think the movie's portrayal of Christians is accurate? If so, how does my being a Christian affect our relationship as friends/neighbors/family?

• Do you think the movie's portrayal of the church as an evil, tyrannical institution is true? Why do you think that? What has been your experience in the church?

• Do you think that the movie's portrayal of God as a weak and cruel despot is true to the Bible's picture of God? Have you ever prayed to God? Why? What did you expect him to do for you?

Of course, I think #3 is the way to go and the questions I listed above are just the beginning of what could be a fruitful discussion about the movie, about Jesus Christ and his saving work, about your friends' perceptions of Christianity, etc.

The bottom line is that even if you don't wish to see the movie or read the books, be informed and open to engaging culture. Do not retreat from it. There is nothing in this movie or these books that presents a real danger to Jesus or the Gospel. Your responsibility as parents, neighbors, and friends is to equip your children to recognize counterfeit spirituality, to engage their questions and the questions of your friends and neighbors about God, and to tell the good story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation--a story that this movie will try to recreate in a very different way.

If you're interested in reading more about engaging cultural in a positively critical way, I commend to you the following website, especially this linked article.

If you want to know more about some of the gender and sexuality issues that drive the author's anti-theology, consider reading this piece from a Baptist campus minister, Michael Spencer.

Finally, if you want a glimpse into how secular media is thinking about Pullman's blatant atheism, consider reading this article from "The Atlantic Monthly" (this link takes you to a transcription of the article on livejournal.com)


Live wisely in this present age.

In Christ,
Eric Landry

New Westminster Seminary Podcast!

Westminster Seminary California has a new podcast of its morning devotions. (That link is for iTunes.) Members of the faculty and guest pastors preach for about 20-30 minutes twice a week, bringing the Word of God to the WSC community in a way that is very applicable and exemplary to students of the Word.

Typically Tuesday morning devotions are brought by Dr. Hywel Jones, a Welshman whose passionately Gospel-centered preaching is sure to stir up faith in and affection for Christ in any true believer. Dr. Jones has had a faithful and distinguished Gospel ministry and served in the past as assistant to the late D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. This semester he is preaching a series on "Our Lord's Sayings from the Cross."

Thursday morning devotions are given by a different faculty member each week and are very helpful as they preach Christ from all the Scriptures. This semester the faculty is preaching through 1 & 2 Kings.

I think there will be a link on the WSC website soon where you can subscribe the podcast feed directly. Otherwise you can use the link above to subscribe in iTunes.

Postmodernism: So Bad?

I often run across Christians in my own circles who say things like, "We find ourselves living in a postmodern age that has, regrettably, invaded even our own families and the church." (I saw this on the website of a [broadly Reformed] Christian bookstore today.) This is a statement I can sympathize with because I do see the negative results of much off postmodernism on the church and the family. But, based on how I think most conservative Christians understand postmodernism, it seems like what they are really saying is, "Postmodernism is the enemy. It comes to invade and to destroy. Period." With no mention of papa-invader and mama-destroyer: modernism. (Yes, I realize that last sentence was a fragment.) This kind of understanding of postmodernism fails on a few fronts. First, it (often, and usually unwittingly) juxtaposes postmodernism and modernism, when in fact, the two are like father and son. And you know what they say, the apple doesn't fall...etc. Second, it assumes a superiority of modernism as a worldview, when truly, modern thought may be even farther from Christianity in some ways than its progeny. (To clarify, I am a presuppositionalist, so I realize how easily that last comparative statement breaks down.) And third, such a baby-out-with-the-bathwater analysis of the zeitgeist arrogantly disregards those very positive contributions it has made. Perhaps the most important contribution we have inherited from postmodern philosophy is the demise of modern foundationalism. (See, there is some discontinuity between papa bear and baby bear.)

One of the distinguishing marks of modern rationalism is what has been termed foundationalism, the idea that there are self-evident universal truths governing the world and that we can somehow tap into these truths univocally through the exercise of reason. It's the idea that through the mind we can access with bare clarity the pure nakedness of metaphysical reality. There is no barrier between us and the noumenal realm. The phenomenal context of our existent is transcendable, and the noumenal is immanent, if we but use the right code to access it, the code of reason, or, couched in more pious terms, the code of biblical revelation.

