More thoughts on books, eBooks, and publishing

A while back I reflected and speculated about books, eBooks, publishing, and self-publishing. (Read those posts here, here, and here.) That was more than half a year ago(!) and, of course, things continue to progress. I've had some further thoughts, which I'll catalogue here in no particular order. (As much as anything, this is simply for my own use-- but you are welcome to interact with any of these ideas.)

• There is no disputing that eBooks are here to stay-- in fact, they are doing quite well. Sales of eBooks have skyrocketed over the past year, with Amazon (who, I think we can all agree, is a pretty substantial source for such information) first reporting that eBook sales overtook hardcover sales last summer, then that eBook sales exceeded all print sales after the holidays. One could argue that the later figure is the result of a lot of Kindle readers as Christmas gifts getting loaded up, and that those levels will drop. Is that a safe assumption, though-- after all, if there were THAT many Kindle readers sold, shouldn't we assume that at least some of them will continue to be used after the first round? Keep in mind, too, that Amazon's Kindle is only one e-reader, and that they are probably more dominant in print book sales than in eBooks (at least for now).
• "Independent" Publishing-- I'm really curious about the fact that the self-publishing community has elected to adopt the self-reference "independent publisher" instead of "self-publisher." On the one hand, this fits with other creative culture endeavors: a musician that hasn't signed with a record label, yet produces recordings for sale, is referred to as an "independent artist." On the other hand, this seems like a dodge, and an unnecessary one to boot. Inasmuch as publishing has ever been "self" executed (how long has it been since the norm in self-publishing was, start to finish, handled all by the author? I've never heard of an author who is also a bookbinder, for example), it still is; and yet, self-publishing is finally overcoming the bad wrap given it by the traditional publishing industry-- note this piece on this trend as an example. Why shirk the label just as it is regaining legitimacy?
• "Obstacles" in eReading-- I have read so many people claiming that they like their Kindle more than their iPad as an e-reading device-- not because the iPad weighs more, or because the screen is too bright (either of these I'll accept), but because the iPad lets them do other things! They say, "I want my reading device to be immersive" and apparently the allure of checking e-mail or Facebook on the iPad is just too tempting. Phooey, I say-- and then I ask, what are these guys reading? I've been using my iPad as an e-reader for about six months now, and have read probably 8-10 books on it. I like that I can check e-mail on it too, but when I'm reading a good book, this doesn't matter: the book is the immersive part. The device is simply the conduit for the goods. This is about as convincing to me as the argument for printed paper books that goes like this: "I love the way the book smells!" (Which is to say, not convincing at all. What-- you love the smell of slightly mildewed wood fibers? Okay, but just try to convince the board of Borders that this angle would have made the difference in their recent bankruptcy.) You want your iPad to be immersive? Two suggestions: learn some self-control, and read good books!
• Amazing progress in electronic publishing for iPad-- there really are some amazing things happening in electronic publishing. Magazines are reinventing themselves by way of the iPad-- check out this write-up about Martha Stewart Living. Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate recently released the first-ever iPad-only daily newspaper, The Daily (I've got it, and have read it-- it's pretty good, but it crashes a lot). Some books are being released for iPad that are challenging the very notion of what it means to read a book. Don't believe me? Check out this piece on an iPad version of Alice in Wonderland. As someone involved in both writing and publishing, I find all of it very exciting-- and I can also understand how a large, traditional publisher would feel very threatened.
