Okay, I took the Presidential Candidate Selector poll that James Leroy Wilson and Vache Folle took. My results came out like this: Joseph Biden 100%, Duncan Hunter 94%, Mike Huckabee 88%, Ron Paul 86% and Condoleezza Rice 83%. When I clicked through again to post the results (only a few hours later), the poll changed and had additional questions.
As usual on polls of this type, I can't help but question the reasons for each question. I had no more than 3 selections that were not answered "neither," so without the pollster having a clue as to what I do believe about each issue, how is it even possible to match me with a candidate? Some of the questions are impossible to answer anyway because the question is either the wrong one or disqualifies itself by its contradictions. Question 3 about balancing civil rights and security creates a false dichotomy, because these two items go together, and are not on opposite sides of a balance. Civil rights ensures individuals with the rights and responsibilities of defending themselves with arms, even numerous arms, creating security. The false dichotomy is based on the reality that enabling one to defend himself is itself viewed as an act of terrorism because of the strong emphasis on so-called security.
The updated poll had more specific questions about health care, marijuana and taxes. Here are my new results: Theoretical Ideal Candidate 100%, Kent McManigal 94%, Ron Paul 81%, Chuck Hagel 71%, then a bunch lumped together. The first poll had McCain, Giuliani and Clinton way down about 10%-20%, yet the updated one had Clinton the same, but McCain and Giuliani at 67% and 47% respectively.
Because theology is everybody's task
Sunday, April 08, 2007
He Is Risen!
Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:11
In Romans 6, the apostle Paul shows how the death and resurrection of Jesus relate to our own lives. His death frees us from the slavery to sin and from its penalty. But His resurrection allows us to live life. Reformed Protestants are so busy focusing on His death, and the cross that caused it, that we miss the better event, His resurrection. Our justification comes at a point - a starting point; our entire life follows.
Imagine being in prison because you can't pay your debt. Now imagine somebody paying it off for you and you become free. While this is wonderful in its own right, now what do you do? Let's say you are freed from prison, but this occurs at 5:30am in January in Northern Minnesota, and you are released with only the t-shirt and shorts you came with. You sit huddled on the sidewalk outside the prison, shivering, trying to rejoice in your new freedom, all the while not noticing that the limo parked at the curb is waiting to take you away to a vacation in Hawaii. That is the resurrection!
He is Risen! Live, ye dry bones!
In Romans 6, the apostle Paul shows how the death and resurrection of Jesus relate to our own lives. His death frees us from the slavery to sin and from its penalty. But His resurrection allows us to live life. Reformed Protestants are so busy focusing on His death, and the cross that caused it, that we miss the better event, His resurrection. Our justification comes at a point - a starting point; our entire life follows.
Imagine being in prison because you can't pay your debt. Now imagine somebody paying it off for you and you become free. While this is wonderful in its own right, now what do you do? Let's say you are freed from prison, but this occurs at 5:30am in January in Northern Minnesota, and you are released with only the t-shirt and shorts you came with. You sit huddled on the sidewalk outside the prison, shivering, trying to rejoice in your new freedom, all the while not noticing that the limo parked at the curb is waiting to take you away to a vacation in Hawaii. That is the resurrection!
He is Risen! Live, ye dry bones!
Saturday, April 07, 2007
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 Misunderstanding of Wealth
Many, if not most, people misunderstand the proper concept of wealth. Sadly, this includes a great number of Christians. Most people interpret wealth as luxury, whereas the bible interprets it as responsibility. Luxury can be viewed as the absence of responsibility.
Since the world lusts after wealth in the form of luxury, many Christians' reactionary tendencies take the form of viewing wealth itself in terms of the world's lust. Wealth is therefore often avoided, sometimes at all costs. "New houses, new cars, who needs that? It's all going to burn up anyway" is a common sentiment I hear from Christians. Many Christians wrongly judge other Christians for the wealth they possess. I often wondered why, in the parable of the talents, Jesus took the talent from the one who buried it in a napkin and gave it to the one with ten talents instead of the one with five. Now I understand it's because the one with ten talents is the most responsible one.
Also, eating from the fruits of one's own labor, even if the harvest is overflowing, is perfectly biblical. I always hear Christians slander wealthy athletes for their large houses, large paychecks and material things, as if those things were evil in and of themselves. "That money could have been used for better things." These people are ignorant in that they don't understand the (God created) laws of economics. If a millionaire athlete builds a huge house, many poor and middle-class people are fed through the wages paid to them for their labor in building and maintaining his house. Carpenters, electricians, all kinds of trades are involved. There are common laborers that shovel up the crud at the end of the job who get to eat and feed their loved ones. If that isn't mercy, I don't know what is. I suppose the ignorant Christians would rather these people go hungry than see an athlete (especially a Christian one) enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Even in the enjoyment of that fruit there exists godly, biblical responsibility to the glory of God. I sometimes shudder at the possibility that "Christians" who misinterpret godly responsibility as greed, and shun responsibility for themselves as a result, will be the ones who will hear Jesus say, "I never knew you."
Since the world lusts after wealth in the form of luxury, many Christians' reactionary tendencies take the form of viewing wealth itself in terms of the world's lust. Wealth is therefore often avoided, sometimes at all costs. "New houses, new cars, who needs that? It's all going to burn up anyway" is a common sentiment I hear from Christians. Many Christians wrongly judge other Christians for the wealth they possess. I often wondered why, in the parable of the talents, Jesus took the talent from the one who buried it in a napkin and gave it to the one with ten talents instead of the one with five. Now I understand it's because the one with ten talents is the most responsible one.
Also, eating from the fruits of one's own labor, even if the harvest is overflowing, is perfectly biblical. I always hear Christians slander wealthy athletes for their large houses, large paychecks and material things, as if those things were evil in and of themselves. "That money could have been used for better things." These people are ignorant in that they don't understand the (God created) laws of economics. If a millionaire athlete builds a huge house, many poor and middle-class people are fed through the wages paid to them for their labor in building and maintaining his house. Carpenters, electricians, all kinds of trades are involved. There are common laborers that shovel up the crud at the end of the job who get to eat and feed their loved ones. If that isn't mercy, I don't know what is. I suppose the ignorant Christians would rather these people go hungry than see an athlete (especially a Christian one) enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Even in the enjoyment of that fruit there exists godly, biblical responsibility to the glory of God. I sometimes shudder at the possibility that "Christians" who misinterpret godly responsibility as greed, and shun responsibility for themselves as a result, will be the ones who will hear Jesus say, "I never knew you."
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Why I Support the War in Iraq
I support the war in Iraq because I am forced to support it. Taxes, in one form or another, are extorted from me by the federal government against my will and used for something I don't agree with. If I were to come out against the war, I could carry a sign or write against it on my blog. But if I really did something about it, like withhold those taxes, I'd have a new roommate named Bubba. Live-in boyfriend, kind of, with a habit of anal rape.
America has become a place where one can believe anything at all, just as long as one doesn't act on his beliefs.
America has become a place where one can believe anything at all, just as long as one doesn't act on his beliefs.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Opening Day From Hell
As a big baseball fan, we waited all winter for yesterday, Opening Day for the San Francisco Giants. They signed Barry Zito, and he was starting. Usually, Mrs. Scott and I sit with each of our best friends, who buy most of our tickets, on Opening Day.
Mrs. Scott's difficult pregnancy kept her home, so I took our 5 year old. Our 2 year old gets sick, and she takes him to the doctor just after we leave, instead of to my mom's for babysitting. We always take the BART train on Opening Day, but for some reason, I had to drive to four different train stations to find a parking space! Unbelievable. In the mean time, my kid barfs in the back seat and becomes ill. After station number two, I met Mrs. Scott at the doctors' a few minutes before their appointment, eliminating her plans for a day off.
With all this, it might seem the best thing to do is to just go home. But my friend couldn't pick up his tickets a couple weeks ago, so I had them, including that game's. He couldn't get in without me. I also had about $5000 worth of his tickets that I carried on my person. I finally got a parking space an hour and a half after we left. But a police search of our train delayed us even more, and a horrible connection to the SF Muni train, another 20 min delay, made things worse. My friend said he'd watch the game from the free knothole area behind the right field fence until I showed up. I hadn't pee'd all day, so I had to hit the marina restroom before heading behind the park. My friend couldn't get to see after all because the line to get into the free space was so long.
I finally made it to my seat in the top of the 4th inning, with all the Opening Day calendar freebees gone. The Giants got killed by the Padres 7-0. My sausage's bun burst open, creating a mess I had to eat with my fingers. I also forgot napkins. Thanks be to socks. My kids were diagnosed with walking pneumonia and a double ear infection, respectively. Can't wait for the All-Star Game.
Mrs. Scott's difficult pregnancy kept her home, so I took our 5 year old. Our 2 year old gets sick, and she takes him to the doctor just after we leave, instead of to my mom's for babysitting. We always take the BART train on Opening Day, but for some reason, I had to drive to four different train stations to find a parking space! Unbelievable. In the mean time, my kid barfs in the back seat and becomes ill. After station number two, I met Mrs. Scott at the doctors' a few minutes before their appointment, eliminating her plans for a day off.
With all this, it might seem the best thing to do is to just go home. But my friend couldn't pick up his tickets a couple weeks ago, so I had them, including that game's. He couldn't get in without me. I also had about $5000 worth of his tickets that I carried on my person. I finally got a parking space an hour and a half after we left. But a police search of our train delayed us even more, and a horrible connection to the SF Muni train, another 20 min delay, made things worse. My friend said he'd watch the game from the free knothole area behind the right field fence until I showed up. I hadn't pee'd all day, so I had to hit the marina restroom before heading behind the park. My friend couldn't get to see after all because the line to get into the free space was so long.
I finally made it to my seat in the top of the 4th inning, with all the Opening Day calendar freebees gone. The Giants got killed by the Padres 7-0. My sausage's bun burst open, creating a mess I had to eat with my fingers. I also forgot napkins. Thanks be to socks. My kids were diagnosed with walking pneumonia and a double ear infection, respectively. Can't wait for the All-Star Game.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Biblical Anarchy
Go to the ant, O sluggard, observe her ways and be wise, which, having no chief, officer or ruler, prepares her food in the summer, and gathers her provision in the harvest. Proverbs 6:6-8
Four things are small on the earth, but they are exceedingly wise:...The locusts have no king, yet all of them go out in ranks. Proverbs 30:24, 27
Four things are small on the earth, but they are exceedingly wise:...The locusts have no king, yet all of them go out in ranks. Proverbs 30:24, 27
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Curse of Inflation
Read James Leroy Wilson's latest post at Partial Observer through a link here at his blog Independent Country. The government has the inverse Midas touch when it comes to, oh, well, anything it does. Here Wilson tackles a job of barely scratching the surface of how government screws our lives by even the smallest of good intentions.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Big Brother, George Orwell and Blaming God
Whenever government spies on its citizens, desires too much information about them or tends to be too controlling of them, we use the term "Big Brother" to describe that government. This is in reference, of course, to the "government" character in George Orwell's book 1984. There's even a reality TV show where cameras are everywhere.
People fairly often blame God for things, and this seems to intensify when the ideas of sovereignty, election and predestination are in view. It's funny, because George Orwell had sovereign control over his characters and nobody ever blamed him for Big Brother's actions.
