Blog Spotlight Monday - Northern Gleaner

Gene Redlin blogs at a piece of e-real estate known as Northern Gleaner. Gene was one of the earlier blog connections that I had when I started blogging, and has become a friend.  One thing about Gene is that he's quite unique and doesn't fit "the box."  Whatever box that is.

Gene lives in the Chicago area and is originally from North Dakota, and has a special heart for the prairie.  He has an interesting church background with a bit Lutheran and some charismatic influences.  Gene proclaims himself to be a prophet.  I've been in exclusively "cessationist" churches (that all sign and related gifts are no longer being used by God), so my friends that have that view might not understand what Gene means by the prophetic.  Gene has strong opinions on many things and it shows in his writing.  His friendship in my own navigation of things church has been invaluable.  Read Gene at Northern Gleaner.

Management?

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner posts this great quote:

"Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their jobs done." ~ Peter Drucker

Blogging Off Days and Spying

So I go one solitary day without blogging and Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner is all over it. I know this post is dated Wednesday even though it is Tuesday night after midnight, so in my reality, Monday was a day without posting. Maybe Gene is spying on me. Or maybe it is a prophetic utterance. Maybe a subliminal message. Maybe out of fear that he will lose one of his regular reads. I guess the world does revolve around my blogging. Or, maybe it's just a coincidence.

Anyway, there seems to be three ways of counting days. The ancient Jews counted days from sundown to sundown. We Westerns count days from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight. I count days by when I go to bed and when I wake up. I only went one day. I could blog for a week about what kind of day it was.

Fence Is Done

Okay, the back fence is done. It is only sightly longer than 30 feet long. Our property is 50 feet wide, and somewhere a way back, property lines were adjusted so that there are three lots in a row that are made up of 30 feet of one lot and 20 feet of another. Since original property lines were recorded, the legal description is of the combination. Anyway, it was great fun in building. Without knowing it, I used Gene Redlin's main points in his The Cure For Boredom before he even posted it. (Thanks, Gene, not so much in explaining how it's done, but for the affirmation I received afterward!)

I left a few boards out so our 5 year old could play with their 6 year old until they moved out at the end of the month. I screwed the last boards in yesterday. Kinda sad in a way to see the old 4 foot fence gone, replaced by the 7 foot one (6 foot fence on top of a 1 foot retainer). But even though it reflects some sunlight and takes some of the breeze away, Mrs. Scott is very happy and I can move onto my next project.

Evangelicalese Dictionary for Germans

Gene Redlin from Northern Gleaner posted this priceless gem about English speaking German tourists on vacation in the US. Quote:

BONN, Germany — It was becoming a common annoyance. Curious German tourists were visiting evangelical churches in the U.S., and had no idea what was being said. A German travel agency finally issued a 55-page Evangelical-English Dictionary which sells thousands of copies a month to Germans vacationing in the U.S.

Cultural relevance? Nevermind.

More Sermon Prep

A couple of posts ago I wrote concerning Gene Redlin's question about prepping for a sermon. In reviewing my own post, I seemed to continue a bit on my comments over there, and left with a possible misunderstanding of my view of preaching. I'm not suggesting that the pulpit is wrong, just that it is a tradition, mostly used for good, but sometimes abused. If it is placed above other essentials, to their neglect, then it can be idolatrous. I have a friend that told me he did 60 hours of prep to substitute for one Sunday school class. Things can be overdone.

Occasionally, I hear sermons with little prep, such as when the regular preacher has something come up at the last minute and can't do it. Prep can be helpful, but I think that a life in the Word, with preaching on something many times before, can help with a spontaneous sermon.

Preparation for a Sermon?

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner questions the necessity of preparation for a sermon. I'm convinced that the Protestant doctrine of the pulpit is simply a tradition within Protestantism, and not mandated by the bible. Preaching is biblical and quite necessary, but how the pulpit is worked out isn't. Often, the pulpit takes precedence over other biblical necessities when we assemble, seen most when the preacher goes over his normal time and other things are squeezed out. Many pastors study all week as a "full time job" simply in preparation for their sermon, when the bible calls them to shepherding of the flock. Shepherding requires spending time with the sheep; time that sermon prep often cuts out.

Also, a high view of the pulpit can lead to other manufactured practices or twisted beliefs. Don't you dare get up to go to the potty during the sermon in some churches. Even if God gave you a small bladder. Sermons are often tailored to the length of a cassette tape, yet can go just far enough beyond the end of the tape as to render the tape less than ideal.

