Girl Power

Just bought two albums last Saturday - Introducing Joss Stone by Joss Stone and Brand New Eyes by Paramore.

They belong to slightly different genres in comparison to the ones I usually listen to. But I thought, why not widen my palate? And I had good reason to take the risk.

You see, there's currently so much male voice in my library that I've almost forgotten about the beauty of melodies in the next octave (with the exception of Adam Lambert). Clearly a legit craving for a new kind of feistiness and style.

It's also interesting to note that in music, the male and female voice is in no purport dichotomous, which would restrict the listener to one of two opposing landscapes. Admittedly, it is more often than not an either or. But even so, what might be ridiculously suggested is that listeners have at least a 2^n number of choices, where n equals to the number of existing genres. And we haven't yet taken into account choral music and instrumental music, or gone into specific artists and collaborations.

That's why I took such a long time sifting through the iTunes store before I decided on Joss Stone and Hayley Williams, the lead singer of Paramore.

Joss is R&B; something that I took to quite quickly because of my existing niche in the blues. More importantly, her vocals are as luscious as her looks, if not more. And uniquely, she's a British soulstress capable of owning American music. Yes, she owns; I mean it in that sense.

Paramore is more pop punk and emo rock, which isn't my usual cup of tea. So I got it almost only because of Hayley's voice, which is really outstanding, especially for a genre in which guys rule the roost. Far better than bands who write songs that have fifteen-word-long titles, heh. They should just fall out of business.

Also, it's hard to believe that Joss and Hayley are only 22 and 21 respectively.

So as of now, I'm still listening to the two records, and I'm quite pleased with both so far. Check out the two videos below if you're interested to find out how talented Joss and Hayley really are. Also, just to stand up for the guys a little here, be sure to check this out - "the world's greatest band on the world's largest stage", live yesterday on YouTube. Absolutely brilliant. I was unable to work for a couple of hours after the catching the live stream.

Finally, a list of upcoming albums I'm intensely looking forward to:

27/10 Full Circle by Creed

02/11 Colour Me Free! by Joss Stone

03/11 Play On by Carrie Underwood

10/11 Hello Hurricane by Switchfoot

17/11 The Fall by Norah Jones

17/11 Battle Studies by John Mayer

23/11 For Your Entertainment by Adam Lambert

01:25

Behold! Behold! The Bridegroom comes!

A scurry of sleepy devotion, a handful of dazed

Shrieks - panic from nether dreams,

Incubi make their last claims tonight.

Come out to meet him!

Trim the wick

Clean the soot

Pupils widen

Light the glim!

A quintet of

Eager souls in

Groaning flesh, anticipate a coruscant countenance that penetrates

Into the dark

Oh how the maidens have

Waited for

Heavenly consummation!

Pour for us a portion of your oil, for ours shall run out too quickly!

The prudent refuse, for the wick is

Sealed

By Elijah's Spirit,

Whose blessings overfloweth - their lamps runneth over from within,

Whose covenant endureth for eternity,

Whose radiance reacheth from everlasting to everlasting.

He comes at this very moment.

Go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.

They depart for eternity's sake.

Incubi act. Dreams precipitate. Doors shut.

The moon is gone but

Darkness remains,

The heart of the earthly present unclothed by grace,

Feeble shadows in motion, cast by lamps that are wasting

Away all over again.

Lord, Lord, open up for us!

Fair knuckles bleed against gristly wood.

I know you not, verily I say.

For many are called, but few are saved.

~tc

Re-recipe

It dawned on me earlier this evening at the Lake, where I was preparing cheesecake with Duck III, Loveapple and Shorts, that the satirical origins of Methodism should be dismissed with lesser confidence today.

As tradition has it, John Wesley and the Holy Club were derisively called "Methodists" by fellow Oxford scholars because of the methodical way in which they operated. As modernity has it, Wesley saw no shame in adopting the name; the sheer number of 70 million global adherents testify to this public truth decade after decade.

However, it is not as if being overscrupulous has proved to be a good thing. I think the sense of being rigid and methodical has not been kept insofar as to uphold biblical values or sustain effectiveness, but rather for the sake of honouring a feature that defines the denomination, almost purely for existential reasons.

It is difficult for me not to say this. Imagine being asked for your opinion when the issue of concern has already been exhaustively decided upon. Imagine being asked for dimensions so that a wooden box can be constructed to prevent a thief without a lockpick from stealing an article half his weight. Imagine being required to sew together a severed carcass every week, each belonging to a different animal, but all of which have been methodically spliced into four sections of equal volume (or so we are told).

Of course, I speak with a bias in at least two ways. Number one, I grew up in a Methodist church. Number two, I grew up in a Methodist church. In that sense, I face the dangers of both over-generalising and over-specifying. But either way, I say what I see and hope that change will come to be.