People fairly often blame God for things, and this seems to intensify when the ideas of sovereignty, election and predestination are in view. It's funny, because George Orwell had sovereign control over his characters and nobody ever blamed him for Big Brother's actions.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Finding Life in a Theology of Death
We religious folks have a long history of conveying ourselves as morbid and lifeless. We seem to ooze an aura of preoccupation with death. Abundant life? Hardly.
For centuries, the Roman Catholic church dominated culture in the West. At the center of their focus is the body on the cross - or crucifix - which is a corpse. The mass is essentially a re-crucifixion of Christ every week. Catholic assembly, music, monastic life and theology are basically morbid. So are its most ardent adherents. Monty Python satirized this well in The Holy Grail, showing the hooded monks engaged in Gregorian chants while smacking themselves in the head with wooden slabs.
Reformed Protestants, being a reactionary group against Roman Catholic doctrine, found the most disagreements in the areas of doctrine that have to do with Christ's death. Penal substitution, justification, atonement, propitiation, all have to do with death. These were emphasized most - and still are for some reason - because they were the chief differences. The Protestant cry of "He is risen" focuses not on the power of the new life, but serves mostly in removing the corpse from the crucifix. What's left as the central focus is the tool of crucifixion, the cross, an instrument of death. As a result, the Reformed are also morbid.
Arminians and other pietists play the reductionism of justification to a formulaic prayer. Repeat after me and you have eternal life. They don't understand the transformation. But like a mortician, they can apply some makeup and a nice suit to the corpse, via man made rules, and it can look like a Christian. Legalism and self-righteousness decimate the abundant life, resulting in the morbid.
This brings me to the Charismatics. Wow, what a difference. They place the focus on the resurrection and power of the Spirit. Their appearance is much different. Far from morbidity, they portray life. But their great blind spot is in the true doctrines of death from which life springs. Mired too much in Arminian and holiness theology of atonement, they tend to focus most on the appearance of signs of life, as opposed to the reality behind them. Like Simon the sorcerer in the book of Acts, too many try to buy the fruit of the Spirit, and without the discernment of the apostle who rebuked him, the Charismatics tend to let anybody in, as long as they can babble like an idiot or make a good claim. This is why so many of the fallen evangelical leaders in public scandal are Charismatics. The dressed up Arminian stiff simply has puppeteer's strings attached, and it can dance. But it, too, is morbid.
At some point in the future (as a postmillenialist I believe the church is still in its infancy) I'm hoping we'll see a church that borrows the strengths of each of these groups. Unity from the Catholics, strong doctrine of Christ from the Reformed, holiness from the pietists and resurrection power from the Charismatics. We may see real life after all.
For centuries, the Roman Catholic church dominated culture in the West. At the center of their focus is the body on the cross - or crucifix - which is a corpse. The mass is essentially a re-crucifixion of Christ every week. Catholic assembly, music, monastic life and theology are basically morbid. So are its most ardent adherents. Monty Python satirized this well in The Holy Grail, showing the hooded monks engaged in Gregorian chants while smacking themselves in the head with wooden slabs.
Reformed Protestants, being a reactionary group against Roman Catholic doctrine, found the most disagreements in the areas of doctrine that have to do with Christ's death. Penal substitution, justification, atonement, propitiation, all have to do with death. These were emphasized most - and still are for some reason - because they were the chief differences. The Protestant cry of "He is risen" focuses not on the power of the new life, but serves mostly in removing the corpse from the crucifix. What's left as the central focus is the tool of crucifixion, the cross, an instrument of death. As a result, the Reformed are also morbid.
Arminians and other pietists play the reductionism of justification to a formulaic prayer. Repeat after me and you have eternal life. They don't understand the transformation. But like a mortician, they can apply some makeup and a nice suit to the corpse, via man made rules, and it can look like a Christian. Legalism and self-righteousness decimate the abundant life, resulting in the morbid.
This brings me to the Charismatics. Wow, what a difference. They place the focus on the resurrection and power of the Spirit. Their appearance is much different. Far from morbidity, they portray life. But their great blind spot is in the true doctrines of death from which life springs. Mired too much in Arminian and holiness theology of atonement, they tend to focus most on the appearance of signs of life, as opposed to the reality behind them. Like Simon the sorcerer in the book of Acts, too many try to buy the fruit of the Spirit, and without the discernment of the apostle who rebuked him, the Charismatics tend to let anybody in, as long as they can babble like an idiot or make a good claim. This is why so many of the fallen evangelical leaders in public scandal are Charismatics. The dressed up Arminian stiff simply has puppeteer's strings attached, and it can dance. But it, too, is morbid.
At some point in the future (as a postmillenialist I believe the church is still in its infancy) I'm hoping we'll see a church that borrows the strengths of each of these groups. Unity from the Catholics, strong doctrine of Christ from the Reformed, holiness from the pietists and resurrection power from the Charismatics. We may see real life after all.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Religion, Politics and Life in America
My motivation to write about this comes from posts at The World According To Bruce regarding his definition of Red-Letter Christianity, the intolerance of the Left and Right, and the relation of religion to politics. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Bruce, but I will give the following with different definitions and viewpoint.
Because God is creator of all things, every thought and action of man is a reaction to God, whether for or against, and therefore inherently religious. Secularism leaves the God of the bible out of the equation, but must fill that void with something else, therefore it is a religion itself, contrary to its own claim.
Because Jesus is the King of kings, every thought and action of man is a reaction to His kingship, whether for or against, and therefore inherently political. So, every thought and act of man is both religious and political at the same time.
For a Christian to desire to be ruled by something other than God is idolatry. So the Christian has no other option in the realm of politics than to promote a theocracy.
Now, to avoid misinformed, knee-jerk gag seizures, strokes or heart attacks to what I just said, a definition of theocracy is in order. Theocracy is simply defined as "rule by God." Well, duh! So the question is not whether God rules, but how that rule is carried out in this earthly world. Starting at the beginning, God rules in this world by delegating that rule to man according to God's word. Genesis 1:26-28. But in giving that rule to man, God maximizes man's rule over his own person and property, and extremely and vehemently minimizes man's rule over other men and their property.
Satan desired to rule this world and all men in it by tricking Adam in the garden, so for man to desire to rule over other men's lives to a greater degree than God allows is satanic, and is the essence of politics. (See my definition of politics.) Both the religious Left and Right (and the secularists too!) would do well to learn this.
Because God is creator of all things, every thought and action of man is a reaction to God, whether for or against, and therefore inherently religious. Secularism leaves the God of the bible out of the equation, but must fill that void with something else, therefore it is a religion itself, contrary to its own claim.
Because Jesus is the King of kings, every thought and action of man is a reaction to His kingship, whether for or against, and therefore inherently political. So, every thought and act of man is both religious and political at the same time.
For a Christian to desire to be ruled by something other than God is idolatry. So the Christian has no other option in the realm of politics than to promote a theocracy.
Now, to avoid misinformed, knee-jerk gag seizures, strokes or heart attacks to what I just said, a definition of theocracy is in order. Theocracy is simply defined as "rule by God." Well, duh! So the question is not whether God rules, but how that rule is carried out in this earthly world. Starting at the beginning, God rules in this world by delegating that rule to man according to God's word. Genesis 1:26-28. But in giving that rule to man, God maximizes man's rule over his own person and property, and extremely and vehemently minimizes man's rule over other men and their property.
Satan desired to rule this world and all men in it by tricking Adam in the garden, so for man to desire to rule over other men's lives to a greater degree than God allows is satanic, and is the essence of politics. (See my definition of politics.) Both the religious Left and Right (and the secularists too!) would do well to learn this.
Blogroll Addition: McIntyre's Tavern
A while back I stumbled on to a blogsite hosted by Andrew McIntyre, called McIntyre's Tavern. I've added it to my blogroll in my margin. He opened for business with this: "There was a time when men were men, beer was beer, and people actually discussed important issues with their neighbors over a pint at the local public house. I have established this site to provide, at least in a virtual sense, a place to debate issues of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and just about anything else that involves the mind. Most blogs include articles of pontification from the blogger which may or may not spark debate in the form of comments by readers. In other words, the format of most blogs is centered on the blogger. I have reversed that format on this site. The commenter himself is the focus. As the proprietor, I will provide the topic for discussion, with, perhaps, a brief introduction, and open the floor. All are welcome to post their opinions, participate in debate, and otherwise have at it..."
I have found this very interesting and contribute my comments from time to time. I am enriched by the various points of view, and if they don't contribute to my changing my mind, at least I learn what other people believe. Topic so far include creeds, natural revelation, death penalty, the presence of Christ in the sacraments, paedocommunion, ash Wednesday, sola fide, women in the ministry, Ayn Rand, political revolution and birth control. Andrew invites any and all to pull up a bar stool, pour a pint and talk away.
I have found this very interesting and contribute my comments from time to time. I am enriched by the various points of view, and if they don't contribute to my changing my mind, at least I learn what other people believe. Topic so far include creeds, natural revelation, death penalty, the presence of Christ in the sacraments, paedocommunion, ash Wednesday, sola fide, women in the ministry, Ayn Rand, political revolution and birth control. Andrew invites any and all to pull up a bar stool, pour a pint and talk away.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Friday Night Potpourri
- Finally, a Bud Light commercial is funny. Not funny enough to remember what it was about, though.
- Mrs. Scott and I watched the Miss USA pageant. I made fun of everything I could. My initial pick ended up as 3rd runner up out of 51 chickies. I visited the reading room during the personal interviews in the last round, as I can't stand to see beauty queens pontificate.
- My deskmate's father-in-law had a stroke. He has some speech problems, but seems to be improving at a rapid rate. Good news.
- I made a personal long distance call to somebody 3000 miles away. It's been a long time since that's happened.
- Mrs. Scott asked me to stop off at the store tonight after work and buy a few items. Ten gallons of drinking water, ice cream, M&M's, and a People magazine. I asked the checker (who was a guy in his 20's) if he couldn't tell that I was shopping for my pregnant wife. He had the perfect comeback, as I'm sure he's seen it all. He said, "It's okay if it's for you."
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Belated St. Patty's Day Joke
Oops, forgot to post this. I'm part Irish so I can get away with it.
Q: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Five. One to hold the light bulb and four to drink until the room starts spinning.
Q: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Five. One to hold the light bulb and four to drink until the room starts spinning.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dada's Baba
Our two year old has come to call his bottle, "baba." The other day, Mrs. Scott was in the garage taking stock on all of our bulk items, when she noticed I had one beer left. She picked it up to put it in the fridge, and our two year old said, "Dada baba."
The Chapter Division Heresy and Colossians 3
"Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth." - Colossians 3:1-2 (NASB)
I've heard it numerous times during preaching or teaching that chapter and verse divisions in the Bible were not in the original text, but put there by men as a way to help us in various ways, such as an address system for easy reference, or for dividing long passages into ideas. These artificial divisions could be a problem and we should look out for taking things out of context as a result of using these divisions. I can't think of a chapter division changing the meaning of the text more than Colossians 3.