• Prices will come down for eBooks-- Michael Hyatt wrote an interesting blog-post last fall, on why eBooks cost so much. He is challenging the conventional idea that there is a lot of savings found in not having to print books: no printing costs, no warehousing costs, no shipping costs. Mike is right that there are still lots of costs involved in publishing an eBook (he lists "acquisitions, royalties, editorial development, copyediting, cover and interior design, page composition, cataloging, sales, marketing, publicity, merchandising, credit, collections, accounting, legal, tax, and the all the usual costs associated with running a publishing house"). Plus, Mike lists three new costs involved in digital publishing: digital preparation, quality assurance, and digital distribution. But I have to challenge Mike on some of these. First of all, distribution isn't a new cost-- it just changes a bit in the digital context; plus, distribution is already more streamlined for eBooks than it ever has been for print books: it's more like the Amazon model (where the publisher sells direct to the reseller) than the local bookstore model (where a middleman distributor warehouses and sells books to resellers). As digital publishing matures, it will get even easier. As for the other two costs (preparation and quality assurance), these will also get easier and much less expensive. Right now, as Mike points out, there are a number of different formats that publishers must prepare if they want to fully saturate the market with their eBooks. But over the next couple of years-- I predict by mid-2012-- one or possibly two standards will emerge (there will be room on the market for one that is a static layout, like a PDF-- in fact, it will probably be PDF; and also room for one that is a dynamic layout, allowing the text reflow based on screen-size and other preferences-- probably the ePub), and this will make coding and preparation much more efficient. Furthermore, the tools for designing and laying out books are already beginning to automate the process of coding eBooks, and these will get much better (not unlike website publishing 10 years ago vs. now). Both of these factors will reduce preparation extremely: files prepared for print books will require little or no further action to convert them to eBooks, in both of the standardized formats. And it will also reduce quality assurance efforts, as only a single kind of file will need to be checked. The end result: eBook prices will continue to fall.
• Paperbacks will suffer-- A lot of people speculate about how the rise of eBooks will mean the demise of printed-paper books. I disagree. Rather, I'm with Joel Friedlander, who thinks that the main casualty of the rise of eBooks will be the cheap, disposable paperback. There are basically three kinds of printed-paper books people buy: reference books that are never read, but are used in bits and pieces; books to buy and keep, or to buy and pass around-- these are a large portion of the printed-paper market (currently in both paperback and hardcover); and the throw-away paperbacks that are sold cheaply and by the hundreds in airports, grocery stores, and of course the few remaining bookstores. When I was a kid, my dad went through dozens of these a month; we would literally have five or six paper grocery-bags stacked full of them to give to Goodwill 3-4 times a year. These will be the victims of the rise of eBooks replaced by eBooks, and I say good riddance! Especially if it is still easy to get good trade paperbacks for keeping and/or lending, OR if hardcover prices come down. (I can absolutely see the latter happening when the printing industry begins to feel the pinch of eBooks closing in on their bottom-line, making it more affordable for publishers to offer low-cost hard-bound books instead of, or in addition to, high-grade paperbacks.)
• Good self-published books won't be any harder to find-- one of the biggest concerns I hear/read about the rising tide of self-publishing-- ahem, sorry, independent publishing-- is that we will be awash in crummy books and it will be difficult to find the good stuff. Here again I say, PHOOEY! First of all, there is no shortage of absolutely lousy books being hawked by the traditional publishers; in fact, the percentage of really good books produced by big-name publishing houses seems to drop consistently every year. Second, take a walk through Barnes & Noble or a look at Amazon's website and tell me that there aren't already thousands of books to sort through-- and there were years ago, before the latest wave of self-publishing began. But third-- and this is the big, "they are missing the point" idea-- the good books are getting easier to find, not harder. The "Information Age" began a better way to find and access good books, and the "social media" age is elevating both the access and the knowledge about them. I'm never at a loss for what books to buy next, because I get book recommendations almost every day via Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and newer sources like GoodReads.