Postmodern reflection on foundationalism has come along and challenged this assumption. Postmodernism tells us that we are so situated in our phenomenal context and language that we cannot break out into the noumenal. The world of bare metaphysical reality is unnaccessible to us. The main barrier to this epistemological (meaning knowledge--how we know and what we truly can know) pole-vault is language. Language, because it consists of a circular pattern of metaphorical predication (analogical is probably a much better term), prevents us from accessing things as they really are. All we can ultimately say about anything is that it is like something else, which, in turn, is like something else, ad infinitum. This, as I think I can show, is helpful; but only to an extent. Postmodernism typically takes this view and says, "Since we can't know anything in its bare metaphysical reality, we can't truly know anything at all." This, of course, is where we get relativistic pluralism. We can't know truth; therefore, for all intents and purposes, there is no truth. Your truth is your truth; my truth is my truth; let's have a smore and sing Kumbaya. The problem is that the great barrier to our epistemological pole-vault is not simply language (it is that, but there's more). The deeper barrier is ontology, the nature of being.

The "problem" of epistemology is a result of our being creatures. And we only see it as a problem because we are rebellious creatures who want to transcend our creatureness and get a God's-eye-view of reality. Foundationalism is our modern-day Tower of Babel. We think we can cross that great divide between physical situatedness (limited perspective, both in quantity and quality) to metaphysical, univocal knowledge (pure perspective, at least in quality if not in quantity). By univocal knowledge I mean knowledge that has a 1-to-1 correspondence with reality, with God's knowledge. We want to grasp--really wrap our minds all the way around--universal truth, rather than accept it as its been mediated and accommodated to us. Reality comes to our minds truly, but analogically, rather than either univocally ("modern") or equivocally ("postmodern")

To set up this conception of epistemology, which, as I am attempting to show, is rooted in ontology, I am going to quote somewhat at length from a paper I wrote entitled "The Aesthetics of Jonathan Edwards and the Archtypal/Ectypal Distinction."

Ontologically, what the archetypal-ectypal distinction means is that there is a qualitative difference between God’s being and his creation’s being—the Creator-creature distinction. It is not as if God has most being and we have a small slice of his pie of being; that would be a mere quantitative ontological difference. God has made his creation with qualitatively different being. The archetypal-ectypal distinction applies to epistemology and theology as well. Willem J. van Asselt* appeals to the Reformed archetypal-ectypal distinction, looking particularly at the formalization of the doctrine in the works of Franciscus Junius, to dispel the myth that Reformed scholasticism manifests a commitment to mere rationalism. He points out that the archetypal-ectypal distinction in theology, as developed by the post-Reformation Reformed orthodox, insists on a distinction between archetypal knowledge, that incommunicable knowledge that God has of himself, and ectypal knowledge, the communicable knowledge that humankind has of God from God.

In regards to archetypal theology, van Asselt says: "It is the theology according to which the triune God knows himself in himself and also knows everything that is outside him by an indivisible act of knowing. It is the eternal and essential wisdom, and therefore God’s essence itself in which all things are present without being the result of discursive process in God. …It is essential and most simple, eternal, intuitive, absolute, incommunicable, infinite and most perfect. …It is incommunicable for it belongs to God alone (propria Dei): It cannot be comprehended by any creature; we adore it and do not search it out.

Van Asselt goes on to describe the relationship between archetypal and ectypal theology: "This uncreated and essential archetypal theology differs entirely from ectypical theology which is accidental and finite and a sort of outflow and efflux of the former: ‘Ectypal theology…is wisdom concerning divine things informed (informata) by God from the archetype through the communication of grace in order to glorify him.’ …Although theology is preeminently in the mind of God himself, this divine self-knowledge is the causal basis for human theology."

It must be born in mind, as van Asselt shows in his article, that the Reformed scholastics were not drawing on pre-Enlightenment and Enlightenment principles of Rationalism in the systematization of this distinction but on the thought of church fathers, medieval theologians, and the Reformers themselves. This connection with orthodoxy down through the centuries is important in establishing the catholicity and orthodoxy of the Reformed archetypal-ectypal distinction. Neither was this distinction limited to Junius and his contemporaries; rather, “during the second half of the seventeenth century Junius’ classification became normative for many Reformed theologians in their approach to the issue of theology as a discipline.” Van Asselt lists Leydecker, van Mastricht, Turretin, Cocceius, Burman, Heidegger, Heidanus, and Braun as well as English Puritanism as representing to some degree Junius’ theological classification. Beyond this, it can be found in many Reformed theologians of the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries.

