Why We Baptized James

I mentioned some months ago that I would explain in greater detail why we chose to have James baptized at Pearce. The decision was difficult, and we spent many hours talking it over in much greater detail than I'll write here. I'm leaving out the whole question of infant baptism in the early church, not because it's unimportant, but simply because what we found on this terribly important question was so inconclusive. Eventually, these were the three big points for us in deciding to have James baptized:

1) God's salvation in Jesus has no efficient agent or action except Jesus. We came to see baptism as a true participation in his death and resurrection, not as a post-conversion proof of authenticity.

2) We came to see the meaning of baptism as "entrance into the covenant people." We are committed to James being en Christo, which is much less a matter of personal decision and responsibility than a conversion experience seems to be.

3) While we celebrate and rejoice with those who have had dramatic conversion experiences, we don't regard them as absolutely necessary. (Note: regular confession and repentance must be necessary, of course) We don't know what will happen to our little boy in 10 or 20 years (God help us as parents!) but we think it entirely appropriate to regard him as a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, having received his baptism for the remission of sin and participating in his death and resurrection with the Spirit. Baptizatus est.

This is all very general, and of course we uphold many other "volitional" practices (such as communion) in keeping with the traditions of those before us. Sometimes I remember back on this decision and think we made a lot of fuss over nothing, and sometimes I think the whole think was much too weighty for us and our feeble wisdom. Oremus invicem.

What I Read on Summer Vacation

Very good historical analysis of media, but most of the neurophysiology went right over my head. I don't know what to make of most brain science claims. Someone who knows the data needs to sit down and make some careful distinctions about what's correlation and what's causation.

The chapters on suffering and asceticism were the best. I'm not sure I understood what he was saying about prayer and meditation. I found Seven-Storey Mountain and Dark Night of the Soul much easier the second time around, and will probably try this one again.

A good quick read, and very sad. The symbolism is a bit overplayed, and the characters are hard to believe by the end.

Wonderful, gripping book. The best American novel I've read in a long time.

Lots of rubbish. He's a great story-teller, but it isn't real history. (Every social ill of the past 500 years is reduced to a greedy cartel of evil white capitalist men.) There are some real injustices in this book that ought to be discussed and addressed, but the whole book is so strident that you hardly know what to take seriously.

I forgot how great this book is. It was a delight to re-read it.

I still love the Hornblower books, but finally discovered why everyone talks about Capt. Aubrey. This was brilliant.

This is what all spy novels should be like. I hadn't read it since college.

I liked the country scenes at the beginning of this one especially. I also started to really get the humor.

The best of the three so far, I thought. (Or maybe I'm just getting more of the naval jargon three books in) It will be hard to decide how many more to read when things get busy in the Fall.

I'd highly recommend this and Mr. Romney's book before the election. They are especially useful for understanding how each candidate interprets the story of the past 20-30 years of political history. I have some narrative context now for statements that I'd otherwise misunderstand. (Or, perhaps, misunderstand even worse)

The first of the Smiley novels. Very good, very original.

Terribly, terribly sad book. I don't know if any of the film adaptations are any good, but I'm sure they couldn't capture the deep religious substory. (Greene might have thought of the religious story as the main course, and the affair as the side dish!)

Not as interesting as Call for the Dead (none of the international concerns) but a good mystery.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

How I Spent My Summer Vacation...

Getting into monkey business...

Relaxing in hammocks...

Having fearsome bear picnics outside...

Attempting solid foods...

Visiting the alumni BBQ...

Going to a preseason Bills game...

Hanging out poolside and O&K's...

Blowing bubbles...

Relaxing in PJs...

Visiting grandparents...

Playing with Steven...

Building forts...

Playing peek-a-boo...

Practicing walking...

Playing hide-and-seek...

Playing orchestra concerts...

Helping with housework...

Playing gigs...

Staying cool on hot days...

Drinking coffee...

And going on dates with Mom...

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those in the Messiah Jesus

Paul’s conclusion here precedes his minor premise (v. 2-11) given the first premise (Israel’s problem was Sin operating with Death through Torah) in chapter 7. Condemnation is katakrima, renewing the law-court metaphor from earlier. The incorporative sense of “Messiah” is enormously important here. Paul’s argument from 7-8 doesn’t make any sense if you view the escape from Sin and Death as something to be bargained individually.

2 For the law of the spirit of life in the Messiah Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and of death

Here the bifurcated Torah is denoted. The good and just Torah of life, in the Messiah, is what has freed those en Christo from the condemnation sentence that would be pronounced by Sin and Death.

