If there is any doubt left that I am a nerd, this post should take care of it. I like math. It’s not that I’m especially good at it, I just like it. I like the absoluteness of it. 2 + 2 = 4, √25 = 5, the area of a circle is πr2, and there is nothing the postmoderns can do about it. I also like limericks. In fact, I love limericks. So this post displays all kinds of nerdy goodness about me. These are a few math limericks I’ve collected.

An algebra teacher named Drew
Tried to find the √2.
He found it between
¼ and 14,
But couldn't get closer. Can you?

There was an old man who said, “Do
Tell me how I should add two and two.
I think more and more
That it makes about four—
But I fear that is almost too few.”

A mathematician confided
That a Moebius band is one-sided.
And you'll get quite a laugh
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided.

There was a young student from Rye,
Who worked out the value of π.
“It happens,” said he,
“That it's just over 3,
Though I'd rather you don't ask me why.”

If inside of a circle a line
Hits the center and goes spine to spine
And the line’s length is “d”,
The circumference will be
d times 3.14159.

There was a young lady named Bright
whose speed was much greater than light.
So she set out one day,
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.

The Professor said, “Now I'll tell you
A fact known to only a few
Men and women alive.
Two plus two equals five!
(For large enough values of two.)”

This is my favorite, credited to John Saxon, the author of our math textbooks:

A Dozen, a Gross, and a Score,
plus three times the square root of four,
divided by seven,
plus five times eleven,
equals nine squared and not a bit more.

Here’s one for you to solve:

There once was a woman from Dundee,
Whose age had the last digit three.
If her whole age reversed
Is the square of the first,
Then what must the woman’s age be?

   What if we were to cling to the idea — so firmly planted in our heads that we seem to have been born with it — that if we suffer affliction in the world we can never really be blessed? If that were the case, which of us would not run a mile from the Lord Jesus Christ or willingly consent to be his disciple, even supposing we accepted his teaching and hailed him as God’s Son who calls us to himself? In that case we might well say, ‘Yes, but surely he knows our weakness and frailty? Why should he not put up with us as we are?’ Each one of us would take our shoulder from the wheel if we truly held the idea — deeply rooted, as I said — that blessedness is only for those who are comfortable and at ease.
   That is why our Lord preached as he does here to his disciples, demonstrating that that our happiness and blessedness do not come from the world’s applause, of from the enjoyment of wealth, honors, gratification and pleasure. On the contrary, we may be utterly oppressed, in tears and weeping, persecuted and to all appearances ruined: none of that affects our standing or diminishes our happiness. Why? Because we have in view the ultimate outcome. That is what Christ would have us remember, so as to correct the false ideas we feed upon and which so muddle our thinking that we cannot accept his yoke. He reminds us that we must look further ahead and consider the outcome of our afflictions, our tears in the persecutions we suffer and the insults we bear. When once we see how God turns all of that to good and to our salvation, we may conclude that blessing will assuredly be ours, however contrary such things to our nature.

—John Calvin, Sermons on the Beatitudes (Banner of Truth Trust, 2006), 20.

Walter Chantry on the supremacy of God’s Word and prayer over reading circumstances in knowing God’s will:

