Habemus papam!

Actually, we have a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. No smokes though. Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed by the Senate 78-22 and sworn in yesterday. Of course, if Justice Roberts will rule according to his professed legal philosophy (as an umpire and not a rule-maker, in his baseball analogy), he will be nothing like a judicial pope the way the Leftists view the office as.

As I typed the title of this entry, I entered papam. A fleeting doubt passed through my head: did I decline the word correctly? After all, the accusative of pater is patrem, with an e. So I looked up “habemus papem” on Google. Curiously enough, the first result pointed to an article about the exact same question! And there were many other results as well. I went on to read this article, and according to the author, the correct form is papam, just as a normal first-declension noun and just as I had it the first time [indulging in a bit of self-congratulatory feeling]. But just to be sure, I had to check with the authority. The Vatican’s website did not show up in the first page of results of my search, I noted. So I changed the search to “habemus papam”, and sure enough, I now see the Vatican. Hence, habemus papam must be correct, for thus says the infallible authority.

In the beginning God, or in the beginning when God?

In last night’s Hebrew class we finished reading the Book of Ruth, and we will begin to read Genesis. As with most of the Old Testament, Genesis has many difficult interpretive problems. Even in the very first verse there is uncertainty with respect to the phrase בראשית ברא אלהים. The traditional reading has “In the beginning God created,” but some commentators and recent translations (such as the NEB) have begun to adopt a different reading, “In the beginning when God created.” (It is interesting to note that the successor to NEB, the REB, reverted to the traditional reading.)

The key to this issue rests in the determination of בראשית, whether it should be read as a construct or an absolute. The form looks like a construct, thus favoring the newer reading. However, the verb ברא is pointed as a finite Qal verb, not an infinitive construct. Besides, there is a passage (I cannot recall—one of Waltke’s articles on Genesis has the reference) that uses בראשית as an absolute, and there is no dispute about that. Of course, one can re-point the ברא and make it an infinite construct and change the atnach on אלהים and the disjunctive mark on בראשית, but that would involve emendations of the text. Based on these, I believe the traditional reading is correct. But then my understanding has infinitesimal weight in the world of Old Testament scholarship.

My Hebrew tutor’s professor (call him Professor C.B.) seems to prefer the newer reading. I asked him (tongue-in-cheek of course) whether Professor C.B. is infallible. He said, “Pretty close.” I then pressed on and asked, “Is Jerome infallible?” knowing that Jerome is one of the great minds whom he admires exceedingly, as he had once said, “Jerome cannot be wrong.” He said again, “Pretty close.” Now we have an interesting dilemma here, for Jerome has the traditional reading.

Amazon’s horribly misdesigned return process

I have been in general very happy about Amazon.com’s service. Their shipping is usually very prompt, and for larger orders that qualify for free shipping they would often even ship in parts so that those items that are immediately available could arrive first. This would add to their shipping cost, but the trade-off is that the customer would be gratified.

It is thus mystifying that their customer service in response to problems leaves much to be desired. First, they do not give a toll-free phone number either on the website or on invoices, even though such a number exists. Yes, that probably saves them the cost of a few phone calls, but do they really want irate customers? Besides, with information so easily available on the Internet through search engines, do they really think that they can hide the number? I should think it might have been better for them not to have a number at all than to have it and try to hide it. That is just bad public relations.

Furthermore, the supposed automated return process is severely flawed. Recently I received an incorrect book as part of a large order. I navigated through the return process on their website, and I was annoyed that the instructions did not allow for returning just one incorrectly shipped item. For every item in the order, there were only two choices: refund or replacement. I could not specify that I just needed to return an item, not the entire order. So I wrote some messages in the comments. The last page of the process instructed me to return items from the entire order, and supposedly could let me print a prepaid shipping label. It did not work. At the end I had to write an email asking customer service to send me a shipping label. They could’ve sent it by email, e.g., as a GIF or TIFF file. Instead, they would send it by snail-mail, further adding to the delay.

That was a frustrating experience. But at least they entered the replacement order for me with 2nd-day shipping. Meanwhile, I have to keep the wrong item in my already increasingly entropic study.

In retrospect, all this was probably the result of some optimization. Retailing is as much a science as an art. Amazon.com probably has sophisticated models that perform cost/benefit trade-off, taking into account the probability of incorrect orders. If the probability of errors is low, it probably made sense to use a low-cost solution to address those errors and devote more resources to satisfying customers on the positive side. Overall, the trade-off probably comes out ahead for the bottom line. Proof: I will very likely continue to shop with Amazon.com.

Man

Such a simple word can cause convulsions among those infected by the feminist disease. The word man, singular and anarthrous, is always used to refer collectively to the entire human race. There has never been any ambiguity in this usage. But consider this from Arthur Schlesinger (Essay in the Book section, New York Times, September 18, HT: James Taranto of Best of the Web Today):

Niebuhr summed up his political argument in a single powerful sentence: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." (Niebuhr, in the fashion of the day, used "man" not to exculpate women but as shorthand for "human being.")

Er, no, Mr. Schlesinger. The word man here is is not shorthand for “human being”, but for the human race. Or humankind, if you wish to remain politically correct.

