Bulugo Vine Story: Redemptive Analogy Case Study

Shaw indicates that rather than contextualizing the missionary’s perception of Christianity to make it understandable within the local people’s culture, the missionary should facilitate the people themselves discovering God from within their own cultural context ... In my own mission experience, I have found this approach to be valid and preferable, once there are local believers, and as God begins to develop leaders from among them. At times, cultural dynamics or God’s preparation of an unreached people group allow them to discover God without a great deal of intervention on the missionary’s part. However, in the beginning stages, it is often unavoidable that the missionary must make his or her own best attempt at contextualizing the message of God’s desire and provision to save the people. Once the initial resistance has been removed and the local people have come to a measure of faith and desire to learn, then the missionary can move to the role of guiding and supporting the Spirit-led believers as they themselves discover what God’s Word teaches, and what his truths look like lived out in their own context

Riemannian geometry and matrix geometric means

AbstractThe geometric mean of two positive definite matrices has been defined in several ways and studied by several authors, including Pusz and Woronowicz, and Ando. The characterizations by these authors do not readily extend to three matrices and it has been a long-standing problem to define a natural geometric mean of three positive definite matrices. In some recent papers new understanding of the geometric mean of two positive definite matrices has been achieved by identifying the geometric mean of A and B as the midpoint of the geodesic (with respect to a natural Riemannian metric) joining A and B. This suggests some natural definitions for a geometric mean of three positive definite matrices. We explain the necessary geometric background and explore the properties of some of these candidates

The Work Product Doctrine in the State Courts

When the modem Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1938, considerable doubt and controversy arose concerning the broad provisions for deposition and discovery. That controversy can be fairly described as a conflict both of emotion and of basic philosophy. Many lawyers engaged in the daily maneuvering of the adversary process naturally tended to defend a system which put a high premium on their individual abilities. Others were able to stand back and look at the trial practice of the day with some concern for basic incongruities. Too often, they felt, the obtaining of truth in fair trials was frustrated by surprise and incomplete presentation of facts. Furthermore, many cases were tried which would have been settled had the parties had more complete knowledge of the facts before they began. Broad discovery procedures aimed at full disclosure of facts before trial were thought necessary to encourage settlements and to promote fairer, more efficient trials. Very little broadside criticism of extensive pretrial discovery now appears, and one might fairly assume that the benefits it was predicted would accompany broad discovery have been realized at least in substantial part. This assumption as to general success is further buttressed by the fact that, since 1938, discovery procedures identical with or similar to those of the Federal Rules have been adopted in at least thirty states. It is clear that this number is growing and that pressure will mount in the remaining states for increased discovery opportunities. The arguments for and against the basic decision to broaden discovery have been ably presented elsewhere. This comment will deal solely with problems in the important area which has come to be known as work product doctrine. The experience of the federal courts indicates that any state which seeks to broaden its discovery rules must eventually face up to the recurring problems in this area