New Blog Links

I've added a new section to my margin titled "other links." These are frequent reads of mine. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner brings a charismaticesque slant to things. I added Gene because I read his blog, he reads mine, and we have conversations. I'll keep him here in my links - until he says something that I disagree with (inside joke). Not much goes on at Andrew Sandlin's CCL site that also doesn't happen on his blog, so I bumped it down a few notches. Dr. Lenny is a scientist and baseball fan, while his alter ego writes poetry. He's over at The Zone. The group of guys over at Reformed Catholicism talk about the unity of the church and the history of the Reformation. Society Vs hosts Losing My Religion from way up in Canada. He grew up amongst many of the Aboriginal peoples of Saskatchewan. Abu Daoub is a Christian living in the Middle East and has much insight into Islam and how it relates to Christianity at Islam and Christianity. We in the West rarely hear about the types of things he has to say.

The Elite, The Humble, and Two Types of Government

Two recent posts I made (here and here) regarding authoritarian elites and the governing of others looked at some points Vache Folle made about evil and stupid people. Now, he wrangles with a way to disqualify evil and stupid people from serving in high office (here). People can be combinations of good or evil, and clever or stupid, resulting in four possible combinations. By eliminating those who are both evil and stupid, a quarter of the pool is cut off, so the results will be greatly enhanced.

James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.

Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.

It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.

This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.

Jesus Stuck In My Molars - Update

My original post, "Jesus Stuck in My Molars", received a bit more attention in the form of comments and feedback than I'm used to. Other bloggers commented on it, and one of their posts received a comment again. Several agreed with me, or could sympathize in some way, while one comment at Northern Gleaner had a concern that I was making secular humor out of the sacred. While I would disagree with this assessment, I can understand how this conclusion is reached.

First of all, in my mind I'm not ridiculing something sacred - the Lord's Supper. I am taking a lighthearted look at man's feeble interpretation of it. First, the facts of life. Most churches I've attended have had crackers so small - and they're mostly dry - that mixed with my saliva they become glue balls that quite literally get stuck in my molars. I don't have a sensation of anything passing down my throat as if I'm eating something. And quite literally, the small thimble of juice won't wash it down. These are factual observances. If we are supposed to be eating and drinking in the observation of this sacrament (as ordained by Jesus Himself), then why are so many of the usual sensations of eating and drinking missing in the way we carry it out? Food has taste, texture, aftertaste, reaction with the stomach and bowels, all for a reason. God intended it that way. He created it that way to give us yet one more way we can realize Him in this life, to notice, to worship and to give thanksgiving.

Now, if we're supposed to love and worship the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength - in short our whole being - does this include the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell? We modern evangelicals have no problem with worship with sight (reading the Scriptures with our eyes) or hearing (listening to the Word or to preaching or teaching), but the other three have fallen off the delivery truck. Many historical Christian traditions have made much of all five in worship. Incense was commanded of God in Israel's worship, as was roasting animal meat as a soothing aroma in God's nostrils. In churches that use real wine in communion, often the smell of wine will fill the building and can be an aid to worship. Can we eat food in worship like we can view creation in worship? If not, why not? Much of our thinking has been affected by pietism, fundamentalism and be-goodism to the extent that using incense, wine, real objects that can be touched, etc, is viewed inherently as idolatry. We deem ourselves as more righteous than God's creation, as if we are above it.

Also, there are many different interpretations of communion in history, with relation to the presence of Christ in the elements, as this post at McIntyre's Tavern quite ably shows. If Christ is indeed present in the elements, as Gene Redlin argues in his blog, then why don't/can't we hold that presence in high regard with respect to all our senses from which we worship? I've read Gene enough to know that he's often slighted by Christian traditionalists for his "way-out" Charismatic views on things, and I just can't shake off his description of communion as being a much fuller representation of Christ, His church and our partaking than most of these traditions hold in practice. Why, if we as a body partake in communion, together, as many of the more traditional segments of Christianity hold, do they insist that we do so in quiet, for such a short time span and without interaction with the other members in the body? It's almost if we're left alone to individually commune with God, with the only visible sense of community being the simultaneous act of others communing with God individually. This seems to reflect more of the radical individualism label than the view that Gene holds that is often targeted with the same label. This reductionism lends to a more symbolic view, and reality is sacrificed on the altar of "true spirituality." Should there really be more to it?

Counting the Cost of the "War On Terror"

"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace." Luke 14:28-32.

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner posted a short piece that links to a lengthy, detailed defense (by Orson Scott Card) of Bush's noble "war on terror", and asks opponents of the war to read the article and consider how Christians can sincerely support it. Then, if we still disagree, he wants to hear opinions as to why. I've read the article several times and, contra Gene, am more convinced of the wrongness of the war as a result of reading the article. Here's why.