"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) - in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." - Colossians 2:20-23 (NASB)
Colossians 3 taken out of the context of the end of chapter 2 is used by many people to say the exact opposite of the meaning of the text. The hyper-spiritual among us will see other Christians engaging in certain activities, eating or drinking certain things, and mis-apply chapter 3. "Hey, if you're a Christian, why are you watching sports? Or why are you eating at a nice restaurant or drinking alcoholic beverages? Why are you so involved in growing things in your garden or raising animals? You should be setting your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. So we shouldn't be involved with these things."
But to the one who partakes of something - and gives thanks - is setting his mind on things above. Christ is Lord of all things, and that's where the thanksgiving is directed. The hyper-spiritual Christian, on the other hand, is very consumed with the activities that his brother is involved in - sports, leisure, alcohol, physical things - the things of the earth. His hyper-spirituality leads him to conclude that Christians shouldn't handle, taste or touch these "earthly" things, which is the very conclusion that chapter 2 forbids! So he plods along in life, convinced of his spiritual superiority, but only maintains an appearance of wisdom in his self-made religion and misjudges where others' minds are set.
I've heard it numerous times during preaching or teaching that chapter and verse divisions in the Bible were not in the original text, but put there by men as a way to help us in various ways, such as an address system for easy reference, or for dividing long passages into ideas. These artificial divisions could be a problem and we should look out for taking things out of context as a result of using these divisions. I can't think of a chapter division changing the meaning of the text more than Colossians 3.
"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) - in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." - Colossians 2:20-23 (NASB)
Colossians 3 taken out of the context of the end of chapter 2 is used by many people to say the exact opposite of the meaning of the text. The hyper-spiritual among us will see other Christians engaging in certain activities, eating or drinking certain things, and mis-apply chapter 3. "Hey, if you're a Christian, why are you watching sports? Or why are you eating at a nice restaurant or drinking alcoholic beverages? Why are you so involved in growing things in your garden or raising animals? You should be setting your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. So we shouldn't be involved with these things."
But to the one who partakes of something - and gives thanks - is setting his mind on things above. Christ is Lord of all things, and that's where the thanksgiving is directed. The hyper-spiritual Christian, on the other hand, is very consumed with the activities that his brother is involved in - sports, leisure, alcohol, physical things - the things of the earth. His hyper-spirituality leads him to conclude that Christians shouldn't handle, taste or touch these "earthly" things, which is the very conclusion that chapter 2 forbids! So he plods along in life, convinced of his spiritual superiority, but only maintains an appearance of wisdom in his self-made religion and misjudges where others' minds are set.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Fools For Jesus
Mrs. Scott and I were watching a reality TV show where the one "voted off the show" was a Christian. She was shown reading her bible when others thought she should have been doing something productive, disobeying superiors out of conscience and like things. In the post-termination interview, she claimed hopefulness in drawing other players closer to God because she was there. I don't want to judge her faith or motives because in such a highly (over)produced reality TV show, much of the truth is probably lying on the editing room floor. But she was made to look like what I perceive as the stereotypical evangelical. And this stereotype is self-made within evangelicalism.
Much of the evangelical mindset is not so much in you being a Christian as it is in letting others know that you are a Christian. Via external, superficial, visible things. Even if it means acting like a fool to do so. I pointed this out to my wife, and she replied that her best friend, who is a staunch unbeliever, has this very thing as her number one complaint about Christianity. We seem to talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. I've heard this also from some of my non-Christian friends. They point to blatant dishonesty in Christian's motives. Things like bait-and-switch. Christians inviting them over to dinner or to their church choir's Christmas performance, only to find out it was a sleazy sales pitch style crusade aimed at evangelizing the heathen that just walked in the door - them. Or the recent flaps about Southern Baptist conventions where attendees fail to tip waitresses at nearby restaurants, or use billfold gospel tracts with a phony $20 bill printed on the front. You know, "the gospel is more valuable to your eternity than my tip is to feeding your kids."
A few years ago we attended a bible study full of otherwise strong, mature, intelligent Christians. One evening, the topic broke out about "witnessing" at work. It went around the room, and everybody chimed in about their witnessing. I was shocked (but not really surprised, because that's how I learned Christianity too) at some of the methods. Some people created passwords for accounts that were bible verse addresses, to witness to the computer geeks or managers or other workers who had access to those accounts, because they were forced to type the password! Login: AcmeCorp. Password: john316. Whoa! What a witness for Christ! Some wore jewelry shaped like a cross. Some pasted bible verses on their monitors, just so everybody would know. One guy, who worked on a construction site, boasted that his ministry was to crank the Christian radio station at full blast so everybody could hear the gospel every day all day long. "We got two lesbians who live next door, and I make sure they can hear Pastor Joe at 10am!"
When the apostle Paul said we are "fools for Christ", he meant that our living life with the hope of the resurrection to eternal life would seem foolish to the world. He didn't mean that we should act like fools.
Much of the evangelical mindset is not so much in you being a Christian as it is in letting others know that you are a Christian. Via external, superficial, visible things. Even if it means acting like a fool to do so. I pointed this out to my wife, and she replied that her best friend, who is a staunch unbeliever, has this very thing as her number one complaint about Christianity. We seem to talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. I've heard this also from some of my non-Christian friends. They point to blatant dishonesty in Christian's motives. Things like bait-and-switch. Christians inviting them over to dinner or to their church choir's Christmas performance, only to find out it was a sleazy sales pitch style crusade aimed at evangelizing the heathen that just walked in the door - them. Or the recent flaps about Southern Baptist conventions where attendees fail to tip waitresses at nearby restaurants, or use billfold gospel tracts with a phony $20 bill printed on the front. You know, "the gospel is more valuable to your eternity than my tip is to feeding your kids."
A few years ago we attended a bible study full of otherwise strong, mature, intelligent Christians. One evening, the topic broke out about "witnessing" at work. It went around the room, and everybody chimed in about their witnessing. I was shocked (but not really surprised, because that's how I learned Christianity too) at some of the methods. Some people created passwords for accounts that were bible verse addresses, to witness to the computer geeks or managers or other workers who had access to those accounts, because they were forced to type the password! Login: AcmeCorp. Password: john316. Whoa! What a witness for Christ! Some wore jewelry shaped like a cross. Some pasted bible verses on their monitors, just so everybody would know. One guy, who worked on a construction site, boasted that his ministry was to crank the Christian radio station at full blast so everybody could hear the gospel every day all day long. "We got two lesbians who live next door, and I make sure they can hear Pastor Joe at 10am!"
When the apostle Paul said we are "fools for Christ", he meant that our living life with the hope of the resurrection to eternal life would seem foolish to the world. He didn't mean that we should act like fools.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Happy St. Patrick's Day
I'm part Irish, I'm wearing green, my favorite beer is Guinness Stout and I am a Christian. With St. Patrick using the shamrock, according to tradition, to explain the Trinity to the king of Ireland, all these things go together for a good holiday to celebrate. Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Friday, March 16, 2007
Did Jesus Go To Hell?
"He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead." Apostle's Creed
I've always had a problem with this line in the Apostle's Creed, the one that claims Jesus descended into hell. I added the resurrection line to the above quote just to put it into context. I have no problem with that line.
My problem has always been with being able to prove from Scripture that Jesus went to hell. It is further complicated by several alternate versions of the creed that say, "He descended into hades," and "He descended to the dead." It's not that I disagree with the statement, because I can't disprove it, it's just that I can't prove it. I've never heard an adequate argument for what it does actually mean or why it's in the creed. After all, doesn't Jesus tell the thief on the cross that "Today, I will be with you in paradise"? Since the next day started at dusk he would have had only a few hours at most to go to hell.
What did he accomplish there? Some say that he went to preach the gospel to those Old Testament saints, who were in hell because Christ hadn't died on the cross yet to pay for their sins (a proof-text verse is the one about preaching to the spirits in prison). But then He was the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world.
About ten years ago, I went to a Christian bookstore (maybe this was my error) to look for books on the creed. I found several written by popular authors, but this line was completely avoided by all who wrote about it. I've read some comments by Calvin on this, and it doesn't seem he's even sure why it's there or what it means. I read one commentary that said it was a kind of spiritual meaning that was aimed at debunking a certain heresy at the time the creed was written.
Even so, I recite the line along with the rest of the creed every time my church does. Any ideas?
I've always had a problem with this line in the Apostle's Creed, the one that claims Jesus descended into hell. I added the resurrection line to the above quote just to put it into context. I have no problem with that line.
My problem has always been with being able to prove from Scripture that Jesus went to hell. It is further complicated by several alternate versions of the creed that say, "He descended into hades," and "He descended to the dead." It's not that I disagree with the statement, because I can't disprove it, it's just that I can't prove it. I've never heard an adequate argument for what it does actually mean or why it's in the creed. After all, doesn't Jesus tell the thief on the cross that "Today, I will be with you in paradise"? Since the next day started at dusk he would have had only a few hours at most to go to hell.
What did he accomplish there? Some say that he went to preach the gospel to those Old Testament saints, who were in hell because Christ hadn't died on the cross yet to pay for their sins (a proof-text verse is the one about preaching to the spirits in prison). But then He was the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world.
About ten years ago, I went to a Christian bookstore (maybe this was my error) to look for books on the creed. I found several written by popular authors, but this line was completely avoided by all who wrote about it. I've read some comments by Calvin on this, and it doesn't seem he's even sure why it's there or what it means. I read one commentary that said it was a kind of spiritual meaning that was aimed at debunking a certain heresy at the time the creed was written.
Even so, I recite the line along with the rest of the creed every time my church does. Any ideas?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Christian Conferences and Retreats
I was inspired to write this by Bruce's link to Dan Edelen at Cerulean Sanctum. I have much experience with Christian conferences and retreats. I'll focus on retreats. Our church has many retreats during the year. The family retreat, men's retreat, women's retreat, leadership retreat, college retreat, youth group retreat, etc. When I was single, these retreats were automatic to me. Now that I have a family, not so. We decided this year to not go to any of the retreats. Finances and a baby on the way were the main villains. Yet I still received a number of reactions bordering on shock.
For me, retreats have always been a "hope" for some kind of spiritual experience. That's because it's promised. What I get instead is sharing a "cabin" with ten snoring elephants. There are always some slobs who I need to share a toilet with while somebody else is in the shower using the last of the hot water. I have stage fright, so my body shuts down and I get constipated for the entire time. Motel 6 is roughing it for me, and I need porcelain and four sound-proof walls. The food is always tragic, and it sits in my gut for days. The food doesn't say much for Christians loving one another. I can't sleep. I'm up all night in a funk. All I can think about is when the next time I'll take a regular crap. There's always six two-hour teaching sessions from some pastor or seminarian from somewhere. Not much time for relaxing and enjoying time with others. It takes all week back at work to recover. So how far do we have to push personal sacrifice again?
For me, retreats have always been a "hope" for some kind of spiritual experience. That's because it's promised. What I get instead is sharing a "cabin" with ten snoring elephants. There are always some slobs who I need to share a toilet with while somebody else is in the shower using the last of the hot water. I have stage fright, so my body shuts down and I get constipated for the entire time. Motel 6 is roughing it for me, and I need porcelain and four sound-proof walls. The food is always tragic, and it sits in my gut for days. The food doesn't say much for Christians loving one another. I can't sleep. I'm up all night in a funk. All I can think about is when the next time I'll take a regular crap. There's always six two-hour teaching sessions from some pastor or seminarian from somewhere. Not much time for relaxing and enjoying time with others. It takes all week back at work to recover. So how far do we have to push personal sacrifice again?