We're only as presbyterian as we want to be, part 3

In part one of this series on how "we're only as presbyterian as we want to be" I considered the fruit of the problem; and in part two I discussed some of the root of the problem. Now I'd like to look at the rooting out of the problem.

So, how do we root out the suspicion, mistrust, and haughtiness that I named as a significant part of the problem? We take them in reverse, and their antidotes are humility, relationships, and benefit of the doubt.

One of the manifestations of these root problems, as I mentioned in my last post on the topic, is that we look at others with the assumption that their sin-nature and fallenness is preying on their capacity to think and act with integrity. I pointed out that this stands as a major obstacle to presbyterianism, and represents a posture contrary to being presbyterian. So how do I overcome my mistrust of others, and extend hospitality to them (and their perspectives) instead of suspicion?

Christ, helpfully, spoke of how this might be accomplished: the one I am to trust the least, it seems, is myself! Remember how he required accountability (for ideas, actions, attitudes, and the rest) to be exercised:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:3-5

The reason why I am only as presbyterian as I want to be-- why suspicion and mistrust reign in my heart with regard to others-- is because I fail to understand Christ here. I must suspect myself first and foremost. I must trust myself, and my own understanding, less than I trust others whom I seek to hold accountable. Only when I recognize my own susceptibility to error will I see clearly the errors that others are fallible to.

This leads to a surprising humility. Instead of a haughtiness toward others, looking at my own sin first is humbling and honest business. That humility tempers my approach to others, and causes me to deal with them gently, charitably, lovingly.

Of course, we don't have so much trouble in acting gentle and loving toward those we already know well and care about. It is the stranger, the one we don't know (or that we know only through peculiar circumstances, such as hearing their name associated with an idea that we are reticent to embrace, or reading words from their blog that we consider abrasive or caustic). This is a second rooting out that needs to occur: we need to build real relationships with others, especially those with whom we disagree.

I will testify to my own struggles with this. There have been several times at General Assembly when someone will rise to speak, and I will recognize them as someone whose blog I have read. I know nothing of them but what I read on their blog-- but the words and tone of their blog led me to conclude that they knew little of the grace and love of Christ, because so little of their words (and especially their tone) reflected anything like Christ's love or His grace. Thus, I immediately regard them with mistrust and suspicion in what they bring to the floor of the Assembly, even though both their words and tone in the Assembly are gentle, humble, and deferential. Which is the real voice of this person? I do not know, because I do not know them at all.

I'll also testify to the other side of this struggle. Through a series of providential circumstances, I have begun building a friendship with someone whose blog I have read, and whose tone and attitude has occasionally struck me in the past (and even in the present!) as being inappropriate for an elder in the church. Like the men mentioned above, my inclination might be to be cautious with my trust, except that my growing relationship with this man brings moderation and even benefit of the doubt into my understanding of his words.

This should be the easy part. We Presbyterians love to present our polity and system as "connectional" and all about the relationships inherent to our mutual union with Christ. Yet many presbyteries are notable for how quickly and efficiently they can dispose of the work of their meetings in a business-like manner; no attention is given to corporate worship, little time is allotted for fellowship, and there is no effort to create opportunities for relationships to build and grow.

Likewise, I've heard from several fellow elders that one way to cut administrative costs at the Assembly level would be to reduce General Assembly to a 2-day meeting where all we do is the mandatory business, and put aside all of the seminars, meals, prayer and fellowship times, etc. This would certainly cut costs; it would also drastically reduce any hope of relationships growing between those who disagree. I'm not a prophet, but in my estimation it would be only a matter of a few years under such an approach before the divisions in the PCA would become fractures, and the denomination would certainly split into several pieces.

General Assembly meetings need to be times where fellowship, mutual growth, and new relationships are fostered. Presbyteries must be giving time to worshiping together, ministering to one another, and fostering the growth of friendships new and old. Even Sessions must give time and attention to doing more as a body than just the "business" of the church, but should share in regular fellowship, times of prayer, and building of real friendships among the elders.

Finally, our faith AND our presbyterianism requires that we extend a great measure of benefit of the doubt toward our brothers. Rather than taking a default posture of suspicion, we must take a posture that is hopeful and even expectant of their motives, thoughts, and actions being godly and righteous.