3 For with the Torah unable in the weakness of the flesh, God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sins (as a sin offering), condemned sin in the flesh

Unable is adunaton. Peri hamartias is a construct lifted directly out of the LXX to mean “sin offering,” and probably should not be translated directly as “for the sake of sins.” As that sin offering, the Messiah neutralized the katakrima—the condemnation.

4 That the just requirement of Torah might be fulfilled in us not walking according to the flesh but according to the spirit

Walking in the sense of living or being. (peripatousin) The contrast throughout this section is sarkos (flesh) and pneumatos (spirit).

5 For those being according to the flesh think of those things of the flesh, but those according to the spirit those things of the spirit

Or “set their minds to” the things of the flesh. Phronousin doesn’t mind thinking as in pondering, but denotes the character of the thinking apparatus. This is not a dualist trap. Paul is not saying that his special gnosis will elevate the mind away from the body and into the spirit. He is saying that the mind enslaved by the flesh is characterized by the rule of Sin/Death, but that mind freed and now animated by the spirit will be transformed into something different.

6 For the mind of the flesh, Death, but the mind of the spirit, life and shalom

Just as the law was bifurcated and became, though holy and good itself, the bringer of death to the flesh, so also the flesh’s phronema is subject to Death.

7 Therefore the minds of the flesh are enemy unto God, for they are not submitted to God’s Torah, neither are they able.

As long as one is in bondage to the flesh, they are at enmity with God and his good Torah. Furthermore, they are unable (oude gar dunatai) to be helped.

8 And those being in the flesh are not able to please God

With the sense of “be pleasing to God.” (aresai)

9 But you are not yourselves in the flesh but in the spirit, since the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any does not have the spirit of the Messiah, he is not His

All 2^nd person plural. The Messiah’s people live in the spirit because God’s spirit inhabits them. Paul uses temple language here. As YHWH’s spirit dwelt in his people’s temple of old, now the spirit dwells in the bodies/body of his Messiah’s people. The indwelling of the spirit is the characteristic of the people “for whom there is now no condemnation” and the proof of their acquittal.

10 But if the Messiah is in you, then the body is on the one hand dead because of sin and on the other hand the spirit is alive on account of righteousness

A clunky translation, but there’s no simple way to highlight the men…de contrast. Because of is dia, not a dative of reference. Righteousness is dikaoisunen. Body is soma, not sarx. Not sure whether to read sin as “Sin” or “sin” here, but the point would be essentially the same.

11 But if the spirit of him raising Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he raising the Messiah from the dead will make alive also your mortal bodies through his spirit indwelling in you

Perhaps my favorite verse in Romans. If the spirit of YHWH temples/tabernacles in you, the one who began new creation in his Messiah Jesus will make-alive (zoopoiesei) your mortal somata through his indwelling—enoikountos.

12 Therefore then, brothers, we are debtors not in the flesh according to the flesh to live

The language switches in v.12-17 to the language of inheritance, which might be more evocative for an ancient agrarian community anyway, not even considering the promises of “inheritance” driving the O.T. Paul may be continuing his deliberate evocation of the O.T. story as we, leaving the Red Sea and Sinai, approach the inheritance.

13 For if you might live according to the flesh, you ought to die. But if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

As your phronemata (mind, mindset) is now led by the spirit, so are your actions. (praxeis)

14 For such by the spirit of God are led, these are the sons of God

Not only offered abstract direction, but led in action. (agontai)

15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again unto fear but ye received a spirit of sonship, in which we cry Abba father

Based on the scholarly work I’ve read I understand the case for Abba as “Daddy” or some similar intimate term to be overstated, but Pauls’ point stands whether “Daddy” or “Father.” The Father receives not in oppression, but in sonship. (Huiothesias might also be the technical term for adoptive sonship.)

16 the same spirit bears witness in our spirit that we are children of God

Not our flesh (as by circumcision) but our spirit attests our status of sonship

17 And if children, also heirs. The heirs of God, and co-heirs with the Messiah, since we suffer with him that we might also be glorified with him.

Hence the promise in v.11 of resurrection. Proper understanding of this verse hinges on the belief that the Messiah, in his ascension to the Father’s right hand, has already been glorified.

18 For I reason that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy of comparison to the glory to be revealed in us

Reason is logizomai. Axia with a genitive of comparison. The glory to be revealed is not personal aggrandizing or braggadocio, but New Creation itself.