Have you given up on the Republican Party?

That was the opening question of a piece of mass mail I received yesterday from the Republican National Committee. The RNC wants me to renew my membership (read: pay the fee).

Interestingly, I have been asking myself the same question. Given the incompetence of the Republicans (whatever happened to entitlement and tax reforms?) and the out-of-control spending ($200 billion for rebuilding New Orleans out of federal coffers, i.e., about $400,000 for each of the 500,000 displaced households!?), I am inclined to answer in the affirmative to the question. I may still contribute to individual candidates, but until the Republicans as a party can make a significant positive impact in steering the nation back to classical liberalism (freer markets, lower taxes, fiscal restraint, less intrusive government, more emphasis on individual responsibility, etc.), I will not give a penny to the party.

I was quite tempted to return the mailing to RNC with a loud protest, “YES, I HAVE GIVEN UP ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.” But I decided it was easier for me to put the whole thing through the shredder.

The Last Rose of Summer

My brother recently introduced me to the violinist Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst (1814–1865) and asked me to look for the scores of two of his pieces, Fantasie brillante sur Otello de Rossini op. 11 and Variations on the Last Rose of Summer. Ernst was a pupil of the legendary Niccolò Paganini, and he was himself a violinist of the first rank. His pieces would naturally be technically demanding.

I managed to find and bought the Variations on the Last Rose of Summer, and though I found a shop that supposedly has the Otello-Fantasie, the shop has not been responsive. As a semiaccomplished amateur violinist, I also tried to play the Variations, and my conclusion was: the last rose of summer is rather thorny (夏日最後的玫瑰, 很多刺).

The poem that goes with this Irish folk-song is, on the other hand, exceedingly forlorn:

’Tis the last rose of summer,
Left blooming all alone,
All her lovely companions
Are faded and gone.
No flower of her kindred,
No rose bud is nigh,
To reflect back her blushes,
Or give sigh for sigh.

I’ll not leave thee, thou lone one,
To pine on the stem;
Since the lovely are sleeping,
Go sleep thou with them;
Thus kindly I scatter
Thy leaves o’er the bed
Where thy mates of the garden
Lie scentless and dead.

So soon may I follow
When friendships decay,
And from love’s shining circle
The gems drop away!
When true hearts lie withered
And fond ones are flown
Oh! who would inhabit
This bleak world alone?

(UPDATE 2005-09-08 11:27) Yippee! The shop that I said was not responsive has finally emailed me a notice that the score for the Otello-Fantasie is being mailed.

(UPDATE 2005-09-10 15:21) The last rose of summer from my garden.

Of Republican and Democrat babies

Here is a dilemma for those compassionate Democrats—and for compassionate Republicans as well. If you are a Democrat and see a helpless mother holding a baby, and there is a sign that indicates that the mother is a Republican—in fact, a supporter of George W. Bush. What would you do?

That was actually the dilemma faced by one confessor at Democrat Underground, who felt bad about passing over this baby. Some commenters at DU said that the confessor had done the right thing. (Thanks to World Magazine Blog for this story.) Oh, the ever compassionate Democrats! At least the confessor had, to whatever extent, struggled with her conscience. The commenters’ hatred is rather abominable in this case.

Yet sometimes situations may not be so simple. Consider three scenarios:

(a) Let us suppose you are a Republican, a passionate one at that. Further suppose that you have the ability to save one, and only one, baby. And you see two babies who are stranded. Which would you save? In this case, either one is morally acceptable.

(b) Suppose further that one baby is Democrat and the other is Republican, as indicated by the insignia on their wrapping cloths. Now which would you save? If you pick the Democrat baby, you seem to fulfill the command to love one’s “enemy” (or his descendant). But you lose a Republican! On the other hand, if you save the Republican baby, are you then practicing favoritism? I wonder why the additional information of party affiliation over scenario (a) changes the moral calculation of the situation. Galatians 6:10 says, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Thus it appears that for a Christian priority ought to be given to fellow Christians. Does this apply with respect to party affiliation, too?

(c) Now let us say you encounter the babies not simultaneously, but sequentially. Suppose you saved the Republican baby first, and then saw the Democrat baby. Obviously you would not abandon the Republican baby to save the Democrat baby. But suppose you saved the Democrat baby first, and then saw the Republican baby. Would it be morally wrong to abandon the Democrat baby in order to save the Republican baby? (What about the analogous scenario of a Christian baby and a non-Christian baby?) I really do not know for sure. I suppose one can argue that it is by providence that one saw and saved the first baby seen, and once that event took place, the baby has been entrusted to one’s care, and abandoning the baby would mean abdicating the responsibility that one is given by God.

Of course, I could always blame George W. Bush for my moral dilemmas!

