"AS I SEE IT"
Volume 12, Number 12, December 2009
“I too will have my say; I too will tell what I know.
For I am full of words, and the spirit within me compels me;
Inside I am like bottled-up wine, like new wineskins ready to burst.
I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply.
I will show partiality to no one. Nor will I flatter any man.” Job 32:17-21
“That which ordinary men are fit for I am qualified in, and the best of me is diligence.”
Earl of Kent
Shakespeare’s King Lear
Act I, scene iv, ll. 32-34
[“As I See It” is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek. Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the Word of God. The editor’s perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at: DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address. Back issues sent on request. All back issues may be accessed at http://www.KJVOnly.org
All articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and are copyrighted but may be reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met: 1. articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer must be properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free distribution only. Permission to distribute in any other form must be secured in writing beforehand. Permission for reproduction in Christian print periodicals will generally be given upon request.]
Each Man Has His Own Work for God
“There are teachers and preachers who help to form the characters of their scholars and hearers, by working away upon their minds and hearts. They will never build up a great church; but still they are knocking the rough edges off the stones. They are preparing and fashioning them; and by-and-by the builder will come and make good use of them. . . . Luther is rightly remembered; but there were Reformers before Luther. There were hundreds of men and women who burned for Christ, or who perished in prison, or who were put to cruel deaths for the gospel. Luther comes when the occasion has been made for him, and when a site has been cleared for him upon which to build the temple of God. But God remembers all those pre-Reformation heroes. It may be your lot, dear friend to clear the site, and to make the occasion for others; and you may die before you see even a corner-stone of your work laid; for it will be yours when it is finished, and God will remember what you have done.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit
Vol. 38 (1892), pp. 290, 291
“I am told that my venerable predecessor, Dr. [John] Rippon [1751-1836], used often, in his pulpit, to pray for somebody, of whom he knew nothing, who would follow him in the ministry of the church, and greatly increase it. He seemed to have in his mind’s eye some young man, who, in after years, would greatly enlarge the number of the flock, and he often prayed for him. He died, and passed away to heaven, about the time I was born. Older members of the church have told me that they have read the answer to Dr. Rippon’s prayers in the blessing that has been given to us these many years.”
Ibid., p. 295
“Blessed Are the Dead Who Die in the Lord”
As calendar year 2009 wanes to its close, it has attained the singular distinction of being the year, so far, in which I have seen the greatest number of relatives die. In February, an uncle aged 79 passed into eternity. He was my favorite uncle--and not just because he bailed me out of jail when I was 16 (that’s another tale for another day). Then, the first week of November, my father-in-law died at 89 after several weeks of hospitalization. This was followed by the death of a cousin at 66 in mid-month. All were spiritually prepared for their final exit, each having been converted through faith in Christ in his youth, and each had long been active in serving God faithfully. I am down to one remaining living uncle and three aunts. All of these are 80 years old or above, and several are in poor health. Of cousins, I still have all but two that I ever had--21 on my mother’s side of the family and four on my father’s. But the oldest of these is near 70, the youngest right at 50. Actuary tables coldly indicate that this number will inevitably be diminished with growing frequency in the decade or two ahead.
I remember in decades past watching as my paternal grandparents’ generation passed from the scene, as first one, then another great uncle or great aunt--most of them in or around Omaha, Nebraska--died over the span of a quarter century. Some I knew well, others scarcely at all. Though in the middle of the pack of ten children, my grandmother was the next to last to die in her family. My grandfather, the second child in his family, outlived all but a younger sister. When grandma’s second youngest sister (whom I got to know pretty well in the last few years of her life) died in Edina, Minnesota a decade ago, that generation of my ancestors was gone from the earth.
I don’t know if my case is unusual, but though I have lived 57 years and more, I have never yet been present at the moment of death, when a person literally expired, and the spirit separated from the body. I have seen people not long dead in the hospital or at home, have been to numerous wakes, and have preached or attended many open-casket funerals in America and Romania, but was never a witness at the moment of passing. I am neither complaining nor rejoicing in this regard, merely stating a fact.
These things set me to reflecting on the fleeting temporality of my earthly pilgrimage, and I recognize once again the wisdom in Solomon’s counsel: “Death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart,” (Ecclesiastes 7:2).
Samuel Johnson voiced his “amen” by advising, “Learn that the present hour alone is man’s.”