It is also interesting to note that Methodism differs from other protestant denominations by the what and the why of its name. Baptists are so called because of their subscription to the doctrine of Believer's Baptism, as opposed to that of Infant Baptism. Presbyterians are so called because of their subscription to the doctrine of the Presbytery, or the Eldership, as developed by Paul in his first letter to Timothy. Charismatics are so called because of their subscription to a doctrine that emphasises the physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit (Gr. kharis, meaning favour or grace; in modern theology relating to gifts of the Holy Spirit). So etymologically per se, what doctrinal or biblical position is Methodism then associated with?

You may say that it is an unfair comparison, and I don't doubt that it is in some ways. But when a void of Bible-centredness begins to surface, it is hard to resist drawing the connection.

My point is simply that a new generation requires a new recipe. The template remains the same inasmuch as is laid out biblically. Otherwise, sticking to what worked in the past, attempting to tackle the new with antiquated experiences and wielding unbiblical authority can only dishonour God. Accordingly, quenching the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit (1 Thes 5:19) is not something to be trifled with.

At the end, the cherry syrup on the cheesecake turned out a little too sweet for me. The older cooks who used to prepare it batch after batch already have their tastebuds numb to the stinging saccharine flavour. The younger customers have hence decided to frequent other confectionaries. The few of us fight with our lives for the chance to bake.

There Must Always Be Something To Learn

I was having a bath this morning when it occurred to me that the term "morning showers" could be read as a triple-entendre. And then, as if to satisfy the thought by some way of divine humour, a light drizzle was immediately commissioned to descend upon my estate as soon as I stepped out of the bathroom. Thankfully, it left as quick as it came, otherwise it'd have probably made me later than I already was for discipleship class.

But my precipitation of thought didn't stop with that of the clouds. Two things came to mind.

First, I recalled that some months ago, I was entertaining the idea of 'coincidence or consequence?', and I was looking for a biblical answer. This was the bone of contention:

Arbitrarily, is it possible that because you didn't do your nightly devotions consistently this week, God has decided to punish you by inducing some measure of insomnia for the next few days ahead?

I was trying to be cautious with such a question because it did have a sense of credibility. It seemed to be a logically deserving punishment.

Providentially (and that's saying another thing about coincidence), I had Muscle Mentor clarify my misconceptions a few weeks ago. I say providentially because I was really asking him an entirely different question. In passing, he said that with regard to children of God, the Father does not act or react punitively or punishingly toward them, if they truly believe in Christ. As the propitiatory sacrifice, Christ has paid the price for all our sins; past, present and future. The verse that supports this can be found in Hebrews 10:10, where it says "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all."[Italics added]

Therefore, all events in our lives that produce joy, angst, sorrow or misery, are never penal consequences but relational chastisements, like how a father would discipline his child. The verse for this is found in Hebrews 12:6, where Paul quotes Job 3:12, "For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives."

In addition, by the phrase 'all events', I really mean all events. This form of discipline is the essence of sanctification, and pervades all aspects of christian living. It is a process propelled by the Holy Spirit, who sovereignly conforms all who are justified to the image of Christ. This doctrine is clearly stated in Romans 8:28, where it says "And we know that God causes all things to work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." [Italics added] The 'good' in verse 28 refers to the conformation to the image of Christ, which is propounded subsequently in verse 29.

In a nutshell, the nature of occurrences in christian living is neither a matter of mere coincidence nor penal consequence.

The second thing the raindrops brought to mind is considerably shorter. It is a point, or rather a quote that Marvin Olasky raised during his lecture on The Secular Script in the Theater of God: Calvin wrote, "If God does nothing random, there must always be something to learn."

So I guess that makes this post pretty much self-authenticating. A glorious truth, I say.

Belief Effects

While answering the TOK survey this morning, I was prompted to write down the most important thing I'd learnt over the past two years of doing the course. Curiously, there was no immediate answer.

Well, actually there was one - smoking. But that's not entirely new, so I didn't want to count that. It's a skill that's been polished and refined over the ages ever since I acquired it during my first day in the institution. But I digress.

Upon grueling reflection, I realised that the no-answer was the answer. Don't be mistaken, I don't mean that I haven't learnt anything from the course; far from it. Rather, I think it was more a matter of learning what the subject couldn't help me with, rather than what it could. It's what I might call 'negative knowledge'.

Essentially, it is the idea that epistemology simply breaks down when we try to get past certain boundaries. I might be being overly simplistic, but I would suppose this to be true of all branches of philosophies as well. For example, the definition of a belief under an epistemological framework still eludes me after two years of crazy thinking. It is peculiar that people can debate viciously at length to validate of their definition of such a thing, when the issue at hand relates to the very nature of the convictions behind the debate itself. And as you probe further, you realise there is an infinite loop. As far as we're concerned in TOK, we don't want to take axiomatic principles for granted. But what shall we do in this case?

So at these junctures, I feel compelled to agree with Alien regarding the limitations of the subject. But I won't be too quick to put it down. It's clearly offered me valuable chances to occupy crossroads, and opportunities to trade, sell and bargain in the marketplace of ideas. Also, as mentioned above, it has surely taught me how to smoke more convincingly and sophisticatedly - an essential life skill. Plus, it's helped me to write this post.

