Friday in the wild - Feb. 18, 2005

Yep, it's that time of the week again . . .

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has restarted a weekend series on art. This week he critiqued the ubiquitous Thomas Kinkade - interestingly, treating him fairly as a talented and technically proficient artist who has allowed commercial ambition to trump his artistic integrity:

And yet the first [of two similarly-themed paintings] is unquestionably technically superior. The use of texture and shadow puts the viewer within the picture. You can almost feel the cold Chicago air and hear the sounds of the serene yet bustling city. The second painting, however, distances the viewer from the scene. Light is overused (notice the light coming from every window and the background lights that resemble a brushfire), presenting a faux golden glow that is unrealistic and dull. And the carriage, though more sharply drawn than in the other painting, is two-dimensional and distracting. While the first work is worthy of gracing a museum wall, the second is only worthy of garnishing a cheap greeting card.

As you could probably guess, the second painting is by Thomas Kinkade, circa 2004.

But what about the first painting, the more aesthetically superior rendition of the Water Tower? It too is by Thomas Kinkade. He painted it in 1998.

[Read Kinkade's Cottage Fantasy: The Dispiriting Art of Thomas Kinkade]

Here's a blogswarm I can really get behind. Dory of Wittenberg Gate is calling for Bloggers' Best for Terri Schiavo.

If you have written on this subject and would like to submit a link, Dory provides instructions in the above blog post. The deadline is Saturday noon EST.

Defending Terri is fully in line with my own pro-life views, but alas, I have not yet blogged anything on the subject. So the next best thing is to make sure other interested parties are aware of Dory's project (if they are not already).

For those who may not be aware, Terri Schiavo is a severely brain damaged and disabled woman in Florida who must be fed via a feeding tube. Her husband Michael has petitioned the courts, thus far successfully, to have her feeding tube removed and allow her to die. On the other hand, her family argues that Terri is not, as is supposed, in a vegetative state; she is able to interact with visitors although she cannot speak. They say that condition could be reversed, at least in part, if treated appropriately, but Michael Schiavo has thus far refused to allow the treatments. Terri's parents allege that he is attempting to murder her. Other advocates for the disabled, such as Joni Eareckson Tada, have also spoken out on her behalf.

No fun on the playground: I have a small scar under my lower lip, the result of nearly biting it off after a see-saw caught me in the chin when I was 8. Kimberly at Number 2 Pencil posts excerpts from a brochure outlining the idiotic lengths some school boards go these days to to prevent that kind of mishap. "Organized games of tag may be played in the field, if supervised." Boring. "The large rocks . . . are to be sat on only and are not part of the playground to be played on." What other good are big rocks? "All snow, mulch, rocks, and dirt are to remain on the ground." No snowmen, please. (H/T: Joanne Jacobs.)

The Jollyblogger serves up an excellent critique of the inerrancy debate that went on this week at BHT:

[Confusing inerrancy with hermeneutics] creates a straw man in assuming that, if you don't hold to my view on this particular subject then you deny inerrancy. It's akin to reasoning that if you don't like baseball or apple pie, you must be a communist. In such a way of thinking, even the earliest proponents and formulators of the doctrine of inerrancy like Hodge and Warfield would not be considered inerrantists because of their openness to non-literal views of creation. Or, take Roger Nicole from RTS-Orlando. He is one of the leading defenders of inerrancy in our day and he believes that women can be ordained. On all of these issues I take the more conservative position, but I would never question these folks view of inerrancy.

[Read Inerrancy Again]

Tim Challies writes as good an explanation of inherited sin as I've read:

We see that Adam was more than the father of the human race, but was also the representative head of the human race. God had determined this from before the time Adam sinned. Thus Adam's actions directly effected us. Consider the metaphor of the President of a nation. When the President of the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, every citizen of the nation was also at war with Japan. Acting as the head of all those who he represented, the President made a decision that effected each one of them. It is, of course, an imperfect analogy, but sheds some light on how one man can represent others. Adam made the decision to wage war against God, and this affected every aspect of his being.

[Read Feedback Files - Inherited Sin]

A new blog in my bookmarks: Steve Hays of Triablogue weighs in on the White-Holding debate over Romans 9. Mr. Holding is getting his clock cleaned so thoroughly from two fronts right now that he will never have an excuse for missing his bus:

10. [Hays quoting Holding] "Sorry, but White clearly does not have his exegetical ducks in a row. I recommend he read Kasemann, Fitzmyer, Esler, and Witherington. That should run the gauntlet for him, and maybe throw in a healthy dose of Cranfield for the grammar."

Well, it would be quite a trick for Dr. White to line up all these ducks in a row. Kasemann is a liberal Lutheran duck, Fitzmyer is a liberal Catholic duck, Witherington is an Evangelical Arminian duck, Esler is another liberal duck (subspecies: Anatidae Sanders), while Cranfield is a Barthian duck.

In addition, only two of the five (Esler, Witherington) belong to the sociorhetorical school of criticism. So it would, indeed, be no small feat to point all these ducks in the same direction. However, a quack like Holding may have just the right birdcall to make it happen.

[Read Holding v. White]

For whatever reason, I appear to have dropped off the Googlesphere again this week. Oh well. Interesting searches that apparently do get me attention:

• "MRI" "accident" "Metal objects" "funny": Actually, it wasn't that funny.
• Hard to believe I'm actually the #4 authority on Neglected morals in the media, concerning Hollywood stars and/or reporters.
• And, for the last time, no, I can't help you find a "camilla parker bowles" cleavage picture. Whoever you are, you have real issues.

Till next week, take care.