Born, Not After the Flesh, but After the Spirit
“Not generation but regeneration makes the Christian. You are not Christians because you can trace a line of fleshly descent throughout twenty generations of Children of God; but you must, yourselves, be born again. For except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Many, no doubt, lay hold naturally on the form of godliness because of family ties; this is poor work. Ishmael is a sorry son of Abraham, and Esau of Isaac, and Absalom of David. Grace does not run in the blood. If you have no better foundation for your religion that your earthly parentage, you are in a wretched case.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1889
Vol. 35, p. 305
Honor without Merit
“As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace
Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the
White House based on the same credentials.”
Professor Daniel Wallace: ‘Inerrancy Not Essential’
There are certain doctrines of Scripture that have been historically identified as “fundamental” to Biblical Christianity, that is, they are so much a part of the very nature of Christianity, so intimately woven into the very fabric of the faith, that they cannot be dispensed with, discredited or disbelieved without making shipwreck of the Biblical faith. These have included the doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, His miraculous birth and sinlessness, His substitutionary, atoning death, His physical resurrection, and His second coming. But foundational to these all is that most fundamental of doctrines, the Divine inspiration and subsequent inerrancy and infallibility of written Scripture, for without an authoritative source of doctrine, we cannot be sure of the correctness of any of the other fundamental truths noted above.
In light of this, it distresses me to have to write of a serious erosion of commitment to this fundamental doctrine in a place where it would not have been suspected in times past, Dallas Theological Seminary. In previous issues, I have noted what I believe to be serious departures from Biblical orthodoxy in the writings of OT Chair and Professor Bob Chisholm (“Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth,” AISI 12:7; “ “El Gibbor”: “The Mighty God” of Isaiah 9:6 and the NET Bible,” AISI 12:8). Now I must note that there is cause for concern in the New Testament department as well. In preparing his book, The Case for the Real Jesus (Zondervan, 2007), Lee Strobel interviewed Prof. Daniel Wallace in his home regarding the claims of malevolent Bible critic Bart Ehrman that the original text of the Greek NT has been so badly and deliberately corrupted in the copying process that the doctrinal content and teaching of the NT cannot be trusted. On the whole, Wallace does a good job of discrediting Ehrman’s fallacious claims (though making some factual errors in the process, e.g., regarding the evidence in the case of the post-Johannine insertion numbered as I John 5:7, the so-called “Trinitarian” passage, p. 94).
Wallace along the way makes the incredible claim that, “Remarkably, the New Testament writers didn’t even know they were writing scripture, . . .” (p. 74), an affirmation I find IMPOSSIBLE to square with Paul’s claim in I Corinthians 14:37. To this add Paul’s (virtually if not actually) immediate recognition that Luke’s Gospel was Scripture, on a par with the Torah (I Timothy 5:18, quoting Deuteronomy 24:5 and Luke 10:7)--how could Paul’s close associate Luke not know that he was writing “Scripture” if Paul immediately recognized that Luke was so writing, especially if Luke, and the other NT writers, were, like the OT prophets, “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21) as they wrote? Do we suppose a man could even be “filled with the Holy Spirit” and not know it? How much less might he be controlled by the Spirit as he wrote and not be aware of it? Further, are there any disclaimers in the NT--such as we do find more than once in the Book of Mormon,--where the writers claim something other than or less than Divine authority for their writings? David absolutely knew that he was writing Scripture (2 Samuel 23:2); should we suppose that NT writers were less spiritually discerning that he?
At one point in discussing the reliability of the NT, Wallace in essence “gives away the store” by denying that inerrancy is a fundamental Bible doctrine and affirming that it is not essential to salvation or orthodox theology.
Strobel asked: “What if you found an incontrovertible error in the Bible? How would you react?”
Of course, the correct answer to Strobel’s question would be: “This is as hypothetical as asking what would I do if it were proven that Jesus of Nazareth never lived, or that he never rose from the dead. Or that God isn’t omnipotent. It is a fallacious question asked on a bogus premise that assumes as manifestly false that which is manifestly true. No such error has been proven, and so many claims of factual errors in Scripture regarding history or science have been discredited in the past two centuries, that the question doesn’t deserve a response.”