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Real Reason for the High Price of Gas
Well, I don't know what the real reason is, because there are many reasons. But an interview tonight on the local news of an economist at UC Berkeley surprised me. Not what he said, but that it was on the news. His opinion was that refineries across the country were what he called "boutique" refineries. That is, they catered to the specialized formulas of gasoline used in each region of the country. The various environmental laws and regulations in each region necessitate unique gas. California has the most strict environmental laws in the country, and we have the most expensive gas.
But the reason for the relatively high prices is that there is no competition. We can't use somebody else's gas (this situation is forced upon us by law, of course) so supply is extremely limited, while demand remains the same. That results in high prices. Isn't it ironic that the same group of people who blame the oil companies for such high prices are the ones crying for greater regulation that result in higher prices? Well meaning ignorance and the law of unintended consequences always seem to go hand in hand. Indeed the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But the reason for the relatively high prices is that there is no competition. We can't use somebody else's gas (this situation is forced upon us by law, of course) so supply is extremely limited, while demand remains the same. That results in high prices. Isn't it ironic that the same group of people who blame the oil companies for such high prices are the ones crying for greater regulation that result in higher prices? Well meaning ignorance and the law of unintended consequences always seem to go hand in hand. Indeed the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Fascinated with Baptism
Our five year old was fascinated with the baptism service today. Nine people were baptised, and he was so captivated by the idea (he was for our last baptisms) that he wanted to sit in the front row to watch. He has asked numerous questions about baptism. It's funny, but God says this in the Old Testament about the Passover. Do this, then when your children ask about it, you may tell them about what it really means.
It really works the way God says.
It really works the way God says.
Clocks
I set all our clocks back (or is it forward) for the new, improved Daylight Saving Time. I think it's forward. Spring forward, fall back. Okay. We've got a lot of clocks. In the kitchen there is the range clock and microwave clock. In the bedrooms, my wife has a clock radio, I have a digital alarm clock, the kids have a digital clock. Two DVD/VCR's. My 10 year company clock. Two cell phones. Printer/fax machine, computer. My wife has one in her car, I have two, the dash clock and a separate stereo clock. I count fifteen. There's probably more, I usually miss one or two.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Three's Company
My favorite beer, Guiness Stout. Ground pepper. My favorite Mexican hot sauce, Tapatio.
Friday, March 09, 2007
John MacArthur's Wine List
I came across a written outline of a sermon John MacArthur preached a number of years ago about alcohol in the life of the Christian. I heard this sermon on his radio program. In this sermon, he asks eight questions of his listeners in order for them to examine their own lives in light of the bible's teachings about alcohol. I've decided to answer these questions here.
Question #1: Is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times?
I don't know, I wasn't alive then. But if they enjoyed it as much as I do, then praise God.
Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary?
No, but it sure can be a blessing.
Question #3: Is drinking wine the best choice?
No, beer is.
Question #4: Is drinking wine habit forming?
It can be - for some people. It is for me. I have a habit of drinking one beer per day, plus or minus. A little wine (always red) here and there, too.
Question #5: Is drinking wine potentially destructive?
Yes, but so is reading the bible.
Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?
I don't know, I've never been confronted by somebody who claimed to be offended. I'd hate to think that there are Christians out there who are harboring secret grudges against me for enjoying God's creation, which He pronounced "good," by the way.
Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?
No, actually it has helped it fairly well.
Question #8: Am I absolutely certain drinking wine is right?
Yes. Hey, "absolutely" is a good word for this question!
Any more questions?
Question #1: Is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times?
I don't know, I wasn't alive then. But if they enjoyed it as much as I do, then praise God.
Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary?
No, but it sure can be a blessing.
Question #3: Is drinking wine the best choice?
No, beer is.
Question #4: Is drinking wine habit forming?
It can be - for some people. It is for me. I have a habit of drinking one beer per day, plus or minus. A little wine (always red) here and there, too.
Question #5: Is drinking wine potentially destructive?
Yes, but so is reading the bible.
Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?
I don't know, I've never been confronted by somebody who claimed to be offended. I'd hate to think that there are Christians out there who are harboring secret grudges against me for enjoying God's creation, which He pronounced "good," by the way.
Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?
No, actually it has helped it fairly well.
Question #8: Am I absolutely certain drinking wine is right?
Yes. Hey, "absolutely" is a good word for this question!
Any more questions?
Daylight Wasting Time
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer. But to render unanswerable one of the most essential questions to the ability to live life, "What time is it?" requires a politician.
The Change of Daylight Saving Time fiasco is causing quite a bit of mental anguish out here in the real world. Computer people are scrambling to work their Microsoft patches and fixes into their computer systems to deal with the difference in time change. But if that weren't difficult enough, our office, being an international firm, has added difficulties. We have people who work both in time zones with and without Daylight Saving Time, and use the same software to coordinate meetings, etc, between these two groups. Some of the calendars will be changed, some won't. And these changes will affect the other group's perceived meeting times. It depends on who originally did the scheduling. Not only this, but everyday electronic devices have DST programmed into them, from VCR's to digital cameras to camcorders, ad infinitum. There are no patches for these items. I can't even begin to imagine the logistical nightmares faced by airlines and other time-sensitive industries that have already programmed the old DST into their lives.
The law of unintended consequences in this case just shows the reality that the pen is mightier than the sword. I don't know whether these politicians had any grasp of the destruction they would cause by this legislation. The same is true of all legislation. If they do grasp the gravity of their actions, then they are spiteful criminals. If they don't grasp it, then they are incompetent boobs. Either way, politicians are worthless. Far more daylight will be wasted trying to solve the problems caused by trying to save it than will be saved in the first place.
The Change of Daylight Saving Time fiasco is causing quite a bit of mental anguish out here in the real world. Computer people are scrambling to work their Microsoft patches and fixes into their computer systems to deal with the difference in time change. But if that weren't difficult enough, our office, being an international firm, has added difficulties. We have people who work both in time zones with and without Daylight Saving Time, and use the same software to coordinate meetings, etc, between these two groups. Some of the calendars will be changed, some won't. And these changes will affect the other group's perceived meeting times. It depends on who originally did the scheduling. Not only this, but everyday electronic devices have DST programmed into them, from VCR's to digital cameras to camcorders, ad infinitum. There are no patches for these items. I can't even begin to imagine the logistical nightmares faced by airlines and other time-sensitive industries that have already programmed the old DST into their lives.
The law of unintended consequences in this case just shows the reality that the pen is mightier than the sword. I don't know whether these politicians had any grasp of the destruction they would cause by this legislation. The same is true of all legislation. If they do grasp the gravity of their actions, then they are spiteful criminals. If they don't grasp it, then they are incompetent boobs. Either way, politicians are worthless. Far more daylight will be wasted trying to solve the problems caused by trying to save it than will be saved in the first place.
Experts Usually Aren't
Experts usually aren't. They're just good salesmen in their field.
My brother has spent his entire career in the auto industry, mostly working in shops that offer maintenance and tire sales. His area of specialization is in tires. Much of his time has been spent working for Goodyear franchises. Not surprisingly, he maintained that Goodyear tires are the best, and always offered technical evidence as to why. Even when he worked for independent shops that sold many brands of tires, he still believed in Goodyear. Well, guess what happened when one time he went to work for Firestone? Yeah. But in any case, I've always had good tires on my car.
Nothing against my brother, of course, but my whole point is that "experts" don't always agree. In fact they quite often don't agree. They are even rarely expert enough to prove that their way is the only way to view things, even though they claim so. An expert doesn't even agree with himself consistently on the same subject as time goes by, such as my brother who worked for Goodyear, then Firestone, then Goodyear again. Experts who spend their entire lives studying certain areas of life vehemently disagree on almost every topic there is. Take for example the arguments of public education versus home schooling. Or Catholic and Protestant theologians. Or baseball experts that can't agree on who the best pitcher was in the 60's.
Or global warming.
My brother has spent his entire career in the auto industry, mostly working in shops that offer maintenance and tire sales. His area of specialization is in tires. Much of his time has been spent working for Goodyear franchises. Not surprisingly, he maintained that Goodyear tires are the best, and always offered technical evidence as to why. Even when he worked for independent shops that sold many brands of tires, he still believed in Goodyear. Well, guess what happened when one time he went to work for Firestone? Yeah. But in any case, I've always had good tires on my car.
Nothing against my brother, of course, but my whole point is that "experts" don't always agree. In fact they quite often don't agree. They are even rarely expert enough to prove that their way is the only way to view things, even though they claim so. An expert doesn't even agree with himself consistently on the same subject as time goes by, such as my brother who worked for Goodyear, then Firestone, then Goodyear again. Experts who spend their entire lives studying certain areas of life vehemently disagree on almost every topic there is. Take for example the arguments of public education versus home schooling. Or Catholic and Protestant theologians. Or baseball experts that can't agree on who the best pitcher was in the 60's.
Or global warming.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Just Like Goliath
Our two year old threw a rock and it hit our five year old square in the forehead. He cried, ran in the house to be comforted by Mrs. Scott, and wailed, "Just like Goliath!"
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Lure Of Democracy
In my last post, I gave a definition of politics: "Politics is the art and science of acquiring power in order to control other people and their property."
Because God is the creator and we are the creation, God has legitimate rule over us. All rebellion against God by man says, "God will not govern over man." Because authority doesn't happen in a vacuum, somebody has to replace God as authority over his human creatures. The only possibility is that man himself is now to rule over man. Man sees himself as God to rule the lessers. All throughout history, the few, the elite, have acquired power to rule other men. Whether monarchies, aristocracies, patriarchies, matriarchies, ecclesiocracies, military dictatorships, what have you, the very few have always been in control, while the masses are oppressed.
Democracy has sought to change all this. Democracy promises to wrench the ruling power from the elite and give it to the common man, but there is a catch. Democracy says, "Now, you, the common man, have the power of God to control other people and their property - provided you can persuade 51% of the people to agree with you." Marx had it partly correct when he said that religion was the opiate of the masses. In the West, Democracy is that religion.
Because God is the creator and we are the creation, God has legitimate rule over us. All rebellion against God by man says, "God will not govern over man." Because authority doesn't happen in a vacuum, somebody has to replace God as authority over his human creatures. The only possibility is that man himself is now to rule over man. Man sees himself as God to rule the lessers. All throughout history, the few, the elite, have acquired power to rule other men. Whether monarchies, aristocracies, patriarchies, matriarchies, ecclesiocracies, military dictatorships, what have you, the very few have always been in control, while the masses are oppressed.
Democracy has sought to change all this. Democracy promises to wrench the ruling power from the elite and give it to the common man, but there is a catch. Democracy says, "Now, you, the common man, have the power of God to control other people and their property - provided you can persuade 51% of the people to agree with you." Marx had it partly correct when he said that religion was the opiate of the masses. In the West, Democracy is that religion.
Monday, March 05, 2007
A Definition of Politics
Politics is the art and science of acquiring power in order to control other people and their property.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Earthquake!
A few hours ago we experienced an earthquake, magnitude 4.2 on the Richter scale. It was a few miles down the raod and shook us up a bit. I was in the kitchen and Mrs. Scott was giving the kids a bath. Things fell off store shelves and people's walls near the epicenter.