19 For Creation’s deep longing awaits the revelation of the sons of God

Not only do God’s people await the New Creation to be revealed (apokalupsin) but the whole of old Creation yearns.

20 For the Creation is subjected to futility, not of its own will but on account of the one subjecting it, upon hope

Just as God gave over the minds of the impious (ch. 1) to futility, so also did he risk giving over his whole good creation to Sin, that by his Messiah’s decisive action against Sin, he should rescue it all. (!)

21 That the Creation itself also might be freed from decay’s bondage unto glorious freedom of the children of God

None of this “far-golden-shore” escapism. Creation will be rescued with us into our shared glorious freedom.

22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together and suffering together until now

Both verbs are present tense—the whole creation is groaning and suffering until now.

23 and not alone, but we already having the first-portion of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, awaiting, the redemption of our body.

As Paul goes on to explain, this present suffering, as modeled in the Messiah, is necessary for we who will be redeemed. New Creation comes out of suffering.

24 For in this hope we are saved. But hope seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?

The already/not yet dichotomy of the inaugurated kingdom is expressed in 23&24—we already have the first portion of the spirit, but we are a people living in hope.

25 But if what we do not see we hope, through endurance we await

Endurance is upomones.

26 And likewise also the spirit fore-co-aids in our weakness. For if we might pray as is necessary we do not know how, but the spirit intercedes the same with unspeakable groans

There is no simple way to translate sunantilambanetai. Best to read it in the context of vv. 21-25 and especially in weakness. The verb is usually translated “intercedes,” as is uperentugchanei in the later part of the verse. The sense is similar, but not exact.

27 And He searching our hearts knows what is the mind of the spirit, since according to God he intercedes for the sake of the saints

Understanding the “He” of this verse as God, who accepts the spirit’s intercession for us, is the key to understanding this otherwise potentially slippery verse.

28 And we know that to those beloved God works together all things unto good, to those according to his purpose being called

“Called” (kletois) is the first category of the list in v. 29&30, which is Paul’s theological description of the Christian process

29 Since those he foreknew, he foresaw sharing-the-likeness of the image of his son, unto his being firstborn among many brothers

Likeness-sharing is summorphous. Here begins the summation of Paul’s work so far, the description of how God through his Messiah has fulfilled his glorious purposes of salvation and restoration for Israel (through the Messiah) and for his Creation. What follows in ch. 9 will be the specific problem that Paul wishes to address in light of this.

30 And those he foresaw, these he also called; and those he called, these he justified; and those he justified, these he also will glorify.

Foreseeing (or predestination), Call, Justification (edikaiosen) and Glorification. These might not be absolutely airtight theological compartments, but they are distinct, and Paul’s whole corpus is vivified when read in these categories.

31 What therefore shall we say to these? If God is for us, who is against us?

What then of the problems of suffering and weakness raised?

32 Which his own son did not spare but for our sake gave him over, how with him will all things not be granted to us?

Gave him over is again paredoken. The “all things” should be read not only in terms of favorable judgment for eternal life, but that (incredible enough) and all of the covenant purposes from the O.T.

33 Who will accuse against God’s called? It is God who justifies

Vv. 34&35 in affirmation of 8:1.

34 Who is he which condemns? The Messiah [Jesus] which died, and more was raised, and which is at God’s right hand, and who intercedes for us

Identification of the Messiah with the Spirit, but with yet another word (entugchanei) for intercession.

35 What will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Expected answer, “no,” of course.

36 Just as it is written that For thy sake we die the whole day, we are reckoned as sheep of the slaughter

Here is the paradox of the gospel, that this confidence and justification comes in and with the imitation of suffering, following the suffering King.

37 But in all these we are overconquerors through him loving us

Yet in that suffering we are more than conquerors—hupernikomen.

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers nor things present nor things to come nor powers

39 Nor height nor depth nor any other created thing is able to separate us from the love of God in the Messiah Jesus our Lord.

Only, Amen.

