Books for Boys

Today Dr. Mohler pointed out on his blog that a major reason many guys don't like reading is that they don't have reading material that captures their interest and fires their imaginations. He recommended a list of books that sound fascinating, but are definitely for older teenagers and adults.

When I was a boy I had no such dislike of reading. I read just about everything I could get my hands on. Visiting the library was a several-times-a-week occurrence. When I was disobedient and in need of correction, my parents found that one of the most effective punishments was not to let me read anything for a period of time.

I thought I'd list a few of the books that I loved when I was a kid, in case you know a boy who is always in search of new reading material. Most of these will be appropriate for kids who have graduated from Dr. Seuss but aren't yet ready to tackle unabridged, adult-oriented novels.


The Hardy Boys, by F.W. Dixon. The classic boys' mystery series, and I read them all. The woman who evaluated my homeschooling work told me one year that I needed to read fewer Hardy Boys and branch out into other material.

Tom Swift, by Victor Appleton. Original science-fiction for boys, these books have been around since 1910. I read the atomic-age books (the New Tom Swift, Jr. Adventures series) that were written in the '50s and '60s.

The Chronicles of Prydain, by Lloyd Alexander. Alexander draws on Welsh folklore to tell a fantastic store of Taran, a boy who doesn't know he's a king.

The Dark is Rising sequence, by Susan Cooper. Cooper's stories incorporate Welsh and English mythology, including Arthurian legends, and revolve around five kids who are caught up in a climactic struggle between good and evil

Grimm's Fairy Tales. The original stories are nothing like their Disneyfied modern incarnations, and will appeal to boys' love of monsters, witches, gore, and adventure.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien. I can still remember discovering The Hobbit on the shelves at the library for the first time. Probably the best fantasy stories ever written.

The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis. These really need no introduction, given their current publicity with the movies.

The Borrowers (and sequels), by Mary Norton. A Carnegie Medal-winning story about little people who live in the walls and borrow things from big people.

Doctor Dolittle, by Hugh Lofting. The 1967 film adaptation with Rex Harrison is a classic; the books are even better.

The Redwall series, by Brian Jacques. A fantasy series about talking animals. I only became aware of these books as a teenager, but I read a bunch of them and thoroughly enjoyed them. Jacques has a gift for adventurous plots.

The American Girl books, by various authors. Yes, that's right. I secretly read every single one of my sisters' AG books, and was fascinated by them. It has taken me a decade to find the courage to admit it, though. :-)

Perhaps a better series of historical novels, for boys who can't bring themselves to read American Girl books, are the books written by G.A. Henty in the late 19th century. Each focuses on a boy who lives through an important historical time or event. They've recently been republished by Dover. I only read a couple, but they're great.

I should also mention that I was introduced to many of the great classics by Moby Books' "Illustrated Classic Editions." They're abridged, illustrated versions of classic novels that are perfect for younger readers. Some of the ones I loved include:

A Journey to the Center of the Earth, by Jules Verne
The Time Machine, by H. G. Wells
Around the World in 80 Days, by Jules Verne
The Three Musketeers, by Alexander Dumas
The Man in the Iron Mask, by Alexander Dumas
The Swiss Family Robinson, by Johann Wyss
Treasure Island, by Robert Louis Stevenson
Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe
The War of the Worlds, by H. G. Wells
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, by Jules Verne
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain
Ben-Hur, by Lew Wallace
Captains Courageous, by Rudyard Kipling
Moby Dick, by Herman Melville

Vote Jeff Cavanaugh in 2008!

Faithfulness, not fruitfulness

In my reading for my class on Personal Spiritual Disciplines recently, I came across an interesting and sobering anecdote about the Puritans in J.I. Packer's A Quest for Godliness. Making a point about the Puritans' ministry being focused on spiritual revival, Packer contrasts the ministries of Richard Greenham and Richard Baxter, two English Puritans who ministered about 70 years apart.