Reading the Future by Providence

   Many who lived during David’s era were quite aware that the Almighty manages all things on the earth and all things in human affairs. In David’s time it was as it is today. Those who have a doctrine of divine providence often attempt to read divine intent for the future through unfolding circumstances, all of which are under God’s control, or through opportunities set before them by the Lord’s governing of our world.
   When Keilah fell under attack from the Philistines, David’s men feared that responding to help the people of that city would provide Saul with a golden opportunity to capture David and his small band. Since Keilah was so close to the border of Philistia, and therefore, since it faced constant raids from Israel’s arch-foe, the city had built defensive walls. If David and his men entered a walled city, so they reasoned, they would be trapped. Saul would then hasten from Gibeah and seize them all. It was for this reason that David’s army preferred to remain in the open wilderness where numerous routes of escape were their protection. Providence dictated, it seemed to them, that they decline to help Keilah.
   David reasoned differently and inquired of the Lord as to what his will was (1 Sam. 23:2-5). Through Gad the prophet, and through the Urim and Thummim in Abiathar’s possession, David could entreat God and hear his word in response. Thus did David rise above guesses as to God’s intentions from the mere observation of providence. For him, prayer and ‘Thus saith the Lord’ would guide all decisions. So must we seek to know God’s will by prayer and by the searching of his Word as we make decisions for the future.
   After David and his forces delivered Keilah from the Philistines, Saul indeed did hear that the brave men of Jesse’s son were in the fortress of Keilah. Reading providence only, Saul concluded, ‘God has given him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars’ (1 Sam. 23:7). Not unaware of their danger, and employing informers, David knew when ‘Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men’ (1 Sam. 23:8). Again he sought by prayer and by inquiring of God to know what he should do. God told him that Saul was on his way. He further told David that, in the face of overwhelming numbers, and in the face of their rightful king’s demand, Keilah’s elders would deliver David and his men into Saul’s hand. Then, and only then, did David and his men depart in haste.
   As we have seen, when David was in the region of Engedi (1 Sam. 24), Saul entered a cave, unaware that David and his men were hidden in this very cavern. David’s men, reading the providence of God, said, ‘Here is the day of which the LORD said to you, “Behold, I will give your enemy into your hand”’(i Sam. 24:4). The opportunity was there to kill Saul and to seize the kingdom after the assassination. How many presume that God wants us to act in a certain way because there is an unexpected opportunity to do so!
   David did not need Gad, nor did he need the Urim and Thummim, to tell him what God’s will was. He knew, as well as we, that, ‘the governing authorities . . . that exist have been instituted by God’ (Rom. 13:1). He spoke of their advice as bad counsel, ‘to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’S anointed’ (1 Sam. 24:7). On principle, received from the Word of God, he refused to seize his ‘opportunity’ against Saul.
   How often are we met with flippant comments like, ‘The Lord showed me’, or, ‘I was led of the Lord’! Often, by these slogans men and women mean, ‘I have glanced at providence; I have read circumstances through the lenses of my personal optimism or pessimism, and with my personal wishes near at hand.’ It is possible to use the above phrases if by them we mean, ‘I have prayed for God’s guidance and I have found these principles in his Word which give light to my path.’
   Providence does inform us of God’s having acted in the past. It is far less yielding of information about the future will of God. If God’s Word informs us of God’s ways, how much we can see of his hand at work in our own lives! How many praises we should give for surprising deliverances and unexpected grace! We should sharpen our sensitivity to our God’s omnipresence. One of its major evidences is his control and meaningful direction in every circumstance of our lives.

—Walter J. Chantry, David: Man of Prayer, Man of War (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), 82–84.

I was going to wait at least until after Thanksgiving to post this, but Dan Phillips asked “What are the best Christmas albums, ever?” Which Messiah, and why? So these are my recommendations.

I haven’t listened to many different Messiah productions, but of those I have, I like this one best. Why? I just do. I’m not aficionado enough to go into all the nuances of nuance — “Well, Dan, it has a robust bouquet and tantalizes the palate with hints of elderberry and currants” — I just like it best.

I’m in need of some new Christmas music myself. These are probably not “the best Christmas albums, ever”, but here are some of my favorites:

Christopher Parkening & Kathleen Battle, Angels’ Glory. I believe the sopranos in Heaven’s choir sound like Kathleen Battle, and Christopher Parkening’s guitar rivals any angel’s harp. Maybe I exaggerate. Or maybe not.

Dallas Brass, Christmas Brass. I’m sure there are other Christmas brass albums equal to or better than this (like this one by the Westminster Brass, for example), but I’ve got this one, and I like it.

Joni Eareckson Tada, John MacArthur, Robert & Bobbie Wolgemuth, O Come, All Ye Faithful. This is one of four hymn albums done with The Master’s College Choral. Each comes with a hardcover book of historical sketches and meditations on the hymns it contains.

Joni Eareckson Tada & Bobbie Wolgemuth, Christmas Carols for a Kid’s Heart. Similar to the previous album, this is one of four, also accompanied by a hardcover book. These are some of the best children’s productions I’ve heard.

Charlotte Church, Dream a Dream. I like this one in spite of the Ave Maria.

California Guitar Trio, Christmas Album. This one is fun for anyone who likes the guitar. It includes a couple of stupid songs, but since it’s all instrumental — nobody sings — they’re still enjoyable.

Nat King Cole, The Christmas Song. He’s Nat King Cole. Need I say More? This man sang. Not like what commonly passes for singing in pop music today. No moaning, groaning, whining, growling, yelling, screaming, . . . Just clear singing with the beautiful voice God gave him. And enunciation! He obviously believed vowels and consonants had fixed phonetic values. So do I; because they do.

However, to prove I’m not completely rigid in my standards, I also like:

Stan Boreson & Doug Setterberg, Yust Go Nuts at Christmas. If you weren’t raised among early twentieth-century second and third-generation Scandinavian-Americans as I was, you probably can’t appreciate this one. You’ll probably just think it’s stupid. Well, actually, it is stupid. Here’s a sample.

Do you have any recommendations for me?