Earthquakes are always a strange experience. Just before it hits, there is an almost sub-sonic sound that can both be heard and felt. It's kind of like a truck coming up the street, but not quite. When it hits, I ask myself two questions immediately. How big is this going to get and how long will it last? When the intensity doesn't increase beyond a certain level, I wonder, "is this one of those that starts out light, then increases to a major quake 20 seconds later?" The most bizarre of quakes is when there is uplifting motion. Those can lift a house a mere fraction of an inch up off its foundation, and there can be a huge crashing noise like a truck hitting your house. Tonight didn't get that serious, although there was an uplift motion.
The greatest quake I've ever experienced was the 7.1 San Francisco quake of 1989. I was at game 3 of the World Series when it hit. That was an unbelievable shaker. I was standing, and could see my feet sway back and forth under me 3 or 4 feet in each direction and it lasted almost a minute. Wild.
Earthquakes are always a strange experience. Just before it hits, there is an almost sub-sonic sound that can both be heard and felt. It's kind of like a truck coming up the street, but not quite. When it hits, I ask myself two questions immediately. How big is this going to get and how long will it last? When the intensity doesn't increase beyond a certain level, I wonder, "is this one of those that starts out light, then increases to a major quake 20 seconds later?" The most bizarre of quakes is when there is uplifting motion. Those can lift a house a mere fraction of an inch up off its foundation, and there can be a huge crashing noise like a truck hitting your house. Tonight didn't get that serious, although there was an uplift motion.
The greatest quake I've ever experienced was the 7.1 San Francisco quake of 1989. I was at game 3 of the World Series when it hit. That was an unbelievable shaker. I was standing, and could see my feet sway back and forth under me 3 or 4 feet in each direction and it lasted almost a minute. Wild.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
What I'm Giving Up For Lent
'Tis the season of Lent, when Christians who observe it give up something normal to their lives, patterned after Christ's 40 days in the wilderness without food. This is the 40 day period prior to the Resurrection (Easter). I've recently been reminded of Lent from the many blogs and websites I visit. Many discussions are going on about Lent, and many tell what they are giving up.
This year, I've chosen to give up the same thing for Lent as I do every year. In fact, it's become a tradition for me. I am so disciplined in giving up this thing that it has become second nature to me, even to the point that I'm not even conscious about giving it up!
This year, as every year, I'm giving up the observance of Lent.
This year, I've chosen to give up the same thing for Lent as I do every year. In fact, it's become a tradition for me. I am so disciplined in giving up this thing that it has become second nature to me, even to the point that I'm not even conscious about giving it up!
This year, as every year, I'm giving up the observance of Lent.
Women: Keep Silent So You May Speak In Church
This interesting (and very short) article from Peter Leithart, via the Foolish Sage at Sacred Journey, puts Paul's instruction to women to keep silence in the churches in a new historical light for me.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Confessions of A Closet Blogger (Part 2)
Thanks to Gene for the comment on part 1. I fully intend to keep on blogging, but it's just a matter of how many people I feel comfortable letting know about it. It's funny that I said what I did just this week in part 1, because today after church, I went to speak to the pastor about something, and one of my good friends that knows about my blog was talking to him. They were talking something about translating things from Old English into today's English because many of the words no longer have the same meaning. I'm not sure what type of materials they were talking about, but I added my own smart comment and said that was another reason to oppose post-modernism today. They laughed and my pastor make a crack about making the words mean whatever the user wants, then my friend laughed and said, "yeah, like on your blog!" I don't think the pastor caught the comment, and turned to me and asked my what I wanted to say. Close call. Should I care? Okay, I'm self-conscious.
One reason I enjoy the blogging world so much is that it brings the idea of community to individuals that would have no other outlet. With respect to the philosophical idea of the One and the Many, I'm a believer that (and this is my view of the Holy Trinity) neither the One or the Many are more important than the other. Community isn't more important than the individuals that make up a community, and vice versa. Both are equally necessary. Communism is an example of a political system that emphasises the One to an unhealthy extreme, and reduces the individual to insignificant. Radical Anarchy emphasizes the individual to the exclusion of the community, so it's every man for himself, and chaos is a result. This goes for One and Many, community and individual, parts to the whole, etc.
In my church circles, I feel like I have no room for theological growth. Most people seem to be content with the limited theological lunch in a box we've been fed for that mid-day hour. Our doctrine is limited to a second-hand pseudo-Reformed type of theology. Our main sources aren't the Reformers themselves, nor necessarily the Puritans themselves, but popular distillers of this theology. We're heavily influenced by John MacArthur, RC Sproul, John Piper and the like. Slightly deeper theology comes from maybe DA Carson, JI Packer, or traditional sources like JC Ryle, Arthur Pink and a tad from some Puritans, and Martin Luther and John Calvin are sometimes quoted.
Most of our church growth (I joined 11 years ago with 60 people, now we're at almost 500) has come not from conversions due to our ministry, but from sheep transfer from other churches. We get soooo many people come in through our doors that say things like, "we've been to a different church every Sunday for years and you're the first church that uses the bible." Or, bad teaching or the adoption of heresy or some other ill have been introduced into their church and they can't take it any longer. One church up the road shut its doors in '99 because the pastor took his family, armed and with canned food, to live in a bunker in Montana awaiting the collapse of our government due to Y2K. We gained a couple of families there. As a result (and our pastor admits this) it's like having to train people in some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity all the time. So much time is spent bottle feeding and changing theological diapers in our growing sheep nursery, that it's hard for adults to grow. Many people don't want to talk about things beyond the basics, so I feel the need to turn elsewhere.
That's why I love the internet community so much. Theology has for so long been in the hands of the elite (the church), that the common man (the individuals) have had no say in developing the Christian belief system. But individuals are just as important as the community, so I've learned and been stretched so much by what I've read from other individuals - including many non-Christians - things that I never could have considered if I were content to live in the box that the theological ruling class has created for us to live in. The elites have been in control for so long, they've effectively eliminated the possibility for individuals with the hunger to grow to do so. But I feel the internet, as digital technology, has changed this. I'm thankful to God for this.
One reason I enjoy the blogging world so much is that it brings the idea of community to individuals that would have no other outlet. With respect to the philosophical idea of the One and the Many, I'm a believer that (and this is my view of the Holy Trinity) neither the One or the Many are more important than the other. Community isn't more important than the individuals that make up a community, and vice versa. Both are equally necessary. Communism is an example of a political system that emphasises the One to an unhealthy extreme, and reduces the individual to insignificant. Radical Anarchy emphasizes the individual to the exclusion of the community, so it's every man for himself, and chaos is a result. This goes for One and Many, community and individual, parts to the whole, etc.
In my church circles, I feel like I have no room for theological growth. Most people seem to be content with the limited theological lunch in a box we've been fed for that mid-day hour. Our doctrine is limited to a second-hand pseudo-Reformed type of theology. Our main sources aren't the Reformers themselves, nor necessarily the Puritans themselves, but popular distillers of this theology. We're heavily influenced by John MacArthur, RC Sproul, John Piper and the like. Slightly deeper theology comes from maybe DA Carson, JI Packer, or traditional sources like JC Ryle, Arthur Pink and a tad from some Puritans, and Martin Luther and John Calvin are sometimes quoted.
Most of our church growth (I joined 11 years ago with 60 people, now we're at almost 500) has come not from conversions due to our ministry, but from sheep transfer from other churches. We get soooo many people come in through our doors that say things like, "we've been to a different church every Sunday for years and you're the first church that uses the bible." Or, bad teaching or the adoption of heresy or some other ill have been introduced into their church and they can't take it any longer. One church up the road shut its doors in '99 because the pastor took his family, armed and with canned food, to live in a bunker in Montana awaiting the collapse of our government due to Y2K. We gained a couple of families there. As a result (and our pastor admits this) it's like having to train people in some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity all the time. So much time is spent bottle feeding and changing theological diapers in our growing sheep nursery, that it's hard for adults to grow. Many people don't want to talk about things beyond the basics, so I feel the need to turn elsewhere.
That's why I love the internet community so much. Theology has for so long been in the hands of the elite (the church), that the common man (the individuals) have had no say in developing the Christian belief system. But individuals are just as important as the community, so I've learned and been stretched so much by what I've read from other individuals - including many non-Christians - things that I never could have considered if I were content to live in the box that the theological ruling class has created for us to live in. The elites have been in control for so long, they've effectively eliminated the possibility for individuals with the hunger to grow to do so. But I feel the internet, as digital technology, has changed this. I'm thankful to God for this.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
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.
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.
Confessions of A Closet Blogger (Part 1)
I've been blogging for nearly two years now. Anybody with access to the web has access to my blog sites. But there's a sense in which I'm a closet blogger. From The Pew is essentially about theology, but I haven't told many of my friends about it. My pastor doesn't know, nor does more than three people in my church of about 500. My wife is a regular reader, and my two best friends at church occasionally drop in, and a few former members. My dad is aware, but isn't a regular. Outside of that, several I know also look at my baseball blog.
I think the reason is that the basic premise of my blog is that I'm questioning the status quo of religion - and the circles of which I'm most familiar are my own. For some reason there's a fear I have of making waves, but also there's an excitement about it. I've struggled with letting my pastor know, for example, because quite frankly much of what I write might be at odds with my own church's beliefs. My theology has developed in part apart from my church's formal means. But then my pastor knows I'm not a yes man because I've had many, many discussions with him about doctrines and church policies that I've either questioned or rejected. He has yet to start formal discipline against me because he is generally a graceful man who sees my wranglings with things that aren't really essentials to the faith. My wife and my two friends are people who have no problem with me questioning long-held beliefs; they are that way too.
I know there are the doctrinal purists and authoritarians and behavioral overlords who would have a coronary at knowing somebody like me was blogging about the things that I do. I would be interpreted as a heretic and as somebody who was divisive and schismatic. So much for them. I'm torn between letting somebody know in a casual conversation about my blog, or keeping it my business only. Should I be afraid, or no?
I think the reason is that the basic premise of my blog is that I'm questioning the status quo of religion - and the circles of which I'm most familiar are my own. For some reason there's a fear I have of making waves, but also there's an excitement about it. I've struggled with letting my pastor know, for example, because quite frankly much of what I write might be at odds with my own church's beliefs. My theology has developed in part apart from my church's formal means. But then my pastor knows I'm not a yes man because I've had many, many discussions with him about doctrines and church policies that I've either questioned or rejected. He has yet to start formal discipline against me because he is generally a graceful man who sees my wranglings with things that aren't really essentials to the faith. My wife and my two friends are people who have no problem with me questioning long-held beliefs; they are that way too.
I know there are the doctrinal purists and authoritarians and behavioral overlords who would have a coronary at knowing somebody like me was blogging about the things that I do. I would be interpreted as a heretic and as somebody who was divisive and schismatic. So much for them. I'm torn between letting somebody know in a casual conversation about my blog, or keeping it my business only. Should I be afraid, or no?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Absolute Necessity of Centralized Government
Two posts ago I quoted Vache Folle's take on authoritarian elitism as proposed by George F. Will. To quote VF again:
First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.
But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.
But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.
In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.
In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.