Greenham, a pastoral pioneer, was incumbent [pastor] of Dry Drayton, seven miles from Cabridge, from 1570 to 1590. He worked extremely hard. He rose daily at four and each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday preached a sermon at daybreak, to catch his flock before they dispersed into the fields; then on Sunday he preached twice, and in addition catechised the children of the parish each Sunday evening and Thursday morning. Mornings he studied, afternoons he visited the sick or walked out into the fields 'to confer with his Neighbours while they were at Plough.'
...Yet, for all his godliness, insight, evangelical message and hard work, his ministry was virtually fruitless. Others outside his parish were blessed through him, but not his own people. 'Greenham had pastures green, but flocks full lean' was a little rhyme that went round among the godly. 'I perceive noe good wrought by my ministry on any but one family' was what, according to Holland, he said to his successor. In rural England in Greenham's day, there was much fallow ground to be broken up; it was a time for sowing, but the reaping time was still in the future.

Contrast this with Richard Baxter:

Finally, we glance at Richard Baxter, who ministered at Kidderminster from 1641 to 1660, with a five-year break during the Civil War. Kidderminster was a town of some 2,000 adults, and most of them, it seems, were converted under his ministry. He found them, he tells us, 'an ignorant, rude and revelling people, for the most part...they had hardly ever had any lively serious preaching among them.' But his ministry was wonderfully blessed.

The Congregation was usually full, so that we were fain to build five Galleries [balconies] after my coming thither...In a word, when I came thither first, there was about one Family in a Street that worshipped God and called on His Name, and when I came away there were some streets where there was not past one Family in the side of a Street that did not so; and that did not by professing serious Godliness, give us hopes of their sincerity.

These two Puritan pastors both worked remarkably hard, laboring for decades harder than most pastors do today. Both were extremely godly men. Yet, for whatever reason, Baxter's ministry was blessed by God in ways that Greenham's was not. Yet Greenham's faithfulness has borne fruit for over four hundred years in the lives of those who have read his works and looked to his example, fruit that he never saw in his lifetime. No doubt Greenham was extremely discouraged at times, yet he persevered. And the seeds that he and his contemporaries sowed helped to enable Baxter's generation to see such fruit from gospel ministry in England.

Most pastors today will probably have ministries that resemble Greenham's more than Baxter's. But they need to remember that they will be judged according to their faithfulness, and not necessarily by their fruitfulness.

Ancestry

Oh, the things you learn when researching your family tree!

My 24th great-grandfather was king of Leinster, the southwest province of Ireland, in the 12th century.
Isaac Newton was my 1st cousin, 13 times removed.
Mark Twain was my 6th cousin, 4 times removed.
Jimmy Carter is also my 6th cousin, 4 times removed.
Lyndon B. Johnson was my 8th cousin, 2 times removed.
Booker T. Washington was my 9th cousin.

I am also distantly related to JFK, Judy Garland, Butch Cassidy, Percy Bysse Shelley, William Faulkner, Willa Cather, Helen Keller, William Randolph Hearst, and at least two signers of the Declaration of Independence.

All information courtesy of Ancestry.com.

For J.D., who soon will see her Lord.

O death, let me die
So I may live.

O death, close my eyes
So I may see
White shores to the West
Of a shining sea.

O death, let me sleep
So I may rise
In that blessed morn
Of golden skies.

O death, stop my mouth
So I may sing,
"Glory, laud, honor
To the righteous King."

O death, thou harsh foe
Of mortal men,
Thy pow'r is broken
And I call thee friend.

O death, let me die
So I may live.


©2007 Jeff Cavanaugh.

The Oddities of English

I'm here, I'm just getting re-adjusted to academic life.

I've said for a while that one of the best things about learning Latin in college was how much it strengthened my grasp of English grammar. I'm experiencing a similar phenomenon as I plunge into the considerably murkier waters of Hebrew. It's not helping me understand how better to use English, as Latin did, at least not yet. Rather, it is making me more aware of just how odd and difficult a language English is, even preposterously so.

Let's just consider spelling. Do you realize how absurdly we native English-speakers spell things? We don't spell them the way we pronounce them, for starters. We spell them, in many cases, the way they used to be pronounced hundreds of years ago. Knife is one example: the initial K is silent, though it was once pronounced in the word's Old and Middle English ancestors.

Then there are all the useless letters in the alphabet. Letters whose functions are performed perfectly well by other letters, and whose presence in the alphabet just leads to confusion. C is a great example; its hard sound is also produced by K, and S does a great job all by itself with the soft sound. X and Q don't even have sounds--they have combinations of other letters' sounds, ks and kw. It is all eckstremely kweer.