I'm not going to deal with the morality of a generic war on terror, or even other potential wars or types of wars against it in Iraq and Afghanistan, but of the Bush war specifically. The above passage from the bible is one that Jesus used in reference to counting the cost of being one of His disciples. But since He used obvious earthly principles as applications to spiritual realities, they are valid here as well. Much is made in this article of necessary support of the war from both Congress and the American people. The lack of or withdrawal of support will doom the whole effort, and the end result will be worse than what we started with. I don't disagree with that at all. It also points to our kicking ass in Germany and Japan in WWII because of an unwavering commitment, and the result is two free, economic superpowers that benefit the world. It also points to our wavering in Vietnam and the first Gulf war and the eventual withdrawals resulted not only in defeat, but of defeat of our allies:

As happened in South Vietnam. The negotiated peace was more or less holding after American withdrawal. But then a Democratic Congress refused to authorize any further support for the South Vietnamese government. No more armaments. No more budget.

In other words, we forcibly disarmed our allies, while their enemies continued to be supplied by the great Communist powers. The message was clear: Those who rely on America are fools. We didn't even have the decency to arrange for the evacuation of the people who had trusted us and risked the most in supporting what they thought was our mutual cause.

We did it again, this time in the Muslim world, in 1991, when Bush Senior encouraged a revolt against Saddam. He meant for the senior military officers to get rid of him in a coup; instead, the common people in the Shiite south rose up against Saddam.

Bush Senior did nothing as Saddam moved in and slaughtered them. [Emphasis mine]

With a Democratic takeover of both houses, and a promise to do what it takes to withdraw our troops, and severely waning support from the American people, we stand just two years away from also a possible Democrat as president. Also, as the article points out, a war on terror could last for decades and in many more countries than just Iraq and Afghanistan. Now for the rub. Wasn't all this part of the Bush administration's counting of the cost of the war on terror? If not, why not? Conservatives are as of this election year criticizing the Democrats as a party that would purposely sabotage this war effort, severely compromise America's future and leave it ripe for future attacks from terrorists. Would Democrats do this just to gain a political twisting of the knife in the Elephant's side? Of course they would. They're Democrats. And Republicans have not only known this for decades, but they remind us every chance they get.

Yet the Bush administration counted them in as supporters in the war on terror. Every last Republican on Capitol Hill and every Democrat save one supported this initially. So did about 90% of the American people. But was his memory so short as to what happened to his father? One simple broken promise on taxes brought about a monumental crash of support for Bush the First. If he had only kept this one simple promise, the world may never have heard about Bill - or Hillary - Clinton.

If the Democrats are so untrustworthy and the American people are so fickle and have such an instant gratification, video game mentality, then how could they be counted on for continued support in such a war? If this current war strategy is going to be successful, it will need full-blown, unwavering, committed bipartisan and popular support for several decades. I can't think of a single thing in American political history that has enjoyed such support, so why would anybody think something would suddenly attain to this lofty necessity? Yet Bush pledged this support - no, he promised this support - but in reality, because of our political system, he had only a maximum of two years political support from both houses, only six years of his own oversight, and only enough popular support to last until tomorrow's headlines. In short, Bush relied on America in counting the long term cost of such a war. And as I highlighted from the article, (notice the irony here), "those who rely on America are fools." He promised something that was impossible to deliver.

This brings me to address the foolishness of a military solution to terrorism. We kicked ass in WWII because Hitler and Japan were engaged in a military conquest of the world. We also had a stake in it as a nation because both countries declared war against us first. Fire could be fought with fire. Vietnam, Korea and the Gulf are somewhat different because we had no direct defensive reason to win a military war, even though it could still be possible. But this current "war" waged by the "terrorists" isn't the same kind of war. It needs to be fought in a completely different way. It's funny how conservative supporters of this war continually warn of a misunderstanding of what radical Islam and terrorism are about and how they operate, but fall back on a military solution.

Another puzzling thing about conservative support for this war is how they fail to see it as just another form of a government welfare program. The people are coercively taxed to help some underprivileged group of people somewhere else. Instead of the poor living in inner city ghettos or trailer parks, they're in some other country. Soldiers are the equivalent of social workers. And the "exporting of freedom" is merely a transfer of freedom. The freedom of Iraqis increases while ours decreases through draconian "der Homelander Sekkurity" nonsense. We have enough problems with freedom in our own country. Concentrating on freedom in the Middle East is the political equivalent of removing the dust speck from somebody else's eye while ignoring the national forest in our own.

Even if all the principles behind such a war on terror were morally right, the guaranteed folly in carrying it out the way that it is currently is morally wrong. And all the backlash against American citizens abroad and increased hostility, etc, will be the responsibility of the one who really didn't count the cost as he should have in the first place.

Real Government

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner clips posts from a favorite blog of his:

In the Magnificat, Mary prophesied...that rulers would be brought down from their thrones and the ordinary people would be able to govern themselves.

I'm glad to see Christians considering what the bible really has to say about government.

Jesus: A Man With No Credentials

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner posts this about Jesus' higher education:

Maybe the fact that we think we need so many Doctors in the modern church in America is because we really are SICK.