I read Will’s “Statecraft as Soulcraft”, and I resent that I will never get back the hours I spent doing so. The basic premise is that most folks are evil and stupid and must be ruled over strictly by the small minority of worthy elites. These elites should, as part of statecraft, cultivate in their subjects desirable ways of thinking and moral values, the “soulcraft” part. This requires a pretty substantial apparatus for propagandizing and surveillance of the riff raff.
First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.
But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.
But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.
In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.
In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.
Centralized Government: A Necessity?
On the heels of my last post about Vache Folle's blog, I'd like to continue the line of thinking and explore the idea of centralized government. Next... on From The Pew.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Authoritarian Wankers
Nevermind hitting the nail on the head, Vache Folle uses a pneumatic hammer in nailing this one. His latest post is about George F. Will, but this quote covers the bases:
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.How true this is. Too bad this mindset is alive and well in the church as well.
I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
On Catholics Converting to Protestantism
I have a Reformed, Calvinist, Protestant background, and still reside within those circles. There are many former Roman Catholics there. And this brings me to how those Catholics became Protestants. Much in the Protestant belief system holds that Roman Catholicism is actually not a part of true Christianity, and it holds to at least a distorted gospel, if not a false one. Many therefore view Catholics as not true Christians, and they're all still dead in their sins.
In looking at these former Catholics turned Protestant, a pattern is evident. They aren't former Catholic true believers who have changed in their view of theology toward Protestantism. They are former unbelievers, who just happened to live their lives in a Catholic context. They were dead sinners with a hollow shell of religion that happened to be Catholicism. (Great numbers of Protestants fit this same description, I might add.) Their conversion wasn't to Protestantism, per se, but to life in Christ. It just so happens that those who had a great effect on their salvation were Protestants. Protestants who teach that Catholics aren't true believers. So these former Catholics now view themselves as having been unbelievers, not because they were simply unbelievers, but because they were Catholic. They explain their former sin in terms of what they now view as the false religion of Catholicism.
They are now zealous in trying to convert their family and friends to Christ, not realizing that some of them might be true believers who don't really have a reason to convert to Protestantism. Not sure if I got my point across here, but maybe I'll have a better mental day in the future.
In looking at these former Catholics turned Protestant, a pattern is evident. They aren't former Catholic true believers who have changed in their view of theology toward Protestantism. They are former unbelievers, who just happened to live their lives in a Catholic context. They were dead sinners with a hollow shell of religion that happened to be Catholicism. (Great numbers of Protestants fit this same description, I might add.) Their conversion wasn't to Protestantism, per se, but to life in Christ. It just so happens that those who had a great effect on their salvation were Protestants. Protestants who teach that Catholics aren't true believers. So these former Catholics now view themselves as having been unbelievers, not because they were simply unbelievers, but because they were Catholic. They explain their former sin in terms of what they now view as the false religion of Catholicism.
They are now zealous in trying to convert their family and friends to Christ, not realizing that some of them might be true believers who don't really have a reason to convert to Protestantism. Not sure if I got my point across here, but maybe I'll have a better mental day in the future.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
No Thanks, We're Catholic
During my early days as a Christian, I was often engaged with my church in door-to-door activities, whether the goal was evangelism or invitations to special Easter or Christmas programs where the gospel would be preached. We listened to many different responses from those who opened their doors. The most common response - although not at all the majority of responses - was this one: "No thanks, we're Catholic," and the door was closed.
Being good Protestants, we believed Catholics were hard-hearted toward the "true" gospel, believed in salvation by works, and were so mired in their religion of tradition and saint worship that they were as lost as lost could be. We took the closing of the door after their four word reply as yet another rejection of the gospel in their hard-heartedness. If these people could only get a glimpse of Judgment Day.
Over the years, I've greatly softened my view of the spiritual condition of those outside the Reformed, Protestant, Calvinistic tradition. I still hold to many of the distinctives - as a matter of doctrine - but no longer view salvation as being dependent on an intellectual, gnostic type of affirmation of these distinctives. I've come across many believers from other traditions who I think love the Lord just as much as I think that I do, and am now ashamed at my anathematizing of them.
Maybe those four words were just their efficient way of politely saying, "Oh, brother, here come those nutty evangelicals again."
Being good Protestants, we believed Catholics were hard-hearted toward the "true" gospel, believed in salvation by works, and were so mired in their religion of tradition and saint worship that they were as lost as lost could be. We took the closing of the door after their four word reply as yet another rejection of the gospel in their hard-heartedness. If these people could only get a glimpse of Judgment Day.
Over the years, I've greatly softened my view of the spiritual condition of those outside the Reformed, Protestant, Calvinistic tradition. I still hold to many of the distinctives - as a matter of doctrine - but no longer view salvation as being dependent on an intellectual, gnostic type of affirmation of these distinctives. I've come across many believers from other traditions who I think love the Lord just as much as I think that I do, and am now ashamed at my anathematizing of them.
Maybe those four words were just their efficient way of politely saying, "Oh, brother, here come those nutty evangelicals again."
Fine February Days
We've had a few unseasonably warm days here in mid-February this week. Just when all the hyper-spastic talk of global warming during the record cold, freezing weather we've had (along with the record energy bills) gave us enough to laugh at, we've had some warm weather come along. Today was t-shirt and shorts weather, as the last few days have reached the 70's.
Our five year old had a field day, quite literally, as the lady bugs were out in full force in the back yard. He filled his bug box with grass and the little orange creatures. The jungle grew about 6" this week, thanks to rain earlier in the week, after I mowed about a third of the back yard. The deepest is about 18". Last year at this time, it was about 6 feet deep because of all the rain. We've not only had a freezing winter, we've had little rain.
We did a small, belated family celebration of our youngest's second birthday. Last month's flu episodes were the party poopers. Our niece had a special thing going, so my folks got to babysit our nephew, but they were already invited over, so they brought him along. It was fun to see all the boys play outside and do what boys could do in a back yard. No girls allowed today. Except for grandma.
Our five year old had a field day, quite literally, as the lady bugs were out in full force in the back yard. He filled his bug box with grass and the little orange creatures. The jungle grew about 6" this week, thanks to rain earlier in the week, after I mowed about a third of the back yard. The deepest is about 18". Last year at this time, it was about 6 feet deep because of all the rain. We've not only had a freezing winter, we've had little rain.
We did a small, belated family celebration of our youngest's second birthday. Last month's flu episodes were the party poopers. Our niece had a special thing going, so my folks got to babysit our nephew, but they were already invited over, so they brought him along. It was fun to see all the boys play outside and do what boys could do in a back yard. No girls allowed today. Except for grandma.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
When Gangs Work Better Than the Police
A number of years ago, some friends of mine from the Los Angeles area moved into a neighborhood just south of LA proper. Not unlike many areas, it was a mix of good neighborhoods and bad. Bad neighborhoods would have new groups of housing built on undeveloped pieces of land (called "infill" projects) and wealthier people would move in. After they moved in they found out that their neighborhood was part of a certain street gang's turf. For a small "fee" the gang would protect their neighborhood from crime. Those in the neighborhood took the gang up on their offer. And it worked.
Much of a street gang's criminal activity would be aimed at other rival street gangs themselves and not at ordinary citizens living within their turf. Drugs would be a source of income as well. Ordinary criminals knew where gangs' turf boundaries were, and avoided them due to fear. They preferred working in normal neighborhoods merely patrolled by local police, because they knew police were a relatively ineffective bureaucracy. Gangs were far more efficient and effective at curbing ordinary crime within their own neighborhoods. And since the gangs took ownership of their own neighborhoods, they generally left the ordinary people alone to live their lives.
So the small fee took care of far more than any police presence, and they lived without burglary or auto theft. (See also this similar post at Blessed Economist)
Much of a street gang's criminal activity would be aimed at other rival street gangs themselves and not at ordinary citizens living within their turf. Drugs would be a source of income as well. Ordinary criminals knew where gangs' turf boundaries were, and avoided them due to fear. They preferred working in normal neighborhoods merely patrolled by local police, because they knew police were a relatively ineffective bureaucracy. Gangs were far more efficient and effective at curbing ordinary crime within their own neighborhoods. And since the gangs took ownership of their own neighborhoods, they generally left the ordinary people alone to live their lives.
So the small fee took care of far more than any police presence, and they lived without burglary or auto theft. (See also this similar post at Blessed Economist)
Thursday, February 15, 2007
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?
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?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A New Baseball Season
Jesus created baseball. I know this because my bible tells me so. Okay, this is true in a sense, but I know I can enjoy baseball because it is part of God's creation. Since I'm writing this after midnight, I can say that it is later today that pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training. For the Giants, that is. The A's report on Friday.
One reason that I like baseball (and I've only recently discovered this) is that is has a good parallel with the nature of God Himself in the Trinity. God is both One God, and three persons at the same time, with neither expression being more important than the other. Baseball, more than other team sports, is nearly as well defined in the same way. One team, and nine individual persons at the same time. Individual performance (and the statistics that explain it to us) are just as important as the team as a whole; neither is dominant. The whole is made up of its parts and the parts make up the whole.
Here's to an enjoyable season. As a Giants fan, I've got a few extra perks built in for 2007. We have the All-Star Game, and Barry Bonds is poised to break Aaron's all time home run record. Now if they can only win a World Series...
One reason that I like baseball (and I've only recently discovered this) is that is has a good parallel with the nature of God Himself in the Trinity. God is both One God, and three persons at the same time, with neither expression being more important than the other. Baseball, more than other team sports, is nearly as well defined in the same way. One team, and nine individual persons at the same time. Individual performance (and the statistics that explain it to us) are just as important as the team as a whole; neither is dominant. The whole is made up of its parts and the parts make up the whole.
Here's to an enjoyable season. As a Giants fan, I've got a few extra perks built in for 2007. We have the All-Star Game, and Barry Bonds is poised to break Aaron's all time home run record. Now if they can only win a World Series...
Monday, February 12, 2007
Another Blog I Visit
The last time I listed blogs I visit, Bruce "The Hungarian Luddite" had dropped off my radar screen, so I didn't include him. He reappeared at another domain name and now his blog is called, "The World According to Bruce." He's an ordained minister who has pastored many congregations, attended zillions of different churches, has a zeal for righteousness, knows a bit about suffering, and whether I agree with him or not, is a good read and very thought provoking. He's iron that sharpens my iron.
[Update 12/27/08: Bruce has changed his website and can now be found here.]
[Update 12/27/08: Bruce has changed his website and can now be found here.]
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Jesus Stuck in My Molars
We took communion today. If I have a few complaints about it (hopefully not complaints against God here), I could list one as our calling it the Lord's "Supper." The wafers/crackers/whatever you call them are so small that they get stuck in my molars. Then, with only a thimble of liquid to wash it down, it never gets washed down. Suppers have lots of food. So do "Tables" as in the Lord's Table. "Communion" indicates interaction with another/others, and this would seem to be of a more prolonged nature. The wafer takes a few seconds to chew, and the thimble is gone in less time than that. Then we go home. I'm not an expert in the term "Eucharist" so I can't speak to that word.