And vowels! English has the most confused system for reproducing vowel sounds. Just think how many different ways you can represent the vowel sound from the word shoe. Oe as in shoe, ew as in threw, ough as in through, oo as in spoon, eu as in eucharist, ue as in flue, and ou as in you. Need I go on? Yoo and I need one consistent way to spell a given sound, so it's not so confyoosing.

In closing, I will leave you with this phonetic gem from Douglas Wilson's The Paideia of God, which illustrates some of the difficulty. "A rough, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed."

Phonetic transliteration for the understandably confused: "A ruff, doe-faced, thawtful plowman strode throo the streets of Scarboruh; after falling into a sloo, he coffed and hiccupped."

Sigh.

More on College Wear

In my article linked from my last post, I talked about the stylishness of college men in years past. In support of that point, I offer this site--pictures of student members of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau that span the years from 1914 to 1967.

Below are the fellows from 1935-36.

Dressing Well

It's been a while since I've posted, mainly because I've been busy with our move to Louisville, Kentucky. I'm hoping to post more frequently in the coming days and weeks.

A few months ago I began thinking here about why Christian men should care about the way they dress. I haven't done much with the series since then.

However, I've just had my first-ever article published, and it deals with the topic a bit:
Making the Most of College: The Importance of Dressing Well

Wiki-surfing

Wikipedia has grown to be one of my favorite websites. Next to Google, I think it's one of the most useful tools on the web. Hardly a day goes by, it seems, when I don't look up multiple things on Wikipedia. I haven't yet found a topic that didn't have at least a short article written about it.

Wikipedia can also be dangerous, however. I've found that when I look something up, I rarely stay just on that one article's page. Every Wikipedia page contains numerous links in the text to articles on other, related topics. I often see another link that looks interesting, click on it, read that page, click on a link to yet another article, and so on. Sometimes it can eat up a lot of one's time, and sometimes the trail of links can get pretty long. By the end of my Wiki-surfing (when I finally force myself to get back to work), I'll often be on a topic that has nothing to do with what I originally came to look up.

Here's a recent example. I heard about a particular dog breed, the Tosa, and decided to look it up. That to the following string: Tosa-->Sumo-->Yokozuna-->Onogawa Kisaburo-->Jujutsu-->Karate-->Syngman Rhee-->Cold War.

From dogs to the Cold War, by way of Japanese culture. Weird. And I've had even longer and stranger Wiki-surfing chains.

Straw Hat Day

Yesterday, May 15, was Straw Hat Day, the day when hat retailers in the US traditionally encouraged men to put away their warm felt hats and switch to cooler straw ones.

I have a classic Panama hat on order, but it has to come from Ecuador and so it didn't get here in time. Instead, I wore my vintage Cavanagh boater to mark the occasion.

The boater, or skimmer as it's also called, was once the standard summer hat for well-dressed men, for at least the first three decades of the 20th century. Boaters were worn with everything from beach wear to tuxedos (when accessorized with a black ribbon). A photo from 1912 of the congregation of Capitol Hill Baptist Church standing outside the new church building that was under construction shows nearly every one of several dozen men wearing boaters. In fact, if you look closely enough at the Paris 1919 cover below, you can see that while the heads of government are wearing top hats to go with their formal frock coats, their aides behind are wearing boaters with their suits.

Travelers returning from abroad made the Panama hat gradually more popular, and Panamas eventually replaced boaters as the standard summer hat. In these hatless days, the boater is now relegated to a costume piece, worn mostly by barbershop quartets and actors reprising Dick Van Dyke's role in Mary Poppins. Like the morning coat, the tailcoat, and stiff collars, the boater is on life support in the world of menswear. However, with the resurgence of hat wearing in general, perhaps the boater will experience a new era of acceptability as a legitimate alternative in headwear for men with style.

If at first you don't succeed...

Recently I've begun reading Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World, by Margaret MacMillan. It is an account of the Paris Peace conference in 1919 following the armistice that ended World War I, which produced the Treaty of Versailles and founded the League of Nations.