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 7

1 Or do you not know, brothers, I speak to those knowing Torah, since the Torah lords over a man upon what time he might live

Chapter 7 begins continuing the theological theme of chapter 6 (deliverance from Torah) with a new analogy. (Release from matrimony instead of exodus from slavery.) Both analogies are explanations of 5:12-21. Those in the Messiah are no longer bound to Adam and the Adamic problems, but are now free to be bound to the Messiah. Paul will explain in v.7 how the entrance of Torah into the Adamic problem (sin and death) creates a complex bifurcation, but these first verses serve to restate in different language the bond/freedom idea of the previous chapter. The marriage language starts in this chapter. When Paul speaks to those knowing (ginoskousin) Torah he uses the same term for a man’s “knowing” a woman. In other words, he speaks to those bound by covenant to Torah. “Speaking to” is the best way to render the cases, but it doesn’t mean that Paul is addressing Jews and everyone else doesn’t need to listen…rather Paul is speaking about or with reference to those “knowing” Torah. “Lords over” is kurieuei, from the same stem as kurios. Simplest way to translate the end of the verse is probably “as long as he’s alive.”

2 For a married woman is given by law to a living husband. But if the man might die, she is released from the law concerning the man

By law could also be according to or in the law. (I’m translating nomos as law instead of Torah a few times here for clarity’s sake, although it’s really continuing to evoke the specifically Jewish law as well.) Released is the same word (katargeo) as nullify earlier, but it changes meanings in the passive with the preposition apo. Nomos and andros are both in the genitive, nomos because of the preposition. Could also be translated with some liberties: the bond to the man is nullified/emptied of power. (Basic idea: Death ends the power of Torah.)

3 Therefore she is called adulterer if she come to another man with her husband yet living. But if the man might die she is free from the law

The Torah has power as long as the old bonds are intact (i.e., there has been no redemptive death) and that power is quite real, enough to make one an adulterer. This passage is about the Torah’s authority, not about practical advice for church discipline.

4 So that, my brothers, you also have died with reference to Torah through the body of the Messiah, unto your becoming to another, to him raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God

By participating in the Messiah’s death the bond to the old man (still referencing Adam here) is broken. In that sense we really have “died.” We are now bound (become, as in v.3) to another man, in order that we might bear fruit to God. The bearing fruit idea completes the marriage analogy, because offspring are a necessary part of a successful and blessed marriage in the ancient world, not just an extra bit of trivia on the “happily ever after” page. Our marriage to the Messiah is a blessed and fertile one.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins which were enroused through the Torah were in your members, unto your bearing fruit unto death

The only hope we had of offspring (and hope of/for offspring is another major O.T. theme) in our bond to the old man was unto death. We have here the beginning of the bifurcation language that gets sorted out in vv. 7-25. Though the Torah was the covenant marker and blessing from God, somehow it was Torah that enroused (energeito) the passions of sins, leading ultimately to a legacy of death.

6 But now we are released from Torah dying to what we were held down by, so us to serve in the newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter

Released is katergethemen again. In the Messiah we have died to what bound us. Not quite sure how to translate the end. There is no subject, “us” appears to govern the verb, and there is no object. Some have read new life and old life, but zoe doesn’t appear anywhere. I think I’ve seen “new” and “old” modifying spirit and letter respectively, but that doesn’t seem right either. I welcome an explanation.

7 What then will we say? That the Torah is sin? May it not be! But I did not know sin except for Torah. For I did not know coveting except the Torah said You shall not covet

One of the more controversial points I’ll argue here (argued much more convincingly elsewhere by Wright, to whom I owe pretty much everything I’ll say about the next chapter and half) is that the following passage is not Paul speaking autobiographically. Rather, the I (ego) is a continuation of the discussion started in 7:1 (I speak now concerning those knowing/bound to Torah) and the larger narrative of the Israel story redone by the Messiah, which began in ch.5 in Eden, went to Egypt and the Red Sea in ch.6, and now is at Mt. Sinai. We should not, then, read the following chapters as a revelation of Paul’s personal interior sin. (As some would have it, his discovery of sexual desire around the time he started reading the Pentateuch for his Bar-Mitzvah.) If you presume a personal reading the argument is full of starts and stops, and makes no sense. Context demands that, as elsewhere, Paul writes the “I” as Israel. (He writes vv. 7-12, by the way, the aorist tense—as history, and vv. 13-24 in the present tense as the “current problem.”) There’s a lot more to say about why Paul did this, but I’ll leave the argument hanging for now.