Nevertheless, Wallace actually answered: “I’d say, well, I guess I have to make some adjustments about what I think about that top level of the pyramid [of Bibliology ]. But it wouldn’t affect my foundational view of Christ. I don’t start by saying, ‘If the Bible has a few mistakes, I have to throw it all out.’ That’s not logical. We don’t take that attitude toward Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius or any other ancient historian’s writings.” (pp. 75, 76).
The problem is, the Bible does not claim to be just like any other ancient historical document; indeed, it claims that it is in some respects NOT like other ancient documents. It claims to be the Divinely-inspired self-revelation of an omniscient God. The OT claims more than 3,500 times--and yes, I did personally count them and record them in a pair of notebooks--that it is God Himself speaking to and through men. If the Bible had demonstrable factual errors in matters of history--say it claimed Nebuchadnezzar was king of Nineveh as (the apocryphal book Judith 1:1 does),--it would be exposed as NOT being the words of an omniscient God, since no God who knows all things would mistake Nineveh for Babylon. And if the God of such a discredited “Bible” can’t get the past straight, how can we be sure He is to be trusted regarding the present, or the future? And so the whole foundational claim of the Scriptures would be discredited, and indeed, the Bible would be just like every other ancient book that purports to present a record of ancient events--a conglomeration of fact and fiction, of truth and folk-tales, but not a sound guide to theology--do we look to Livy or Tacitus or Suetonius as guides to orthodox theology? Not in the least. So why would an errant Bible be in a class different from these, a somehow trustworthy theological document, though its history claims are dubious?
We can test the reliability of the history claims of the Bible by comparison with ancient documents and the findings of archaeology. We can test the Bible’s scientific claims against the true established facts (not mere theories or hypotheses) of science. But we cannot test its theology again anything, since it claims to be a unique Divine revelation, with supernatural events: theophanies, miracles, and more. If it is deemed “wanting” in trustworthiness in its historical and scientific claims, where it can be tested, how can we logically claim it to be completely trustworthy in its theology where it cannot be tested?
Strobel continues: “So, it’s not necessary for a person to believe in inerrancy to be a Christian?”
Wallace replies: “Personally, I believe in inerrancy [by which he means “the Bible is true when it come to dealing with historical issues,” (p. 75)]. However, I wouldn’t consider inerrancy to be a primary or essential doctrine for saving faith. It’s what I call a ‘protective shell’ doctrine. Picture a concentric circle, with the essential doctrines of Christ and salvation at the core. A little bit further out are some other doctrines until, finally, outside of everything is inerrancy. Inerrancy is intended to protect these inner doctrines. But if inerrancy is not true, does that mean that [theological] infallibility is not true? No, it’s a non sequitur to say I can’t trust the Bible in the minutiae of history, so therefore I can’t trust it in matters of faith and practice.”
He later reiterates, “So it’s possible to be a Christian without holding to [historical] inerrancy or even [theological] infallibility.” (p. 76)
In contrast, I would affirm that while a person need not consciously embrace inerrancy--or, for that matter the virgin birth, Christ’s sinlessness, His physical resurrection, and more--in order to become saved (to be saved, a person need only know that he is a guilty sinner and that Jesus alone can do something to remedy that--I came to Christ on the basis of His open invitation in Matthew 11:28-30 alone), I would likewise affirm that a person cannot logically or reasonably consciously deny any of these, knowing that they are what the Bible teaches, and at the same time have any foundation for his faith in Christ. The same Bible that teaches salvation by grace through faith in the supernatural Christ also teaches the virgin birth, Christ’s sinlessness, blood atonement, bodily resurrection and second coming, and its own inerrancy. If it is mistaken about the latter, what basis is there to conclude that it is not also mistaken about some or all of the former?
And I must ask--“HOW does Wallace know that the doctrines of Christ and salvation are essential or at the core, or even true?” Only through the teaching of Scripture. But if the Scripture can be errant--mistaken--defective--in its historical affirmations, how can you be sure that the sinlessness of Christ is not one of those fallible affirmations? Or the reports of His miracles? Or the accounts of His death and resurrection? Are not the reports of the supernatural and the gods the first thing that is discredited and discarded by ‘sophisticated modern experts’ in other ancient histories, such as Herodotus? So would not the Bible be treated the same way, if it is like them in historical errancy? It is Wallace’s logic that is gravely defective.