I was particularly interested to read this, from the book's foreword by Richard Holbrooke:

In the headline version of history, the road from the Hall of Mirrors to the German invasion of Poland only twenty years later is usually presented as a straight line. But as MacMillan forcefully demonstrates, this widely accepted view of history distorts the nature of the decisions made in Paris and minimizes the importance of actions taken in the intervening years.

......MacMillan corrects the widely held view that thre reparations payments impose by the victors were so onerous as to have caused the wreck of the German economy that paved the way for Hitler.

The view which Ms. MacMillan apparently corrects in this work is one that sounded familiar to me. While I'm interested in history generally and wanted to read something on World War I, I also have another reason for wanting to read this book. You see, when I was a freshman in college, I completely, utterly, and totally botched a paper on Hitler's rise to power for Dr. Sanders' History of the Western World class. I think I got a D on the paper and, consequently, a C in the class--the worst of my college career.

Apparently I didn't understand the situation then, as I believe I repeated the very view that Mr. Holbrooke talks about above. So, I thought that now would be a good time to remedy that situation and come to a better understanding of the events. I think Dr. Sanders would be proud.

Eastern Market Burns

Eastern Market, a Capitol Hill landmark, caught fire this morning. Most of the South Hall, where the market's shops and food stalls were located, was consumed in the blaze. This is a heavy loss for the area, as it has been a huge part of the Hill community for over 130 years. I have enjoyed Saturday morning walks down to the Market for breakfast at the Market Lunch counter and fresh produce from the farmer's market outside. The french toast--the best I've ever tasted--will be especially missed.

WaPo photo slideshow of the Market here.

Climate Change Hits Mars

Hasn't anyone told the Martians to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions?

On the bright side, maybe Al Gore will be making the trip to investigate.

CAPH

The Concerned Alumni of Patrick Henry website has been updated with a new look and updated content. It will be further expanded in coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Why Technology Is Not Enough

Eye halve a spelling check her;
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye kin knot sea.

Eye ran this poem threw it
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

A check her is a bless sing;
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule;
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are knot maid too wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
Their are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier;
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped words fare as hear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud;
And wee mussed dew da best wee can
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

That's why eye brake in two averse
Cuz eye dew want too please.
Sow glad eye yam that aye did bye
This soft wear four pea seas.

Creation, Stewardship, and Eschatology

While recent posts have made it clear I'm skeptical on the prevailing theories of human-induced climate change, I should also make it clear that I do think environmental issues are important. God has entrusted His creation as a stewardship to those made in His image, and we are called to be faithful with that charge. Christians have even more reason to do so, as we understand that Christ's rule is not only over the hearts of his people but extends to all of creation in all its aspects. For that reason, I think that pollution, for example is a bad thing, and efforts to use land responsibly are good things.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives these days (in the US, at least) believe that environmental concerns impinge on capitalistic venture and the all-important individual freedom that is the god of our liberal society. Even many Christians sadly believe that creation exists for man's use (over against stewardship) and see no problem with individual or societal lifestyles that destroy the beauty of the created world. Both of these are problematic for reasons that I think are almost painfully obvious from Scripture, but which I'd be happy to elaborate later, if necessary.

One question has long plagued me, though. Passages like 2 Peter 3, Hebrews 1, and Matthew 24 seem to indicate that the created world, regardless of its beauty or creational goodness, is destined to be destroyed in the last days. What then, is the eternal use of caring for creation, if it's going to be consumed in fire? Isn't it all a bit like painting the rails on a sinking ship?

Neocalvinist blogger Steve Bishop is doing a series of posts on environmental issues called "Christians--the reluctant greens." In his latest entry, he addresses the question I just outlined and explains why it's the product of a faulty eschatology. It's a very interesting, and persuasive, piece of exegetical reasoning. It also has clear implications beyond the issue of environmental stewardship. The idea that earthly work is ephemeral (and therefore of no ultimate significance) is mitigated if the earth will not be destroyed, but instead transformed. There is hope that we can contribute to efforts--social, political, environmental, cultural--that will become part of the new heavens and the new earth because they have been faithful in light of the reality of Christ's rule over and renewal of all things.

Washington and the District of Columbia

While most of the rest of the country thinks that Washington, D.C. is one place on the banks of the Potomac, those who live here know differently: Washington and the District of Columbia are two very different cities that happen to occupy the same 68 square miles.