We need to, for the whole section, keep Paul’s question of whether or not the Torah is sin(ful), at hand. It is certainly not (see v. 12) but Sin used Torah, which was holy and good, to accomplish what it couldn’t otherwise. (The image here of the arrival of Torah on top of the mountain is most certainly linked to the arrival of the golden calf below)

8 And Sin receiving the opportunity through the command accomplished in me all coveting. For without Torah sin was dead.

Accomplished (ergazomenoi) could also be worked or wrought. When Israel was bade to have no other gods or idols, they immediately were filled with the lust/desire (epithumia, though Paul is evoking the 10^th commandment specifically from the LXX translation) to have them. As the child who is told to do anything but go in the one closet (which, unbeknownst to him, holds the poisonous spider), the command itself serves to implant the burning desire to disobey it.

9 But I lived formerly without Torah, and receiving the command Sin came to life.

Even though the giving of Torah was supposed to be the initial seal to the life giving covenant, it roused sin to life within Israel and led to all the painful history of Israel’s failure to live up to its covenant vocation. Though the Torah-bound people were supposed to be a light and life to the world, their own failure to keep Torah amplified Sin’s effect. (Still keep the question in v. 7 in mind)

10 And I died and the commandment found to be life unto me, the same was unto death.

So Israel wanders in wilderness and eventually overrun by pagan oppressors, because of their failure to stay faithful to the good law given them…but the same law that convicts them of their failure

11 For sin receiving the opportunity through the command deceived me and through it killed me

Deceived, or led astray, once again using golden-calf language and evoking the failure at the foot of Sinai where, at the giving of Torah, Israel failed

12 So that the Torah is holy and the command holy and just and good.

Here is the answer to the question in 7, although now the question of why Torah must be addressed in the context of God’s faithfulness to the promises for Israel. For the next verses, we’ll see that we’re looking a psychological treatment not of the pre or post conversion Christian, but of the Israel of Paul’s day.

13 Therefore did that good become death in me? May it not be! But rather sin, through the good accomplished death in me, that it might be shown sin, that sin might become overaboundingly sinful through the command.

The concept of this verse is vitally important to all that follows in chapters 8&9, and also serves to explain what Paul mentioned earlier when he said that the Torah came (5:20) that sin might “abound.” What he begins to explain here is that sin, in being made “aboundingly sinful” is collected in one place, or drawn up to its full stature. As we shall see later, the Messiah conquered sin and death by taking this “heaped-up” sin, which was concentrated on Israel, as Israel’s king and representative, upon himself. This is, perhaps of all the verses that follow, the most clearly non-autobiographical verse as well. (Though of course, the sections that follow do find an authentic parallel in the way that most of us deal with the problem of interior temptation and virtue.) Note the question again that Paul seeks to address: Did the Torah become (or effect) death in Israel? (Answer, no)

14 For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am sold fleshly by sin

It is an implicit reference, but the “sold by sin” is a continuation of the slave language from the previous chapter. Vv. 15-19 serve as the explanation for this imbalance. Fleshly is sarkinos, spiritual pneumatikos.

15 For what I work I do not know. For this I will I do not do, but this I do which I hate.

In plainer English (I’ve tried to play the Greek as it lies in the translations throughout) I don’t understand my own actions. I don’t do what I want, but I do the thing I hate. It is very easy to read this, as was said earlier, in context of a private morality struggle, but I think Paul is actually referring to the failure of the covenant people to keep the very laws that sealed their covenant. Though Israel would be the light of the world, they instead are idolatrous, unfaithful, and exiled. The very things they ought to hate, they do.

16 But if I do this which I will not, I agree with the law that it is good.

If I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good.

However, Torah itself is exonerated from the charge of evil, for by my “not willing” to do these things I uphold its goodness.

17 But now no longer do I accomplish this but sin dwelling in me

But it’s no longer me that does it, but sin dwelling in me.

So then, Torah is not responsible for “my” death, but the sin revealed by Torah. Torah is not to blame for the (apparently) catastrophic failure of God’s chosen people Israel in the world, but the sin in that people that their covenant law reveals.

18 For I know that good lives not in me, that is in my flesh. For that present to me to will, and this good to accomplish not.

For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I can’t do it.

Though Israel would do what is right, she is unable, because of the indwelling sin exposed by Torah. In her “practical” living out of the covenant, Israel admits failure. Good does not live in her.

19 For not this good I will do I do, but this ill which I do not will I do.

For I don’t do the good I want, but the evil I don’t want is what I do.

Good and evil/ill throughout are kalon/agathon and kakon.

20 But if I do this which I do not will, no longer do I accomplish it but sin living in me.

Now if I do what I don’t want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.

It’s important to note here that at the end of this analysis Torah and “I” are both exonerated. In other words, God himself is exonerated and can be considered still faithful, for the promise always was that the solution would come through Israel. Since Israel, corrupted though she is by indwelling sin, must be the solution, she must provide a way despite the indwelling sin for God to deal decisively with that sin.