One passing thought

I read this article by the preeminent professor of public understanding of science (sounds like some kind of priesthood or apostleship for the religion of science), Richard Dawkins, and his co-author Jerry Coyne, through a link from Evolution News & Views. One thing in the Dawkins-Coyne article that struck me was their comparison of those advocating design to the Holocaust deniers:

Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

But wait a minute! We do not give equal time to the theory that the Holocaust never happened because there are many evidences that taken together provide convincing inference that the Holocaust did take place, and did so by design of evil men, not through some kind of accidental mechanism. Why not play by the same rule in the realm of biology—more specifically, historical biology, to which the theory of evolution properly belongs? We see so many evidences of design, which the atheistic scientists must admit (for even they speak of “apparent design”), but what rules of inference require us to conclude that they are not the result of design?

Therefore, if the comparison with Holocaust deniers is to be drawn, then it is the evolutionists who are the deniers, not those advocating design.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist

1924-2005. RIP.

Sunday school notes on sanctification

Sunday School Study of the Westminster Confession (Summer 2005)
XIII. Of Sanctification

I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

What is sanctification? (WLC 75) (a) A work of God’s grace. (b) Through the operation of the Holy Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ to the justified (Rom. 6:4–6). (c) To renew the believers that they may more and more die unto sin and rise to newness of life.

[Scripture uses the term sanctification with other meanings in different contexts, while the Confession uses it with a narrower focus. Give an example of the term used in another context.]

Sanctification is synergistic. It is primarily a work of God, but involves the renewal of our will (Phil. 2:12–13) and our mind (Rom. 12:1–2). Contrast this with regeneration, justification, and adoption (which are monergistic). In our sanctification, we are diligently to make use of the means of grace: reading and hearing the word of God, prayer, and the sacraments (WLC 157, 160, 175).

[Wherein do justification and sanctification differ (WLC 77)?]

Sanctification is fundamentally spiritual. The word sanctification (and its related words saints, holiness, both in Hebrew and in Greek) has at its root the idea of separation, separateness. The word holy is first and foremost applied to God. Thus underpinning our sanctification is a relationship to God, not merely some quality in ourselves. It is the application of the redemption to us and in us. The end is to make us holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4), to conform us to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29–30).

[In what way are we to be “separated” from the world? What does it mean not to love the world or things in the world (1 John 2:15)?]

Sanctification has ethical and moral implications. (Rom. 6:4, 14; Gal. 5:24) Negatively, it entails mortification of sin (Rom. 6; Rom. 8:13). Positively, it leads to good works (Eph. 2:10; Jas. 2:14–24; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 10:24).

[How do the ethical imperatives of sanctification differ from legalism? Or moralism? Or asceticism? What are some good works that God has moved you to do?]

Necessity of sanctification. Not in the sense of contributing to the requirements for our justification, but in the sense of certainly accompanying justification. “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.” (WCF XI.ii) Likewise, good works are not meritorious with respect to justification. But they are pleasing to God (when performed with humility and with love for God), and God “rewards” one who does good (Matt. 6:4). Faith without works is dead ((Jas. 2:14–24).

[What are some evidences of your faith and fruits of God’s work of sanctification in you, for which you can give thanks to him?]

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Sanctification encompasses the whole man in all areas of life. Just as through the Fall man has become totally depraved, in his will, mind, and deeds, so also, as God’s work of renewal, sanctification is restoring the whole man (1 Thess. 5:23). Sanctification is not limited to outward acts and behaviors, but also pertains to the heart and mind (Matt. 22:37; Rom. 12:1–2).

Sanctification is not instantaneous. The remnants of corruption are still active, though diminishing. The Holy Spirit in us wages war against the flesh (Gal 5:17). Justification in itself has not effected a change in our nature, only status with respect to the law (from being condemned to being declared righteous). The change has begun with regeneration and sanctification, and progresses until we meet our Lord.

[Have you ever reflected on your progress in sanctification? How has God worked in your life through the means of grace?]

Sanctification is not sinless perfection, nor effortless. We strive for perfection (Matt. 5:48), yet do not quite reach it in this life (Phil 3:12). It is a continuing war and requires perseverance. Though the victory of Christ for the elect is certain, and the main battle is won with Christ’s accomplished redemption (1 Cor. 15), we still have battles with sin and the Adversary, as in mop-up operations. The believer’s life is now characterized by grace, not dominion of sin (1 Jn. 3:9–10). The greater progress one makes in sanctification the more one becomes distressed by the sin that, however diminished, still remains in him (Rom. 7:24).

[What are some of the consequences of perfectionism?]

The use of the law in sanctification. (WLC 97) Justification changes our relation to the law: we are no longer under its condemnation (Rom. 8:1). The law is no longer a curse to us. We do not see it as a burden that sinks us. Rather, we love the law of God and desire to obey it (Ps. 1, Ps. 119), for it is holy, righteous, good, and spiritual (Rom 7:12, 14). Our understanding of the law is renewed in light of Christ’s redemption. (a) We know the seriousness of the law’s requirements, and recognize our inability; therefore, we are driven to Christ, with gratitude. (b) We understand what love for God and love for our neighbors require in our lives. We learn to love God and our neighbors by obedience to the law of God, recognizing that love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 14:10).

[What is your understanding of the law in light of Christ? How does Gal. 5:16–26 add to this understanding? In light of the law of God, what are some of the areas of your life that have remnant sins that need to be mortified?]