I guess it is also a good thing that the web of TOK extends into other subjects, as it was designed to do. I enjoy it. Teachers allude to philosophical complications in their areas of expertise once in a while, but usually such knowledge is quickly (or perhaps wisely) cast aside by students. Again, as simple as it sounds, moderation is the key. Spend too much time thinking, and changing the world gradually equates to changing your mind. Spend too much time doing and die a tired dog.

Which is probably why it just struck me, quite amazingly, that genuinely holding to conservative theology automatically results in radical living.

The Doctor

'Ah,' you may say, 'now you have said that tongues are all right.' I'm sure many are already thinking that . You wait a minute; I shall deal with the question of gifts when it comes at the right place. You do not start with that. That comes towards the end of the treatment. But that is how the devil gets us to bypass the Scriptures in the interests of our particular point of view, whichever of the two extremes it may chance to be.

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable

Already you get the sense that this is no ordinary writer.

I'm currently reading Joy Unspeakable by Lloyd-Jones alongside number9dream, the remaining pages of which are quickly thinning out. But the focus today is on the former.

I was with Charcoal at Tecman on Saturday afternoon when I chanced upon this book. It was something that I'd been looking for for a long, long time - a reformed understanding of pneumatology. Now that we live in the Grace Era, the Book of Acts clearly testifies that work of the Holy Spirit is vitally important. Hence, it's ironic that we today know the least about the third person of our Triune God. It is true. And whatever (lack of) knowledge we do have is mostly derived from esoteric and dubious phenomena displayed by churches whose pastors have distanced the Bible from the pulpit.

That is why Joy Unspeakable is such a gem. In a sentence, I think it aims to correctively unite the conservative and the charismatic with conscientious biblical exposition from a Calvinistic perspective.

As should be apparent from the citation at the top, Lloyd-Jones has placed the Word of God at the heart of the issue, and of in fact any issue, if you read more of his works. I'm only finished with the first chapter of the book, but I've already for him weaved a string of adjectives. On one hand, he is authoritative, logical, compelling, witty and exegetically sound. On the other, he writes in such a way that is so pastoral, humble, loving, perceptive and clear. And I really cannot over-emphasise how simple but yet crystal clear his arguments have been thus far, and will be, I believe. It's incredible; I would kill to be able to write like that.

Perhaps this is one reason his contemporaries have affectionately called him 'The Doctor'. It is one thing to make spiritual diagnoses, but quite another to provide the cure. The perspicuity and Bible-centredness of Lloyd-Jones' preaching rightly lends him that affable nickname.

However, insofar as we're concerned with the glory of His grace in the world today, we might observe that Jesus performs the healing but doctors claim the fees. Nevertheless, I don't believe that this was the case with Lloyd-Jones. I think he knew that he had always been more of a patient himself than a physician.

Mother Tongue and Child Speak

The word 'child' is derived from the Old English word 'cild' or 'childe', which referred to a 'youth of gentle birth'. The word 'gentle' in this case comes from 'gentil', an Old French word that denoted nobility and aristocracy. So it seems that in those days, the word was really meant to describe something quite specific.

Of course, we use 'children' today in a much broader sense. But I think how we got to the word is quite interesting. In the 10th century, they pluralised the word with two variants, namely, 'cildra' and 'cildru'. Then in the 12th century, they re-pluralised it as 'children', which is what we use today. So it's actually a pretty old word for its denotations of youth and innocence.

The interesting part is that the 12th century re-pluralisation - children - actually gave the word a double plural; 'cildr-', which already carried the sense of plurality, had it's existing grammatical property accentuated with an 'en'. Well, no one really knows why. But then again, no one really knows what happened during the Dark Ages. However, it's not as if the plural 'cildre' has completely disappeared. It survives in what is known today as Lancastershire dialect in the word 'childer', and more popularly in the word 'Childermas', which refers to the Festival of the Holy Innocents (that is, December 28, which commemorates Herod's massacre of all male infants in Bethlehem after the birth of Christ).

What's even more interesting is that the word has a further derivation. The Old English word 'cild' had earlier origins in Proto-Germanic language. The P.Gmc word we're concerned with is 'kiltham', probably an adjective of some sort, closely derived from 'kilþei', which meant 'womb' in the same language.

This literally brings to mind the fact that the English language, that is, what we commonly use today and what I'm using right now, is also a child of sorts, and has its mother(s). It's not a new idea, and there are certainly historical reasons for suggesting so. The English language has been called a bastard language, or a pirate language. That's because it's really a mix of the earlier forms of many Indo-European tongues that are still widely spoken today, including French, German and even Greek. Something like an illegitimate child. Loveapple could probably tell you much more about it, but that's if you know her. You could also look here if you want a closer acquaintance with your word of interest.

Otherwise, this is one child that I can and do love, and also that I can handle with much liberty and possible mistreatment without being charged for paedophilia.

So Happy Children's Day!