If the Supper was a continuation of the Passover feast, and the Corinthian church used enough bread and wine for some to be filled and others to be drunk, how did we end up with such small portions? And if it is a "communion," just who are we communing with? Are we, as separate individuals, simultaneously communing with God? Or are we supposed to be communing with each other to some degree while we feast, and is this an aspect of us collectively communing with God? I've heard some people refer to our tradition sarcastically as "the Lord's snack" because of the small portions and short eating time, but I've had many snacks that were bigger and longer than that. You can't eat just one, after all, just like the commercial says. Our rite even belittles the term "snack."
Okay, my personal preference would be to have a meal with all in attendance, which includes larger portions of bread and wine, but personal preferences aside, I'm wondering if this wouldn't give us a better sense of Jesus and what He did. I'm going to lay my heart open here and be transparent. The wafer followed by the thimble leads me to ask, "this is Jesus?" Shouldn't we make better use of our senses? Shouldn't Jesus' body be something we can savor, feel, contemplate, agonize over? Shouldn't His blood have more substance? I think we can do a better job than this...for Christ's sake.
If the Supper was a continuation of the Passover feast, and the Corinthian church used enough bread and wine for some to be filled and others to be drunk, how did we end up with such small portions? And if it is a "communion," just who are we communing with? Are we, as separate individuals, simultaneously communing with God? Or are we supposed to be communing with each other to some degree while we feast, and is this an aspect of us collectively communing with God? I've heard some people refer to our tradition sarcastically as "the Lord's snack" because of the small portions and short eating time, but I've had many snacks that were bigger and longer than that. You can't eat just one, after all, just like the commercial says. Our rite even belittles the term "snack."
Okay, my personal preference would be to have a meal with all in attendance, which includes larger portions of bread and wine, but personal preferences aside, I'm wondering if this wouldn't give us a better sense of Jesus and what He did. I'm going to lay my heart open here and be transparent. The wafer followed by the thimble leads me to ask, "this is Jesus?" Shouldn't we make better use of our senses? Shouldn't Jesus' body be something we can savor, feel, contemplate, agonize over? Shouldn't His blood have more substance? I think we can do a better job than this...for Christ's sake.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Reformed Gnostics
I'm convinced that far too much is made of the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" in our Reformed churches. I'm not disagreeing with the doctrine, just think it's misplaced. Now by "Reformed" I am including not only Reformed churches, but also churches that hold to Reformed soteriology, such as dispensationalists who hold to the five points of Calvinism, Reformed Baptist lite, and sovereign grace Baptists who also hold to the five points. So much is made of it, that many view this doctrine as central to both salvation and the New Testament itself.
I've heard the following statements from the pulpit: "The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the central message of the New Testament", and "Calvinism is the bible." But justification by faith alone is mentioned in the bible, even if you include references, only a handful of times. And what does Calvinism say about digital recording technology, art, astronomy or farming? I'm persuaded that the Lordship of Christ is the central message of the NT. Also, in my judgment, the knowledge of this doctrine is at least as important as being justified by faith in the first place. So it is preached and taught ad infinitum.
Historically, it is merely the central argument between the Protestant reformers and the Roman Catholic church with regard to the doctrine of salvation. Since our culture today isn't ruled by the medieval Catholic church, I'm convinced that our message falls on deaf ears because our culture doesn't know what we're talking about. Then we view this as our culture rejecting the gospel. Other Christians from traditions other than Reformed Calvinistic ones, who may be completely justified in God's sight, but who don't understand their own justification the same way we do, are then held with suspicion.
Because the knowledge of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is given so much importance, I think it has taken on a gnostic form. We have faith, not so much in Christ, but in our knowledge of this doctrine. But since faith without works is dead, we have worked it out so that our works consist of being able to parrot this doctrine to others. Showing off our knowledge is works enough for the kingdom, and we go on our merry, blissful way.
I've heard the following statements from the pulpit: "The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the central message of the New Testament", and "Calvinism is the bible." But justification by faith alone is mentioned in the bible, even if you include references, only a handful of times. And what does Calvinism say about digital recording technology, art, astronomy or farming? I'm persuaded that the Lordship of Christ is the central message of the NT. Also, in my judgment, the knowledge of this doctrine is at least as important as being justified by faith in the first place. So it is preached and taught ad infinitum.
Historically, it is merely the central argument between the Protestant reformers and the Roman Catholic church with regard to the doctrine of salvation. Since our culture today isn't ruled by the medieval Catholic church, I'm convinced that our message falls on deaf ears because our culture doesn't know what we're talking about. Then we view this as our culture rejecting the gospel. Other Christians from traditions other than Reformed Calvinistic ones, who may be completely justified in God's sight, but who don't understand their own justification the same way we do, are then held with suspicion.
Because the knowledge of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is given so much importance, I think it has taken on a gnostic form. We have faith, not so much in Christ, but in our knowledge of this doctrine. But since faith without works is dead, we have worked it out so that our works consist of being able to parrot this doctrine to others. Showing off our knowledge is works enough for the kingdom, and we go on our merry, blissful way.
Friday, February 09, 2007
New Blogger Forced On Me
Okay, I held out as long as I could. I avoided the new Blogger which is specifically attached to a Google account. Prompts, choices and "aw, c'mon" have been ignored, bypassed and run around. Until tonight. It gave me no choice. I had to accept terms of agreement even to log on. I tried an old trick, in which I "logged on" in the comment section of another Blogger account so that when logging into Blogger from an additional internet window, I bypassed the login procedure to directly to my posting dashboard. Even this was not allowed. I was trapped.
So, now I'm on the new Blogger against my will. But I'm not complaining too loudly here. I just was too lazy to spend two seconds longer than usual to do the task. It screws up the works of some third party software I use through my site, but I know the remedy, and it'll probably take as long to fix that as it is in writing this post.
Now I can add labels to my posts. I wonder if that can be done retroactively, so I can catalogue all of my posts under labels to make it easier for my fans to love me and my similar posts. Let's just see how the new Blogger works. It might be easier, as they claim, but it always takes up-front labor on my part. Now to dive in...
So, now I'm on the new Blogger against my will. But I'm not complaining too loudly here. I just was too lazy to spend two seconds longer than usual to do the task. It screws up the works of some third party software I use through my site, but I know the remedy, and it'll probably take as long to fix that as it is in writing this post.
Now I can add labels to my posts. I wonder if that can be done retroactively, so I can catalogue all of my posts under labels to make it easier for my fans to love me and my similar posts. Let's just see how the new Blogger works. It might be easier, as they claim, but it always takes up-front labor on my part. Now to dive in...
Monday, February 05, 2007
Dr. Lenny Goes to Vegas - or Should Have
Dr. Lenny at The Zone made an unbelievable - and eerily close - prediction of the Superbowl. Here it is.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Giving the Finger to Boston
Commentary
A popular cartoon character has caused mass hysteria in the city of Boston. Public officials are angered to the point of insanity. Or maybe past that point. Two regular dudes, named Bill and Ted (or are they Gomer and Goober?) are accused of being mass terrorists. The public officials are screaming for "restitution" for all the money it is going to cost to cover their own decision to be major spazzes. They are indignant that some people just don't have the obvious sensitivity to life here in the "post-911 world." Members of the public are outraged, too.
Is anybody getting the obvious here, or is everybody a victim of mass brainwashing? Okay, the advertising campaign was on the "extreme" side, and maybe they violated some trespassing laws. But does anybody really believe that the advertisers came anything close to a campaign of terrorism? How could anybody be so fanatically hyper-freakoutish to paralyze a city due to their own fear of, well, nothing? Yes, we live in a post-911 world, but what these public officials don't quite get is that they're the ones who have created it. Fearmongering, panic stricken Chicken Little's are what they are. They've created the panic by scaring the living hell out of America for every little thing out of the ordinary. They're the ones yelling "FIRE!" in the crowded theater because somebody is holding a candle.
"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing," Proverbs 28:1
A popular cartoon character has caused mass hysteria in the city of Boston. Public officials are angered to the point of insanity. Or maybe past that point. Two regular dudes, named Bill and Ted (or are they Gomer and Goober?) are accused of being mass terrorists. The public officials are screaming for "restitution" for all the money it is going to cost to cover their own decision to be major spazzes. They are indignant that some people just don't have the obvious sensitivity to life here in the "post-911 world." Members of the public are outraged, too.
Is anybody getting the obvious here, or is everybody a victim of mass brainwashing? Okay, the advertising campaign was on the "extreme" side, and maybe they violated some trespassing laws. But does anybody really believe that the advertisers came anything close to a campaign of terrorism? How could anybody be so fanatically hyper-freakoutish to paralyze a city due to their own fear of, well, nothing? Yes, we live in a post-911 world, but what these public officials don't quite get is that they're the ones who have created it. Fearmongering, panic stricken Chicken Little's are what they are. They've created the panic by scaring the living hell out of America for every little thing out of the ordinary. They're the ones yelling "FIRE!" in the crowded theater because somebody is holding a candle.
"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing," Proverbs 28:1
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Fall Results In The Power State
When Adam was created by God and placed in the Garden of Eden, his task was to rule over the earth (i.e. dominion) according to God's rules. But man rebelled against God, and in doing so became his own god, and in his sin he has desired to rule over other men ever since. Since God rules over His creatures, any rebellion against God usurps God's authority, therefore man must rule over God's creatures in God's place.
Mark Rushdoony, in "Faith for All of Life" magazine (no link), writes in an article entitled "Don't Pray for the Peace of Babylon" the following:
Mark Rushdoony, in "Faith for All of Life" magazine (no link), writes in an article entitled "Don't Pray for the Peace of Babylon" the following:
Christians do this when they lobby government to control others or when they vote for politicians who promise the same. Taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-smoking laws, and all other regulations of any kind are affronts to private property and property owners. Man, even sinful Christian man, is not content to let God rule this earth, but asserts his own godhood in ruling over others. May God grant us all repentance.Man's quest of autonomy, or self-rule by his own truth and word rather than that of God, tends to result in one of two manifestations. The individual may become anarchistic, seeking his "own rules" and his "own thing." The individual autonomous man, however, is either irrelevant or a nuisance to collective man, and so humanism's autonomy has always tended toward statism. The real autonomy is thus of the state, not individuals, which illustrates the Biblical teaching that man's rebellion against God represents an enslavement to sin. The moral reality of slavery to sin is manifested in the institutional enslavement of men to the highest collective voice of mankind, the state.
As a moral rebel, man perverts the things of God. Since man is not god, but only a creature, all he can do as a rebel is counterfeit the Creator's reality. Man was made to have dominion over creation (Gen. 1:28), for instance, but his moral rebellion in Genesis 3 means that all his attempts at dominion without God end in manifestations of his sin. The sinful lust for power rather than godly dominion stems from the original sin of desiring to be as gods. Man's constant grasp for power is manifested in aggression and exploitation. Power-hungry men create a power-hungry state as the utilitarian means of controlling others.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Adoptive Dad, Adoptive God
I am an adoptive father of two young boys, five and two. The bible speaks of God's children as being adopted by God. In reflecting on my relationship with my sons, I think I've gained an insight into our relationship with God that I wouldn't have if I had never adopted any children.