Washington is a seat of power and authority, a hub of business and culture, and a place where people from all over the world come to see the sights and engage with the United States. The District, by contrast, is a crime-ridden and poverty-stricken place where broken people live broken lives and where people from all over the world don't go, fearing for their safety. In Washington, lobbyists spend millions to secure billions in federal funding. In the District, people are desperate for your pocket change. In Washington, a crook ocasionally gets elected, but he's always from somewhere else and folks pretend not to know or care about his private life. In the District, homegrown crooks are near and dear to the people's hearts, and a crackhead can be elected to four terms as mayor and at least one on the city council.

It's not always clear where one begins and the other ends; it isn't just a matter of staying on the right side of H street. Living in DC means you get to walk past the US Capitol every day on your way to work, but it also means you might get mugged just a few blocks from the Capitol if you aren't careful. Living in DC means you get to take advantage of a world-class public transportation system (the Metro), but it also means you're likely to return home to find your car has been stolen, ticketed, booted, or towed.

This divide affects me every day. I love living in Washington; I hate living in the District. I love that I can walk to the National Gallery of Art and see a different Shakespeare play nearly every month. I love the best church I've ever found, which is here. But I hate being stranded on one side of the city because all the roads have been shut down for a marathon. And I really, really detest dealing with the District's government.

I had to visit the city courthouse five times before I could get a marriage license. I've gotten more parking tickets than I can count, and my car has been booted and then towed after I paid the fine for which the boot had been placed. Recently I sold the car, canceled my insurance, and turned in my license plates to the DMV. That's the end of that headache, right? Nope. I received a letter in the mail telling me I'd been fined $171.50 because I didn't do it in the proper order. An order I searched for, in vain, on the DMV's web site before I sold the car. Now I've been fined $171.50 on account of a car I don't even own anymore.

I love this city, and I will miss it when we move away. But in some ways, I hate this city, and I can't wait to be gone.

More on Global Warming

Here's another documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," produced by a British media organization. It goes even more in-depth into the problems with the theory of human-influenced global warming, including the history of the movement and some of the effects it's having around the world. Just a few of the interesting and disturbing points I noted from the film:

- Carbon dioxide levels do rise roughly in conjunction with global temperatures--but they lag behind the temperature variations by as much as hundreds of years.

- The oceans relase vastly more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans--so do animals, bacteria, decaying plants, and volcanoes.

- The sun is a huge factor in global temperature variations. Solar astronomers have become remarkably accurate at predicting long-term temperatures, more so even than terrestrial climatologists and meteorologists.

- Political attention on human-influenced global warming began as a political strategy employed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s as a way to promote nuclear energy over coal and oil. She didn't trust the middle east, and her government was having problems with labor strikes by the UK's miners.

- US federal funding for global warming-related research went from $178 million to over $2 billion in the early 1990s. It is now over $4 billion. A lot of science that has little or nothing to do with global warming is being clothed in global-warming language so that the researchers can get funding for their own pet projects.

- In the name of preventing more carbon dioxide "pollution," the developing world is essentially being encouraged not to develop, not to touch their oil and coal resources. This has disastrous consequences for public health--whole rafts of illnesses and causes of early death can be directly linked to not having access to electricity.

I am increasingly worried about the consequences of this whole global warming mess. Not concerned about what might happen if we don't somehow check the warming, but rather about what the consequences of the hype itself might be. Too, it is a disturbing illustration of how a few loud voices can deceive an entire society by capturing the media and public attention, completely ignoring the truth.

Update: If you want to see a shorter version of the documentary than the hour-and-a-quarter version I link to above, go to Eric Langborgh's website, here.

Applied Shakespeare 101

On Tuesday, Andrea and I attended a performance of William Shakespeare's Coriolanus by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Kennedy Center. While the RSC undoubtedly put as much oompfh into the production as one would expect from their world-class reputation, the play nonetheless failed to scintillate. Apparently, just being the greatest English playwright ever doesn't automatically guarantee that all your plays are great. While Andrea was so unimpressed that she spent most of the second half snoozing, I was busy redeeming the time by noting a number of useful passages from the play's text that should come in handy at one point or another.