21 Therefore I find this concerning Torah, to do good by my own willing, that evil is present to me.

This verse should NOT read “Therefore I find a law.” The sense in readable English is “So I find concerning Torah that when I want to do good voluntarily, evil is close at hand.” Close at hand/present is parakeitai, which is literally “laid-next to.” I wonder (though I’ve never read it anywhere else) whether this might be evoking the marriage analogies from the beginning of the chapter. Though I am willing and eager to do good, I’m bound, conjugally, to sin and death.

22 For I delight in God’s Torah according to the inner man

Inner man is eso anthropon. Full analysis next verse.

23 But I see another law in those members of mine warring with the law in my mind and making me captive to the law of sin being in my members

But yet I am a bifurcated man. Torah seems good and holy to one part of me, but to another part it is the instrument by which I am sold to the slavery of sin/death. (v. 14 again.) Here is the answer to the question of v. 13. Torah has become to me both a holy thing and a dreadful thing, just as I am become both a holy thing and a dreadful thing. I am split in half.

24 I am a wretched man. Who will save me from this deathly body?

Since I am at war and taken captive/made a slave, who is it that will deliver me? Who will save wretched Israel, will solve this muddle of what was supposed to be God’s faithful promise to fallen humanity, will end the war, and redeem the one sold into slavery?

25 But thanks to God through the Messiah Jesus our Lord. Therefore then I myself in the mind on the one hand serve God’s Torah and in the flesh the Torah of sin

This will be done through the Messiah’s victory. (Explained fully in chapter 8.) The contrast between spirit and flesh serve to underscore the state of bifurcated Israel apart from the Messiah’s dramatic rescue. I’ll add as a final note to this chapter that those who insist on reading this passage only in terms of private obedience have been justifiably confused by this “conclusion,” and would be tempted to understand that Paul is advocating them to live as exactly as he has said NOT to in the previous chapters and throughout the rest of his writing: as dualist Gnostics who can do whatever they want in the flesh because their “salvation” is from the head/spirit.

International Date Night: American

Convalescence

I've recently recovered from a rather severe bout of Mahleria with the BPO. (The 3rd symphony, playing assistant.) Mahleria, of course, is a pretty severe ailment. Once you've contracted a strain it takes over your life quickly, and is known for being so protracted and lingering that sometimes there isn't even time for an intermission.





 

Most music students have an episode of it sometime or another. It's quite contagious, and mostly spread by tiny, annoying, high pitched insects with vindictive swarming personalities making a horrible whiny sound. I mean violins, of course.

 

So anyway, a week of Mahleria takes over your life. You feel listless, and then really excited, and then triumphant, and then despairing again, pretty much in random sequence every couple of minutes. I was going to take some medication, but when I got it out I found all the instructions were in German.

 

Okay, that's enough with the Mahler jokes. It was a great week with BPO, and the gig ended with my favorite words: "Hey, what are you doing next week?" Fortunately, this week being a program of absurdly difficult contemporary music, I don't really need to practice, and can devote a little bit of time to reading, writing, and playing with my bouncing baby boy.

James is very bouncy recently. He starts kicking his feet as soon as he wakes up in the morning, then kick-kick-kicks the wipes at the end of his changing table, and leans for the mirror on his dresser when he has a new diaper. Once he gets in front of the mirror he bounces with his reflection for a few minutes, and then goes downstairs. (Bouncing, preferably.) From there he bounds/trots from one end of the house to another with a set of hands under his armpits, from kitchen to living room to kitchen again, then up the stairs, down the stairs, and another circuit. Eventually he tires both parents out, and we put him in his bouncer, where he will happily kick himself up and down, up and down, until he needs a nap. I'm reminded, taking care of him, that the most wonderful thing about Jameses is he's the only one.

Currently reading C.S. Lewis' big 16th century literature book, which I may have to abandon. The first section I kept up with, with some help from the internet looking up names of poets and poems, but the second section is so full of Middle English that I'm missing most of what he's saying. I'm also still working through the Confessiones, Aeschylus' Prometheus, the Iliad, and the Zondervan Hebrew grammar. J and I listened to an N.T. Wright lecture last night on his new book, How God Became King...very good talk and much to talk about afterwards, but we were so tired by the end of it (see Mahleria and the bouncing baby boy) that we went straight to bed!