It is important to note the divisions within ectypal theology, for they bear upon how creatures are supposed to think about the ectypical revelation we have received... Junius distinguishes between the ectypal theology in the mind of God (internal) and the ectypal theology as God communicates it to humans (external). “The internal concept in the mind of God is his divine will and grace; the external form is the body of knowledge that God decided to reveal to mankind.” This external form is properly seen as a “relational theology, for it depends upon God’s accommodation of himself to a form which finite beings are capable of grasping.” This, says Junius, should be the main focus of theologians, ectypal theology as God has sovereignly caused it to be mediated and communicated to human beings, rather than even ectypal theology as it exists in the mind of God. So we see the importance of establishing not only a distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology but also between ectypal theology as it is and ectypal theology as it has been accommodated to the human mind. After all, we are created, body and soul, and are not, in fact, Cartesian res cogitans.

Practically, in the doing of theology, what the archetypal-ectypal distinction tells us is that we may not presume to speculate about the inner essence and knowledge of God as God. As creatures, we have only to think about and worship God as he has described himself in his Word and as he is toward us, whether in law or in grace in his Son. Van Asselt appeals to the archetypal-ectypal distinction to defend the Reformed orthodox against accusations that they had attempted a mere rationalistic theology. According to van Asselt, these theologians never spoke of God as such but only as he is in covenant with us in Christ. This means that all speculation about God is filtered through—or better, derived from—our understanding from Scripture that God is a covenant-making and -keeping God and that all our knowledge of him is in the context of a covenantal relationship.

Michael Horton** deals with this subject in relation to our knowledge of God in his book Covenant and Eschatology. Horton shows that divine revelation is given in the form of divine accommodation to human creatures—a necessarily relational act. Revelation of divine things, as it is ectypal and not archetypal, does not give univocal knowledge—nor does it merely equivocate—but rather, God accommodates his knowledge of himself in human language that is analogical. It follows that our theological formulations then are also analogical.
Just as God can speak to us only in terms that we can understand (and therefore engages in analogical speech himself), we answer God’s revelation by appealing to the linguistic patterns that are available to finite creatures who are ‘pilgrims on the way.’ While for some analogy can only be regarded as weakness, it is in this very weakness of accommodation that God acts in strength, as Paul reminds.

Horton continues, "So analogy is not an extratextual invention, but forms the very pattern of divine speech-accommodation. In this way, both divine utterances and human response (divinely authorized in scripture and witnessed to in the church) are united by analogical patterns of discourse.

Language attributed to God uses human referents to describe that which is not human but divine, so it must be analogical. Given this accommodated mode of communication between Creator and creatures, there must be an inherent relational basis for all talk about God. As Horton concludes, “We do not know God as God is in the divine hiddenness, but we do know God in his condescension, in his willingness incompletely yet truthfully to reveal himself.”

What has been said above about archtypal and ectypal knowledge applies not only to theology but to all knowledge, since we are creatures and relate to the rest of creation as creatures. My point in expressing all of this is that we seem to need, first, a better, more biblical, humble, and creaturely understanding of how we know and what we know compared to how God knows and what God knows. And second, I think we need to be more careful and nuanced in our analysis of culture and the prevailing schools of thought, rather than spouting off sweeping condemnations and painting ourselves into a corner that we really don't want to be in. For those of you who made it to the end of this "short" article, let me know your thoughts. Am I completely off my rocker and capitulating to the spirit of the age? Or is there biblical, extra-modern, extra-postmodern sense to be gleaned in these ramblings?

---------------------------
*All Van Asselt quotes from Willem J. van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth Century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002): 319-35.

**All Horton quotes from Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 184-186.

Win Free Books (and help a poor student)

Enter the challies.com contest with my referral ID -- 10904 -- and get a chance to win the Reformed Expository Commentary Series (and help me too)!

Impossible Germany, Unlikely San Diego

Last night was an amazing experience. One word: WILCO. They must have played for 2 and a half hours, and they played most of their best repertoire, including most of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, A Ghost Is Born, and Sky Blue Sky. I'd have to say that the most impressive element of the show was guitarist Nels Cline. He shreds the snot out of every guitar (or lap steel) put in his hands in a way that is both song-appropriate and consistently inventive. But, this being my first Wilco show, I was surprised at how insanely Jeff Tweedy himself could tear it up and shred the strings when he wanted to.