For students of a Southern Baptist seminary: "Have we no wine here?" (Act I, Scene IX)

For those with fickle spouses: "He that depends upon your favours swims with fins of lead, and hews down oaks with rushes." (Act I, Scene I)

For one who must gracefully bow out of a conversation: "More of your conversation would infect my brain." (Act II, Scene I)

For professors plagued by troublesome students: "What's the matter you dissentious rogue that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs?" (Act I, Scene I)

A sober warning for those who would become pastors: "Priests must become mockers, if they shall encounter such ridiculous subjects as you are." (Act II, Scene I)

And a friendly fare-thee-well for those situations when "'Bye" just won't do:
"All the contagion of the south light on you,
You shames of Rome!--you herd of--Boils and plagues
Plaster you o'er, that you may be abhorr'd
Farther than seen, and one infect another
Against the wind a mile! You souls of geese
That bear the shapes of men..."
(Act I, Scene IV)

Now, who ever said that a liberal arts education isn't useful? Ol' Bill is just full of practical wisdom and useful phrases for everyday life.

Forgiveness

Blogger Alan Cornett wrote a post about forgiveness with regard to a specific incident that has been in the news lately, and it sparked a lively debate among commenters on the question of whether or not it's possible to forgive someone who has not asked for forgiveness. My response (to commenter "Anonymous") got a bit long for a simple comment, so it is posted here.
The nub of this debate seems to come down to a difference over the nature of forgiveness. Is it a two-way transaction that takes place between two willing parties (the offender and the offended), or is it a unilateral act on the part of the one offended? Anonymous believes it is the former; I humbly argue that Scripture and plain reason indicate it is the latter.

Dictionaries give several definitions for "forgive" and "forgiveness," however, they all seem to point to things that one person, alone, can do unilaterally: to grant pardon for a debt or offense; to cease to feel resentment against another, etc. Obviously, merely citing a dictionary does not conclusively prove the matter; we have to be sure that Scripture speaks of forgiveness in the same way that our dictionary authors understand it. However, this is useful in two respects: first, it indicates a generally agreed-upon understanding of the meaning of forgiveness as a unilateral act, and second, it helps provide illumination of the fact that those who have translated the Bible into English believe that "forgive" and "forgiveness" are appropriate translations of the relevant Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture.

Moving on to Scripture itself, it's clear that the Bible consistently treats forgiveness as something that the one offended does or grants, regardless of whether the offender asks for it or even acknowledges it. Moses and the prophets beg the Lord to forgive the sins of Israel, a "stiff-necked people," often when Israel had not asked for the Lord's forgiveness, had not repented their sins, and sometimes even while they were still engaged in rebellion and idolatry!
We find repeated instructions in the New Testament that believers are to be characterized by forgiveness. Paul tells the Corinthians to forgive the one they had cast out of their fellowship because of his sin. He tells the Colossians, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Jesus teaches that we should be willing to forgive another as many times as he sins against us--his "seventy times seven" in Matthew 18 is a way of saying there is no limit to the number of times we should forgive. What's interesting is that in each of these cases, the command to forgive is absolute, not contingent. It isn't qualified with "If your brother asks your forgiveness..." The only instance I can find where there is such a conditonal is in Luke 17:4, where Jesus says, "If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." In this case, however, Jesus' point is not that you have to wait until you're asked to forgive, but that when you are asked there is no point at which you don't have to forgive anymore.

Perhaps the strongest argument for forgiveness as a unilateral act are the actions of Jesus himself. Consider the case in Luke where the paralyzed man is brought by his friends to see Jesus. This man was not coming to Christ to ask him for forgiveness from sins. If anything, he asked Jesus for something altogether different--healing from his paralysis. But what does Jesus do? He announces to him, "Friend, your sins are forgiven." Jesus granted him forgiveness when he had not asked for it or expected it, to demonstrate that He had authority over sin because of who he was. He was turning their world upside-down by bringing to them what they used to have to go and seek at the Temple.

As Alan already pointed out, witholding forgiveness when it hasn't been sought by the one who needs it is not an act of piety or even of necessity. It's an act of disobedience and a confusion of our role with God's. Ours is to forgive the sinner, in light of how greatly we have been forgiven in Christ. God's is to forgive that sin or not; to punish that sin, either in Christ's death on the Cross or in that sinner's person, in hell.