I appealed to Martin Luther in my last post with regard to our inclination to sin. Yet, Luther himself (later in the same introduction to his commentary on Romans) exposes why we must persist in functioning with such benefit of doubt:

That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself...

Christ's righteousness reigns in the believer! Consequently, believing faith results in thoughts, attitudes, and actions that are beautiful in their reflection of God's glory-- not mired in sin and fallenness.

Thought of another way, our demeanor toward one another as Christians should be the very model of love. This isn't simply for Presbyterians-- but it certainly should include Presbyterians! How does Paul tell us love looks? "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Corinthians 13:7).

Probably the best description I've read of this is from Walter Chantry's wonderful little book, The Shadow of the Cross: studies in self-denial, in which Chantry is discussing the tendency to be strict with others yet lenient with ourselves. To make his point, Chantry brings up the example of the food issues discussed in the book of Romans (chapter 14); this this he says:

Your brother desires to glorify God in his practice. That should keep the meat-eaters from sneering at the vegetarians. And it should prevent vegetarians from censoriously judging meat-eaters and declaring them unspiritual.
Now you do not really know that such a conclusion is true of your brother; for you cannot look into his heart and read his motives. But both of you bow your heads before a meal and give thanks to God. Both are professing to eat unto the Lord. Therefore you are bound to assume that all his actions are for the glory of God. He is not serving self or lust but the Lord.
In our society there may be a Christian who cannot go to the beach without lusting after women dressed immodestly. So he denies himself the right to enjoy surf and sand. If he loves the ocean, it may be like plucking out a right eye of personal enjoyment in order to keep his conscience clear. But he is tempted to measure all men by his own experience. He is inclined to suspect that a brother goes to the beach in order to indulge lustful thoughts. He is tempted to legislate that no Christian is to go to a public beach. Paul is saying in effect, 'You have no right to pluck out your brother's eye!' You are taught to deny yourself, but not to deny your brother. You must assume that his heart is pure, foreign as that may be to your experience. You must conclude, 'Just as I stay away from the beach out of devotion to Christ, he goes to the beach as unto the Lord, with a pure heart of thanksgiving to God. I am pleased that he can enjoy a part of God's creation that I cannot.'
But while you may in charity assume that a Christian brother acts from pure motives, you dare not assume that your own heart is upright. You must be more charitable to others than you are to yourself. You have no access to a fellow Christian's heart, no ability to test his inward devotion to the Lord, which is the all-important matter in using things indifferent. But you can scrutinize your own heart. You can examine your inner man to detect your own motives and aims for every act. Paul brings you back to this point. 'None of us liveth to himself.' All is 'unto the Lord.'
Walter J. Chantry, The Shadow of the Cross: studies in self-denial (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1989) pp. 39-41.

Chantry's principles apply to our presbyterianism. Whereas we cannot know our brother's heart, yet we are always tempted to be more strict with him and more lenient with ourselves.

The solution is to reverse the matter. We should be more strict with ourselves, more lenient with our brothers. We need to focus first on the plank in our own eye before addressing the speck in our brother's eye. We must take up humility instead of hubris, relational trust instead of indifferent mistrust, benefit of the doubt instead of suspicion.

Our presbyterianism must be real in its connectional nature if it is to be real at all. And while this is truly the hardest part of our polity, it is also the one that has the most grounding in Scripture, and the closest identification with our Christianity.

Let's stop being only as presbyterian as we want to be, and start being as presbyterian as we can possibly be! Surely God, in His mercy to us, will continue to increase the measure of our presbyterianism as we are more and more conformed to His image.

Books for February, 2011

These are the books I read, in addition to Tithing by Douglas Leblanc, which I reviewed here.

Covenants: God's way with his people by O. Palmer Robertson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
We recently used this book for the basis of a Sunday School class. As with the other time I read it, I found it to be a very approachable, helpful way to get a sense of covenant theology. It is definitely written for a lay-level audience (not for academics or even for seminary-trained pastors), which is wonderful because there are far too few volumes of this nature written at that level.
There is a study guide available for this book, which is useful in suggesting ways to approach the teaching times; however, for teachers/leaders looking for fortification for the content, they would do well to employ Robertson’s Christ Of The Covenants, which is also a very readable text.