There is a larger danger here. Wallace influences his students and readers, and students regularly have a knack for taking the teachings of their teachers and pressing them to their full and final logical outcomes. While historically Dallas Seminary has affirmed that the factual historical inerrancy of Scripture was both “true and important,” in Wallace’s theology, this has eroded to inerrancy being “true but not important” (his protests to the contrary on pp. 77 and 79 notwithstanding). The next generation will go one step further, affirming that inerrancy is “neither true nor important.” And at that point, not a single core, fundamental, Christological doctrine will be safe. The Bible will be viewed merely as the fallible testimony of some very fallible men to their very subjective faith, with scarcely any more claim on our confidence than the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas. The first steps down the slippery slope, on the “downgrade,” have been taken. I fully expect them to end in a theological wreck at the bottom, as has happened so often before in other once-Christian institutions, founded on the fundamentals, but. . . .
“Personally, I believe in inerrancy, but I’m not going to die for inerrancy” (p. 80). Even though you affirm that that is what the Bible teaches? Or is that only a contingent, pro tem doctrinal belief on your part, with the issue open to debate?
A Truly New Volume of Spurgeon’s Sermons
For 63 consecutive years, week by week, beginning in 1855 and terminating in mid-1917--25 years after Spurgeon’s death!--due only to severe paper shortages in England caused by the Great War, a sermon preached by Charles Haddon Spurgeon was published in London by Passmore and Alabaster. These weekly sermons were collected into annual bound volumes, the first six called The New Park Street Pulpit, the rest, beginning in 1861, called The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. These 63 volumes constitute a not-quite exhaustive collection of sermons preached by Spurgeon, stenographically recorded, then edited by Spurgeon (or occasionally by one his close associates) in preparation for publication. Happy--blessed--is the man who has such a set complete, and happier still if he frequently reads from its contents.
I am indeed a blessed man in both regards; I acquired my first volume of the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit as a 21st birthday gift from my wife in 1973, and in the years since, have added a volume here, several there, until I finally in the last decade purchased the last missing volume or two. (My set is mostly Pilgrim reprints, with a handful or more of Banner of Truth editions, and even a few original Passmore and Alabaster volumes). Though very far from having read the entire set--I know a couple of preachers who have--I do read from it more frequently than from all other sermons in my library combined, and if you have read AISI for any amount of time, you have probably noted that I quote from Spurgeon more than any 3 or 4 other writers combined (twice in this issue alone).
When serial publication of Spurgeon’s sermons ceased in 1917, there remained a number of sermons in manuscript that had never been published in the NPSP / MTP series (though the floating reports of as many as 500 additional manuscript sermons seems based on a misunderstanding; most of these manuscripts are apparently of already published sermons), as well as a considerable number that had been published elsewhere, particularly in The Baptist Messenger, where a monthly message from Spurgeon appeared for several decades, but which never became a part of the NPSP / MTP series. From the manuscripts of unpublished sermons, twenty were published in book form in 1922, in a little volume, Able to the Uttermost (reprinted by Pilgrim Publications in 1985 and still available from them). This was the only collection of new sermon material by Spurgeon published after 1917--all the “Twelve Sermons on XYZ” and other sermon books published in the many decades since were merely selections from the 63-volume set. But now, some truly new sermons that have never appeared in book form have been published. Day One Publications of Leominster, England has published this year C. H. Spurgeon’s Sermons beyond Volume 63: an authentic supplement to the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, which consists of 45 sermons originally published in The Baptist Messenger periodical, compiled therefrom by Terence Peter Crosby. The hardback volume of 640 pages is similar to the original sermon set in size and format (it is a few millimeters shorter than my other volumes, but comparable in thickness), and with very readable type and layout on the page. I will be manually adding the relevant information to the complete index of Spurgeon’s published sermons produced by Pilgrim Publications, as I did with Able to the Uttermost when I got that volume some years ago.
The cost is approximately $40. The book may be obtained through Pilgrim Publications, www.pilgrimpublications.com ; address: PO Box 66, Pasadena, Texas, 77501; phone: (713) 477-4261.
If you thought your set of Spurgeon’s sermons was complete, be assured that you now must have this volume for it to be truly so.