Perhaps the most mind-blowing musical moment (or, some might say, non-musical moment) was when Jeff and the boys were playing a nice acoustic ballad (can't remember which one it was--I was too transfixed) and suddenly the bass, drums, lead guitar and keys erupted in utter chaos--Madeski, Martin and Wood meet Metallica. About two seconds into that I realized to my stunned surprise that Tweedy was still playing his nice acoustic ballad in perfect time above (or maybe under is a better word) the chaos! And then...they would all somehow bring it right back down to ballad (at the end of 12 bars or so) so tightly that it might have never happened! This happened maybe four times, and each time I watched Jeff Tweedy trod right along, not missing a beat and not even flinching when the rest of the band suddenly exploded into musical anarchy. It was something to be remembered. And that...I will do.

If you are at all interested, their set list from the concert is here.

USPS

Gotta love 'em! They're so nice. And helpful. And smart.

Why Many Self-Respecting Calvinists Struggle to Respect John MacArthur

Kim Riddlebarger has written a piece dealing with John Macarthur's serious verbal blunders and blatant misrepresenting of non-Dispensationalists at the most recent Shepherd's Conference. For those of you who don't know, Macarthur gave a speech entitled "Why Every Self Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillenialist." In it he made some very ungracious and ludicrous claims, including that amillenialism is only consistent for Arminians and that, if Calvin were alive today, he would join MacArthur's movement. He made these statements in the presence of the other speakers, his invited guests, many of whom are definitely NOT premillennial dispensationalists. Where's the Johnny Mac who's passionate about defending the true Gospel?! If you ask me, I think he knows his movement is dying (and almost dead), and now he is on the defensive. Apparently, he feels that defending the future of types and shadows, abrogated by Jesus and the apostles, is at least as important as defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate fulfillment of those types and shadows. I debated in the beginning whether or not to post about this; it made me very angry, and so it was probably wise that I decided not to at the time. So, rather than try to tackle the Independent Fundamental Giant up in L.A., I'll direct you to someone much more able.


(HT: The Heidelblog)

Harry Potter: Dreadful and Vulgar

That title will definitely attract the attention of some of you. Many of you will be surprised to see it; we may have geeked out together over Harry Potter trivia, and you are wondering, "What happened to Matt?" Others of you might say, "Ah, See and Savor has finally seen the light and left the darkness and wickedness and witchcraft of Pottermania!"

Well, the whole point here is to direct your attention to an article by Paul Spears. I think what he has to say is worthy of much consideration. We all need a dose of the dreadful and vulgar now and then!

(BTW, I don't think HP is quite as dreadful and vulgar as some might think. As it has progressed, Rowling has proven herself to have a considerable amount of literary prowess, as well as great storytelling capabilities.)

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Jack Bauer: Which Kingdom?

Scott Clark has written a helpful little post for those of you at all interested in politics and the role Christians should play in the world scene entitled Jack Bauer Doesn't Work for the Kingdom of God, commenting on a piece in Christianity Today about how to and how not to free the Korean hostages in Afghanistan. Should Pauline theology inform governmental policies and practices? Are the ethics and doctrines of the Kingdom of Christ directly applicable to the kingdom of this world?

********************

UPDATE: Thanks to Not Joel for pointing out the dialogue that has been taking place between Dr. Clark and Ted Olson, the author of the CT article.

Here am I!

Check out Phil Sipe's interview of my good friend Iwan Baamann. They discuss Iwan's very interesting background growing up in Germany and the Ukraine as well as his conversion to Christ and his passion for Reformed ministry. At Creed or Chaos!

Mission to Berlin

Listen as I interview David and Eowyn Stoddard, missionaries to East Berlin, Germany, about the joys and challenges of church planting in this extremely atheistic former-Soviet society -- at Creed Or Chaos, a brand new endeavor for me.

Must Read

I'm right now working my way through Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, the new title by the faculty of WSC edited by R. Scott Clark (Westminster prof and author of the Heidleblog). If you are one of those fellows who read this blog and are planning on going into pastoral ministry, this book is a must read. (Now only $15 at the WSC Bookstore!)

But don't take my word for it...

David Wells says, "Goes to the very heart of what constitutes biblical Christianity."

D.G. Hart says, "Demonstrates why justification is at the heart of what it means to be alive in Christ."

Guy Waters says, "The New Perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision have posed grave challenges to the biblical teachings on justification and covenant theology....Readers will find [in this collection of essys] no ground--exegetical, theological, historical, homiletical--untraversed. Reformed ministers, elders, or students cannot afford to bypass careful study of this volume."

Ligon Duncan says, "The historic Reformational understanding of justification, imputation, active obedience, and covenant theology is under assault even from within sectors of the Reformed community. This book represents one of the most scholarly and comprehensive rejoinders to date."

John Fesko says, "A faithful, lucid, and detailed expostition and defense of sola fide, matched in its scholarly precision by its pastoral concern."

