- member since June 23, 2008
Thanks for your kind words brother. I often feel the same way about some of the books that I read (although I do have one fellow elder who is usually up for a good challenge...he's a scholar who translates the Bible for a living...so he enjoys a challenging read from time to time).
Ellul books are supposed to arrive today...ahh...so many books, so little time! :-)
You mentioning that phrase back to me ("of the increase of His govt and peace") also got me to thinking...we probably can't think about that too much. :-) I want to live in a way that points to His government and peace. :-)
Thanks for the feedback. Good thoughts and recommendations. I hope you get some good time with family during this Christmas window of time.
These recent discussions about Christian Anarchy caused me to remember a website that you may be familiar with that moves along these lines called www.jesusradicals.com Oddly, the guy that I had just recommended to you is the current focus of an interview (Richard Beck) and they are discussing his book "Unclean" (although I don't think that book is necessarily about Christian anarchy. Peace to you Dan...
You made me smile about referencing my influence from Greg Boyd and then John Piper. I'm smiling again as I write the sentence. Honestly, about 12 years ago I got into John Piper and was helped a lot on getting a bigger view of God and living our lives for the glory of God and connecting God getting glory and joy in our own lives. I didn't really know much about reformed theology or how rigid people could get about different perspectives on God's sovereignty and other related issues.
The last ten years or so has been much more influenced by Wright, Boyd, and I've been significantly influenced by those with Anabaptist roots.
I have heard of Vernard Eller and read the "Outward Bound" book several years ago. I'll try to read the "Christian Anarchy" book. I hadn't been exposed to a proper understanding of that term until pretty recently when I read a blog article by a professor friend at "Experimental Theology." You can find the article here http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/search?q=christian+anarchy&submit=Search
Grace and deep peace to you today... I've been thinking about the promise during the advent season... "Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end..." O yes!
Your brother in Christ... Jamey
Dan, thanks for the reply. You're certainly right about the synopsis of the book being that language contains a history of human consciousness. That seems to be the main thrust of the book. But as C.S. Lewis once wrote, it is sometimes not the main points of a book that are most important, but its implications. And it is the implications of Barfield's book that have been giving me the most trouble. I can't point to a single place in the book because this idea is scattered all throughout it. In one point, he refers to words as the seeds of human thought, and says that just as a plant cannot exist without a seed, so human thought cannot exist without words. He says at many points that if we had not had the words to express the ideas that they stand for, then we would never be able to have the thoughts that we have about these ideas. While this may be true in certain areas, I believe those areas are the exception to the rule. And I think that even in these areas, the words served mostly as a shortcut, not as a foundation, and that the ideas could have come about even had the words themselves not come about. I was just wondering what your take on this was, as it seems to be one of Barfield's main underlying ideas -- though not, as you correctly say, the book's main idea.
I'm currently reading Owen Barfield's History in English Words, and I found you as a user who not only had this book but thought very highly of it. When I saw what some of your other influences were (Lewis, Chesterton, etc.) which I also have in common with you, I wanted to write you and get your take on the Barfield book. I like it so far on the linguistic side -- words and the origins of them -- but I am having trouble with his historical approach. Much of what he says seems not only unproven but unprovable, and to my mind bordering on the ridiculous. For example, he seems to be one of the sheerest relativists I've read in terms of how he traces human thought to language. It seems to me that language is a reflection of human thought, and would not be possible without human thought, whereas Barfield claims the opposite many times. As a reader who not only has similar tastes as myself, but also happens to have given Barfield's book five stars, I thought I'd ask you for your thoughts on the book and its subjects, if it's not too much trouble. I thank you, sir, and hope you have a great week.