Thinking with Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors, & Students by Ellen Lupton
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
As an introduction to typography and thinking about type and text in terms of page and book design, this is a fine book.

The author wrote the book as a text for her introductory level class on the subject. As a result, it is helpfully inclusive of history and even philosophy in addition to technical details, and yet it handles these concisely. It is far from an exhaustive volume when it comes to this subject, but it does offer a comprehensive look at the basics.

If you already have a solid sense of the various aspects of typography, this book may be a bit elementary for you. If you don’t know the difference between kerning and tracking, however, that may be a symptom that this book would be a great starting-point for a more informed use of type.

On Book Design by Richard Hendel
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This was a great book on book design and typography. The author, a designer for a major university press, invests the first half in sharing his own experiences and methods in designing books, and the second in dialoguing with other designers about their processes and decisions. It is well-illustrated, with many examples from actual projects and interaction about why they are designed as they are. This is a solid read for anyone involved in typography.

View all my reviews

Bits and Tidbits, February 2011

Too true: "Little Girls Gone Wild: Why Daughters Are Acting Too Sexy, Too Soon" by Rachael Combe. This Redbook article has been circulating a bit on Facebook, but if you haven't had a chance to read it yet, you should take this one.
Snazzy: "Fuji Finepix X100" by Tim Moynihan. Savvy shooters will immediately recognize Fuji's homage to a classic Leica, both in the beautiful form of this digital camera and in quirky features like the fixed focal-length lens (35mm, in 35mm-equiv.). Also not TOO dissimilar is the price!
Fascinating: "Conan 2.0" by Douglas Alden Warshaw. Anyone who followed the curious path of Conan O'Brien's departure and return to late-night television, and who has a mild interest in the impact of social media, will probably find this article as intriguing as I did.
Funny: "My Father's Fashion Tips" by Tom Junod. A well-written piece that is as fun to read for the writing as it is for the content-- which is interesting, humorous, and also pleasantly intimate.
Anyone?: "Why You're Not Married" by Tracy McMillan. I've known some for whom this article applied (no, not you). All of them are married now-- which goes to show that it's not an impossible lot...

Article about us (sort of)

Half of the Eubanks family was featured in an article in today's Memphis Commercial Appeal, entitled "Driven by Love: Shriners' medical charity for children is 'best-kept secret around'".

The writer, Patsy Keith, was working on the piece when Abbey went for her recent procedure, so she took the opportunity to interview us and snap a few pictures. Thanks, Patsy!

Pastor's Desk

Another winner from Dave Walker and the CartoonChurch.com website. Of course, my desk isn't like this at all... not ever.

iPad as a Presbytery/General Assembly device

At last summer's General Assembly of the PCA, I carried my laptop (just like dozens, nay, hundreds of others) and used it all week for referencing and note-taking. It sure beat carrying around the paper versions of my Book of Church Order, Westminster Standards, AND the Commissioner's Handbook (many hundreds of 8.5x11 pages in a binder). I DID choose to carry my Bible in a print version-- but I think I used the version on my Mac more.

This was great, and with my latest-generation MacBook Pro, the battery life was mostly a non-factor. Still, the iPad had just come out, and it occurred to me on the way to G.A. that the iPad would make a great device for presbytery and assembly meetings. (I saw a few of them on the floor, in fact.)