Acoustic Roundtable V Show

Odds 'n' Ends

I've been away from my computer for a few days for the sad reason that, yes, even Macs need the doctor sometimes. My optical drive went caput on me so I took it to the Mac store where they informed me that I needed a new one. Happily, I was still under the original warranty and had to pay absolutely zero for the repair.

In other news, I'm enjoying reading a few books. My reading list right now is as follows:

• Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, ed. R. Scott Clark
• The Baptism of Disciples Alone, Fred Malone ( I'm working on the baptism issue)
  
• Covenant and Eschatology, Michael Horton
• Perelandra, C. S. Lewis
• The Radical Reformission, Mark Driscoll
• Hidden Art, Edith Schaeffer

I've been listening to a lot of U2 lately. It's easy to see their widespread influence in so much of pop and rock of the last 15 years or so. And you know, it's understandable that they should have invited Arcade Fire to tour with them because, just as U2 is hailed by many as the greatest rock band of all time, if that's true, Arcade Fire is in the running for a close second. Time will tell.

Also, I've been wearing out my copy of Derek Webb's new CD, The Ringing Bell since I got it about a month before it was released on May 1. (Well, actually, I received a digital download early for preordering it; I've been listening mostly on my iPod, and I've already loaned the CD out to someone.) This newest record of Derek's has caused quite a stir among many Christians (big surprise!), and I've been involved in a few blog threads discussing it. The guys over at Said at Southern have been reviewing the album song by song. Most of their reviews have been line by line, a curious way to review music, I would say. It's so interesting to hear people's interpretations of songs that sometimes are largely speculative and fail to interact with the artist's corpus or the context of the artist's life or even the artist's explicit statements about a song. Having heard a few different interpretations of some of these songs, I decided to get Derek's own authoritative perspective. You can listen to him explaining the basic gist of the songs on this album in this interview with Geof Morris. I was amused as I listened to hear Josh Moore in the background laying down some B3 organ tracks and that Geof and Derek had to shut the door just to be heard. I wonder if they worried about letting the cat out of the bag too early regarding Derek's recent reuniting with Caedmon's Call...

Other listens of late include:

• Iron and Wine, Our Endless Numbered Days
• Austin Britton, Flowers in Mud Puddles
• Denison Witmer, Philadelphia Songs
• Dan Mangan and Mark Berube (live @ Vinbladh's Cafe -- I played first then recorded these fellas -- Excellent!)
• Simon Joyner
• Laura Gibson
• and lots o' M. Ward!
  

Late-night Latinizing

So I'm sitting here guzzling a 24 oz. "Rockstar Juiced" energy drink, mango, orange and passion fruit flavor (sorry, Chris, you left it in my fridge ...twice!), delaying the inevitable. That "inevitable" is the reason for the Rockstar, but this post is the reason for the delay. As I round off my first year of seminary tomorrow, I'm contemplating a trip around the sun more-or-less well done. (I say "well" and not "good" because I can be well, but I know I am not good!) I'm not posting because I feel profound. Nor am I writing because I think my Postscript thoughts to Concluding a year of not necessarily Unscientific theological studies to be infinitely interesting. (Those who've read Kierkegaard might catch in that last sentence just how weird a mood I'm in...)

This year has been one of major change internally and externally. My wife and I live at least 2000 miles away from almost everyone we knew prior to last August. I've finally graduated from BBC! (Aren't they supposed to send me a piece of paper though?) I'm quite "off the fence" in terms of my views of covenant theology. (Thanks, Professor Horton!) I'm quite "on the fence" on baptism. I'm an uncle. (Though, I still haven't met little Jillian...) I started playing shows around San Diego on a somewhat regular basis. I'm recording a record. (Is that redundant?) I'm the brother of a female soldier. (Hoowa! Or is it Gung Ho!? I think it's neither -- she's Army...?) I started boogie boarding hardcore, dude...and I hope to start surfing within the next few weeks. My wife and I are now members of a Presbyterian church. (Watch out Rome and Wheaton!) I've discovered I really like parentheses. (Can you tell?) And I've developed a blogging addiction that keeps me from things like studying for Latin finals just hours away.

With that last thought in mind, I turn from the wonderful world of weblogging to the (vol)luminous lexicons of Latinizing. Alliteration aside, I 'ave to 'urry. (OK, so my alliteration just went from consonance to 'ass'onance; Perhaps I am one tonight...)
Note to self: "Rockstar" may not be the best choice of study drink...