Where Texts Differ: an Addendum
In the previous issue (As I See It, 12:11, “Where Texts and Translations Differ: Sources of Information”), we answered a question regarding lists of differences between various published Greek texts (such as the textus receptus editions and either the Byzantine text-form or modern critical text editions such as Westcott-Hort or Nestle-Aland, and among English Bible versions, such as the KJV and the NIV). A long-time reader wrote to give additional information about some of the sources we noted, including some limitations and defects these sources display. We are happy to pass on the information--Editor
Thanks again for another timely issue. I want to encourage you not to lose heart in your battle against the KJO movement. Just letting its proponents speak for themselves, without even bothering to rebut, speaks volumes to your readers. I've read the recent testimonies of several former KJO's who came out after they were faced with the facts.
I did want to comment on your Response to a Reader's Question. You wrote:
By consulting the footnotes of the New King James Version, you can see, in the NT, where the TR and KJV (which are not always identical, but the great majority of the time agree) differ from either or both the MT, i.e., "majority text," and the NU (the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies' Greek texts, the latest editions of the so-called "critical text"). . . So, by simply working through these notes, you can find just about every place in the NT where the differences of the TR / KJV vis-a-vis the MT and NU texts affect the actual translation of a passage in the New Testament.
. . . A preliminary compilation (somewhat incomplete) in list form of places where the TR differs from the MT in the NT was made by the late William G. Pierpont (co-editor with Maurice Robinson of The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine / Majority Textform ). This list was published as an appendix to an interlinear Greek NT edition published by Jay P. Green, Sr.
These two compilations (Hodges/Farstad in Nelson and Pierpont/Robinson in Green) were made separately so they are somewhat complimentary. Going over the list in Green, for example, shows several places where Nelson failed to show a major difference between the TR and the other texts. For example, four Greek words in the TR of Mark 15:3 are omitted in the other two texts. It's really inexcusable that Nelson failed to note this in the NKJV marginalia, if their purpose was truly to show how the text behind the KJV differed from that in the other two texts. There are so many other omissions that I would not characterize the Nelson information as notably more complete than that in Green. Furthermore, there are all the places, like 1 John 3:16, where the NKJV itself has a Majority text reading vis-a-vis Scrivener's TR: it is only fair that these be noted as well. Finally, in Revelation 12:3, there should be a note informing the reader that both the TR and NU-texts omit 'fiery', and that the Majority omits 'red'. But that would be admitting that what the NKJV reads is a singular conflation of the two variants.
Another problem with the marginalia in the NKJV is that it is so dated. For example, a total of 8 mss have now been identified with the Johannine Comma in the text or margin; the NKJV cites "only four or five." And quite a few more differences between NA-25 and the TR would show up in the text of versions like the NASB and the NIV whose texts were based (at least in the first editions) on UBS-2, before all the changes made in the direction of the Byzantine text by NA-26 and UBS-3 under the influence of p46 and other papyri. For example, in 2 Peter 2:4, there is no note explaining to the bewildered reader that the text behind even the latest revisions to date of the NIV and NASB reads 'pits' as opposed to 'chains'.
Daniel Buck (you may quote me on this)”
Thoughts from Lord Moran
Note: Charles McMoran Wilson (1882-1977), a.k.a. Lord Moran, is best remembered as Winston Churchill’s personal physician during World War II, who published a candid and very personal account of Churchill in 1966, the year after Churchill’s death. Moran had previously served as a front line physician in World War I and from those experiences and his own detailed journal accounts made an in-depth study of the causes and the prevention of what has been know variously as “shell shock” “battle fatigue” and “post-traumatic stress disorder.” He published his observations and analysis in 1945 as The Anatomy of Courage. He discusses courage in the face of danger (specifically in battle), how men get it, how they expend it, and how the collapse of courage can be prevented. Moran’s analysis/ battle memoirs at times were reminiscent of William Manchester’s personal World War II chronicle, Goodbye, Darkness.