So when I got an iPad, this purpose was one of the many things I had in mind for it. At the most recent meeting of Covenant Presbytery (where I am a member), I gave it a shot: I planned in advance to leave my MacBook Pro in my briefcase all day, and only use the iPad. Here are a few thoughts:

PROS

• There's an app for that: I have a Bible app, a Reformed Confessions and Catechisms app, and even a Robert's Rules of Order app. I also have the Book of Church Order in PDF, and can easily put minutes, committee reports, dockets, and other documents in there in PDF. (I keep these in DevonThink To Go, a companion app to DevonThink, which I use multiple times every day.)
• Lightweight: it's hard to argue that the iPad is, relatively speaking, extremely light and convenient. Certainly far better than lugging all of those in print versions.
• All in one place: In the one device, I have all of the reference material and resources I need. That's great!
• Fast: the iPad starts up fast, and even loads most apps pretty quickly. I didn't find I had to wait to get to the information I was looking for.

CONS

• Navigation is tricky: when I open a PDF on my iPad using DevonThink To Go, it opens at the beginning. I have to "scroll" down-- using the flick-style, inertial scrolling so famous on Apple's iDevices-- to find my place. If I switch to another PDF then go back to the first one, or if I close the PDF-reading app and re-open it (maybe after using a different app), again I'm back to the beginning of the PDF. What I NEED is to be able to switch right back to the page I was on.
• Notes aren't easy: I like to be able to put notes in my documents-- especially at presbytery and assembly meetings, where 90% of the information is often already provided in the docket and accompanying pages. While it is possible to make notes on the iPad (I also had the PDFs in Apple's own app, iBooks, which has better navigation and allows notes, but is much slower in loading and running), it's too tedious for doing it easily. I'm not sure I'll be able to easily transition to extensive typing/note-taking using the iPad's on-screen keyboard.
• Multitasking: having access to great apps as I mentioned above is wonderful-- but navigating from one to another isn't. I suppose it's fine for Apple to call what they offer on the iPad "multitasking" but it certainly isn't the easily-switchable, multiple windows setup I'm used to on my Mac. I find it quite cumbersome to switch between apps, even using the "multitasking" options available.

FIXES
Since my first try at presbytery, I've already found a couple of "fixes" for my problems above-- but even these aren't perfect. For example, I'm giving the PDF reader app GoodReader a try; it allows bookmarking, note-taking, has much better navigation, and re-opens PDFs to where you left off. BUT, the notes I make won't automatically sync with DevonThink on my Mac-- which means I'll need to manually add them, or not have my notes. Also, GoodReader doesn't support my notes and markers from other annotation applications (like Skim, which I regularly use on my Mac), so I have to go in and manually build markers and placeholders, even when I have them through other applications.

What would be the perfect fix, for me anyway, would be improved navigation, note-taking, and book-marking within the DevonThink To Go app. Couple that with improved app-switching and more truly "multitasking" interface, and the iPad is good to go for presbytery and G.A.!

Incredulity and Faith

As I've been preaching through the Genesis narratives in the last several weeks, I'm struck with how Abraham is allowed the opportunity to be incredulous.

See what happens when God promises that the son Abraham has been waiting for years for will certainly come from Sarah's womb:

"Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, 'Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?'"
Genesis 17:17

The man fell over laughing! God has just promised one of the crucial pieces of the covenantal blessing, and Abraham offers an incredulous guffaw.

Sarah, likewise, is caught laughing. In the very next chapter, she is listening at the tent-flap when the visitors tell Abraham of Isaac's coming.

"So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, 'After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?'"
Genesis 18:12

In both cases, God Himself responds to their laughter-- not with rejection or judgment, but with re-affirmation of his promise accompanied by even more detail: in ch. 17, Abraham is promised that Sarah will bear the child within a year! In ch. 18, they are both told that Isaac will be born within a year.

What is striking about this is how often I wrestle with incredulity. I struggle with promises from God that are far easier to believe than one that a 100-year old man will father a child with a 90+ year-old woman. What is more, the forgiveness of my sin is a finished work, accomplished because of God's steadfast promises to Abraham (in spite of his incredulity!).