Some quotes of note gleaned from Anatomy of Courage--
“Twice in my lifetime I have seen boys grow to men, only to be consumed by war, and I have come to think of this almost every day. War is only tolerable when one can take part in it, when one is a bit of the target and not a pensioned spectator. Yet when the death of husband or son or brother has grown distant, and the world is free to think again without impiety that courage is not common, men will remember that all the fine things in war as in peace are the work of a few men; that the honour of the race is in the keeping of but a fraction of her people.” (p. xxvi)
“It is not what happens out here [on the battlefield] but what men think may happen that finds the flaw in them, yet it is the thinking soldier who lasts in modern war.” (p. 140)
“It has always been a military axiom, that a man’s will to fight is the ultimate arbiter of battles and that this is governed by the thoughts however elementary which pass through his head.” (p. 16)
“By cowardice, I do not mean fear. Fear is the response of the instinct of self-preservation to danger. It is only morbid, as Aristotle taught, when it is out of proportion to the degree of the danger.” (p. 19)
“We must practice a prudent economy of emotion in time of war if we are to remain sane.” (p. 41)
“War is a cruel and wasteful holocaust, though a necessary evil if men are to live in freedom.” (p. 44)
“Courage is a moral quality; it is not a chance gift of nature like an aptitude for games. It is a cold choice between two alternatives, the fixed resolve not to quit; an act of renunciation which must be made not once but many times by the power of the will. Courage is will power. The story of how courage was spent in France is a picture of sensitive men using up their will power under discouraging circumstances while one by one their moral props were knocked down. The call on the bank might be only the daily drain of the trenches, or it might be a sudden draft which threatened to close the account. The acid test of a man in the trenches was high explosive; it told each one of us things about ourselves we had not known till then.” (p. 67)
“In the trenches a man’s will power was his capital and he was always spending, so that wise and thrifty company officers watched the expenditure of every penny lest their men went bankrupt.” (pp. 69-70)
“Since the discovery of firearms, science has been pushing armies apart, and as long ago as the war with Napoleon, a surgeon with Wellington’s army in Spain found hardly any bayonet wounds. Hand to hand fighting is vanishing out of war, and even veterans have never met cold steel, which was the way death came to the ancients.” (p. 75)
“If the soldier can look forward to leave, his spirits rise--he has hope in his heart and hope is the best preservative in war.” (p. 76)
“It is not the number of soldiers, but their will to win which decides battles.” (p. 81)
“ ‘More life,’ Thomas Hardy writes, ‘may trickle out of men through thought than through a gaping wound.’ “ (p. 120)
“Courage is no longer the product of a vacant mind, it is the expression on the battlefield of character.” (p. 162)
“Courage can be judged apart from danger only if the social significance and meaning of courage is known to us, namely that a man of character in peace becomes a man of courage in war. He cannot be selfish in peace and yet be unselfish in war. Character as Aristotle taught is a habit, the daily choice of right instead of wrong; it is a moral quality which grows to maturity in peace and is not suddenly developed on the outbreak of war. For war, in spite of much that we have heard to the contrary, has no power to transform, it merely exaggerates the good and evil that are in us, till it is plain for all to read; it cannot change, it exposes. Man’s fate in battle is worked out before war begins. For his acts in war are dictated not by courage, nor by fear, but by conscience, of which war is the final test.” (p. 170)
“Discipline, control from without, can only be relaxed safely when it is replaced by something higher and better, control from within. . . . If discipline is relaxed when it has not been replaced by high morale, you get a mob who will obey their own primitive instincts like animals.” (p. 176)
“Is the citizen full of pride and hot loyalty when he joins the army? Does it give him prestige among his fellow countrymen to be seen in uniform? The answers to those questions may determine victory.” (p. 182)
“A soldier’s conduct is shaped by what is expected of him.” (p. 185)
“General Wavell does not explain why in the First German War when our troops were probably better fed, better clothed, housed and doctored than ever before, there was no generalship in our army in France worth the name.” (p. 190)
Stray Thoughts on Books and Such by Andrew Lang
Regarding the fate of our books during our lifetime or after our death--
“Whither will our treasures [i.e. books] be scattered? Will they find good masters? Or, the worst fate of books, fall into the hands of women who will sell them to the trunk-maker? . . . . Some unlucky men are able partly to solve these problems in their own lifetime. They are constrained to sell their libraries--an experience full of bitterness, wrath, and disappointment. Selling books is nearly as bad as losing friends, than which life has no worse sorrow.”
The Library, p. 15
(London: Macmillan & Co, 1892. Second edition)
“Bookstalls are not the only field of the chase [in book-hunting]. Book catalogues, which reach the collector through the post, give him all the pleasures of the sport at home. He reads the booksellers’ catalogues eagerly, he marks his chosen sport with pencil, he writes by return of post, or he telegraphs to the vendor. Unfortunately he almost always finds that he has been forestalled, probably by some bookseller’s agent.”
“A scholar is rarely a rich man.”