I need to take to heart God's purposeful determination to accomplish redemption on behalf of His people! Ultimately, that's exactly what Abraham did:

"On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him."
Genesis 17:23 (emphasis added)

Abraham's faith was not supplanted by his incredulity; faith overcame doubt, and in belief Abraham obeyed God.

We're only as Presbyterian as we want to be: part 2

In part one of this series, I considered the "fruit of the problem". Today I want to look at the ROOT of the problem-- or at least a major part of it. (Like most three-part series-- think Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc.-- the second part will be the darker, scarier cliffhanger.)

When we look at the kind of inconsistent presbyterianism I spoke of in my first post, it seems that the presenting issue is suspicion: in these situations we are simply suspicious of one another, and unwilling to grant any charitable or gracious benefit of the doubt toward each other.

This is most evident in situations where a body acts according to its polity, yet others (either outside or within that body) refuse to accept the actions as legitimate. Accusations are made: "they must not see what I/we see" or "if they were focused on the heart of the issue they wouldn't have reached such a conclusion" or "they don't understand the importance of what is at stake." Or doubt is cast: "I'm not sure I can rely on them to handle matter of importance" or "maybe we cannot remain affiliated with them any longer."

There is a good reason why suspicion arises: it is often cloaked in the biblical truth of the sinfulness of man. We know the extent of our own sin, the deceptiveness of our own hearts, and we (rightly) assume that anyone else is as capable of sin as we are. Martin Luther, in the preface to his commentary on the book of Romans, observed that all men will do whatever we believe we might get away with. Here is what he said:

Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You'd rather act otherwise if the law didn't exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared.

This is indeed a troublesome factor, and it's true: our hearts are not trustworthy in our sinful condition. Which leads to the more underlying issue: mistrust.

When people-- even Christians-- interact with one another, the only hope of advancement toward cooperation and community is based on trust. This is why we so often affiliate only with those who are like us: they are the only ones we know we can trust. We otherwise succumb to doubt, suspicion, and eventually mistrust in those around us.

In presbyterianism, this can (and apparently does) lead to congregations, presbyteries, and entire denominations that are surprisingly uniform. People who think and act differently than I do are not easily welcomed by me! And if I can muster a façade of hospitality toward those who are other than me, I still have to overcome my lack of trust in them in order to function in a manner that is presbyterian.

As a result, the tendency among us is to begin to identify with those who are with us, and to suspect and mistrust those who appear to be against us. Even when those who say or act in a manner against what we believe to be wrong are in the majority! Or when they act as a unified body, following proper procedure and polity.

The sister-issue to mistrust then become haughtiness. We look with disdain on those whose ideas, actions, or decisions we don't understand or agree with. We cast disparagement on others because they hold to things we do not hold. And we hold the courts and bodies of the church in contempt when things don't go our way.

This is how we get to a point where individuals, and even groups of individuals, can conclude that an entire presbytery (or even an entire assembly) should be dismissed out-of-hand. Our contempt for their actions leads to contempt for the very nature of them as bodies, and we refuse to recognize them in that nature.

And while this is certainly within our right to question-- after all, as Scripture and our own experience teaches us, we are all fallible, even en masse-- it is simply not very presbyterian to do so in a manner that is out of accord with the very standards and polity that we have taken vows to uphold. But our suspicion, mistrust, and haughtiness stand in the way of our adherence to these vows.

All of this leads us to be only as presbyterian as we want to be. In part three, I'll consider what might be done about the rooting out of the problem.

"Good" pop translates well into bluegrass

Here are some examples of how "good" pop music will translate well into bluegrass. Some of these are hilarious (The Cleverlys, The Pigs); some of them are surprising-- even if you don't care for Green Day, you may find Honeywagon's cover of "When I Come Around" simply beautiful. And some of them are just good fun; if you only listen to one or two, make sure one of them is either the cover of Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" or of Michael Jackson's "Billy Jean."

(Facebook peeps: you'll have to go to the blog to see these: pastorblog.hickorywithepc.org