Most children are natural, biological children. My wife is pregnant, so we hope to have a biological child four or five months from now. Most naturally born children are born to their parents without the intent to bear that specific child at that specific time. For a lack of a better term, the birth is "accidental" to what caused the birth, namely the union between a man and woman. That is to say, child bearing is not the primary purpose of the sexual union. God did not say, "man needs somebody to bear children for him," He said, "it is not good that man be alone." In addition, many acts of intimacy may result in few or no children at all, and there is no control over each one as to whether children will result, and children may not even be on the mind of the parents at the time.
In our adoptions, on the other hand, each child was a direct, one-to-one correlation of our decision to adopt them. We want this specific child to be a part of our family. This child already exists, and we can love him ahead of time, and even know who he is.
Our children being so young, they have a limited capacity to understand their adoptions. Our oldest was adopted before he turned two. Our youngest was adopted at birth, and at just two years old, he has no clue at all. We've decided to be open and up front toward our children about their adoptions. God is that way with us. But the ability for young children to understand that they lived with another family before ours, or that they grew in another mommy's tummy and not our mommy's tummy (the mommy they know), is limited, and sometimes funny. Our oldest had said some fairly funny things in repeating his adoption story back at various times. In terms of adult thinking, these things are wrong, but we know he's only a child, so we have mercy and take it with a light hearted attitude.
But our ability to understand God's adopting of us can also be limited. We can have skewed ideas about our adoption into God's family, and where we were beforehand. We can say things about God as our Father that aren't quite right, or maybe even very wrong. But does that make us any less children of God? Hopefully as we grow in our Christian lives, we will gain a much better understanding. When my children don't comprehend their adoptions, are they any less my children? Of course not. I still love them even if they say goofy things about it. I think I've learned to be more forgiving about other Christians who don't understand things the way I do, in part because I understand adoption more fully because I am an adoptive father.
Most children are natural, biological children. My wife is pregnant, so we hope to have a biological child four or five months from now. Most naturally born children are born to their parents without the intent to bear that specific child at that specific time. For a lack of a better term, the birth is "accidental" to what caused the birth, namely the union between a man and woman. That is to say, child bearing is not the primary purpose of the sexual union. God did not say, "man needs somebody to bear children for him," He said, "it is not good that man be alone." In addition, many acts of intimacy may result in few or no children at all, and there is no control over each one as to whether children will result, and children may not even be on the mind of the parents at the time.
In our adoptions, on the other hand, each child was a direct, one-to-one correlation of our decision to adopt them. We want this specific child to be a part of our family. This child already exists, and we can love him ahead of time, and even know who he is.
Our children being so young, they have a limited capacity to understand their adoptions. Our oldest was adopted before he turned two. Our youngest was adopted at birth, and at just two years old, he has no clue at all. We've decided to be open and up front toward our children about their adoptions. God is that way with us. But the ability for young children to understand that they lived with another family before ours, or that they grew in another mommy's tummy and not our mommy's tummy (the mommy they know), is limited, and sometimes funny. Our oldest had said some fairly funny things in repeating his adoption story back at various times. In terms of adult thinking, these things are wrong, but we know he's only a child, so we have mercy and take it with a light hearted attitude.
But our ability to understand God's adopting of us can also be limited. We can have skewed ideas about our adoption into God's family, and where we were beforehand. We can say things about God as our Father that aren't quite right, or maybe even very wrong. But does that make us any less children of God? Hopefully as we grow in our Christian lives, we will gain a much better understanding. When my children don't comprehend their adoptions, are they any less my children? Of course not. I still love them even if they say goofy things about it. I think I've learned to be more forgiving about other Christians who don't understand things the way I do, in part because I understand adoption more fully because I am an adoptive father.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Letter on Creation, Dualism and the Weaker Brother
Andrew Sandlin's reply to a letter written to him is posted on his blog. This letter ties the doctrine of creation to Christian liberty in a way that I couldn't have said so myself in such simple terms. He points out that dualism throws a roadblock down in our understanding of Christian liberty. Read it here.
Pregnancy/Illness Update
We found out today that the bun in the oven is a boy. This should give us enough time to plan to buy blue things, not pink. Since my last update, both of our boys came down with the other flu. So we hit for the flu cycle in our family twice. Not only that, but since then, our littlest got an ear infection. Now to think of baby boy names.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Other Blogs I Visit
Aside from the four blogs I visit - and read daily - I visit many others each day, but are not quite as engaged. Ron McKenzie's Blessed Economist is now a daily read, and he posts things about general righteousness and how the bible applies to daily life. Many things economic - because economics faces each of us all day, every day. Keith Darrell's In Athens is another daily click, although he doesn't post every day. He's mostly commenting on Christian ideas and some politics. McCovey Chronicles is a SF Giants baseball blog with plenty of sarcasm. LewRockwell.com for libertarian ideology and musings. Gene Redlin's Northern Gleaner is a daily click. He's conservative with a charismatic bent, and a believer in the continuation of the gifts. He's not afraid to speak his mind, and is a good read. TB Vick's Shadows of Divine Things is mostly theology and philosophy and is food for thought on church issues. Team Pyro for the MacArthurite, Spurgeonesque Calvinism of Phil Johnson and group. A good place to get into some arguments, so I need to exercise control. Got into one with Frank Turk over whether U2 qualifies as a Christian group. I started out agreeing with him on a related topic, but well, you know. Keith Ghormley, The Presbyteer, has a cool banner on his site. He's a Presbyterian pastor from Nebraska who has some great photography. An Anglican touch at Of Priests & Paramedics. Dr. Lenny and alter ego Lemme Howdt at The Zone. He's a real scientist, and poet, and baseball fan. Chalcedon's blog for a reconstructionist bent. At Reformed Catholicism, Kevin Johnson and others wrestle with issues that pertain to the unity of the church and how various traditions help or hinder this.
Other more minor blogs are in my favorites list, but I'm not yet at the point I want to write about them. Some are offshoots of my regulars, some are anarchists, monarchists, methodists, pastors and assorted others that I may have found interesting at one time or other.
Other more minor blogs are in my favorites list, but I'm not yet at the point I want to write about them. Some are offshoots of my regulars, some are anarchists, monarchists, methodists, pastors and assorted others that I may have found interesting at one time or other.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
No Sooner I Post, Then Find This
No sooner I posted my last post about marijuana, I clicked on Independent Country, like less than a minute later, and JLW's latest post linked to this article about the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, and we quoted the same bible verse, Genesis 1:29. Just too bizarre.
What To Do When Dope-Smoking Liberal Pinko Commie Leftist Radical Berkeley Wackos Are More Biblical Than You and You're a Conservative (Part 2)
Read part 1 here.
I spent five years of my life in Berkeley, California. Yes, the place famous for riots and demonstrations in the 60's, hippies, tie-dyed t-shirts and Grateful Dead concerts. I went to school for three years at the University of California, Berkeley, then lived in Berkeley after school for another two. During that time, the city council passed a city ordinance declaring that the Berkeley Police Department wouldn't arrest anybody who was found in possession of marijuana in an amount small enough to be considered for "personal use."
As a conservative kid from the suburbs (engineering major), my friends and I were incredulous at such a proposition. This also made national headlines. Marijuana was, after all, against the law, and the city of Berkeley was saying that it would ignore state law, which was against the moral law of obeying state law. I was raised within a culture that put state law above everything else (including God's law). Politicians, even though they were idiots, somehow were gods when legislating, and disobeying state law in any sense was tantamount to hating God or something.
But now, looking back on those wild times, I've come to a completely different conclusion regarding marijuana, Berkeley and conservative suburban culture. In the Bible, God tells the whole human race through Adam,
"Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food" and it was so. Genesis 1:29-30
Well, not only does marijuana fit this list, but so does opium and cocoa leaves. God plainly gave these things to man to use, so who is man to disagree? Even though I was a conservative "law abiding citizen", dope-smoking liberal pinko commie leftist radical Berkeley wackos, whether they knew it or not, held to a more biblical position than I did. So, now, I have no choice but to believe the bible. I've found so many of these things that I can no longer call myself a conservative.
I spent five years of my life in Berkeley, California. Yes, the place famous for riots and demonstrations in the 60's, hippies, tie-dyed t-shirts and Grateful Dead concerts. I went to school for three years at the University of California, Berkeley, then lived in Berkeley after school for another two. During that time, the city council passed a city ordinance declaring that the Berkeley Police Department wouldn't arrest anybody who was found in possession of marijuana in an amount small enough to be considered for "personal use."
As a conservative kid from the suburbs (engineering major), my friends and I were incredulous at such a proposition. This also made national headlines. Marijuana was, after all, against the law, and the city of Berkeley was saying that it would ignore state law, which was against the moral law of obeying state law. I was raised within a culture that put state law above everything else (including God's law). Politicians, even though they were idiots, somehow were gods when legislating, and disobeying state law in any sense was tantamount to hating God or something.
But now, looking back on those wild times, I've come to a completely different conclusion regarding marijuana, Berkeley and conservative suburban culture. In the Bible, God tells the whole human race through Adam,
"Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food" and it was so. Genesis 1:29-30
Well, not only does marijuana fit this list, but so does opium and cocoa leaves. God plainly gave these things to man to use, so who is man to disagree? Even though I was a conservative "law abiding citizen", dope-smoking liberal pinko commie leftist radical Berkeley wackos, whether they knew it or not, held to a more biblical position than I did. So, now, I have no choice but to believe the bible. I've found so many of these things that I can no longer call myself a conservative.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Slavery and Your Credit Rating
"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave." Proverbs 22:7
Here we see the wisdom of Solomon. The borrower becomes a slave to the lender. In today's economy, one's credit rating (a.k.a. credit score) is simply one's slave rating. Your credit score doesn't tell how much of a slave you are, you're already a slave. It simply tells how good a slave you are. Pay back all your borrowing on time, with lots of borrowing!, and your score will be high. Others will look at you. The higher the score, the more likely you are to be a good slave to them. They like slavery.
Here we see the wisdom of Solomon. The borrower becomes a slave to the lender. In today's economy, one's credit rating (a.k.a. credit score) is simply one's slave rating. Your credit score doesn't tell how much of a slave you are, you're already a slave. It simply tells how good a slave you are. Pay back all your borrowing on time, with lots of borrowing!, and your score will be high. Others will look at you. The higher the score, the more likely you are to be a good slave to them. They like slavery.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 2)
In Part 1, I made the statement that in terms of human government, I am an anarchist. But Jesus said in Matthew 28 that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him. So all authority in the earth among men is derivative from and delegated by Christ. So, overall, I'm not an anarchist, just relative to man. Overall, I'm a monarchist, but this term is used in a relative way, too. Christ is the Monarch. No man or men have claim, in part or in whole, to God's monarchy.
So with respect to man, I believe in anarchy, with respect to God, I believe in monarchy.
So with respect to man, I believe in anarchy, with respect to God, I believe in monarchy.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Hugo Chavez Is A Racist
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez told US officials to "go to hell, gringos." The term "gringo" is a derogatory racial slur in the Spanish language with reference to caucasians. Mr. Chavez should ungergo sensivity training immediately while on temporary leave of absence as communist dictator. The 700 Club offers such training.
As for US officials going to hell, St. Peter and Lucifer are negotiating as we speak.
As for US officials going to hell, St. Peter and Lucifer are negotiating as we speak.
Sick, Sick, Sick
Just as I'm planning on finally going back to work - this afternoon - the pregnant Mrs. Scott is coming down with my latest version of the flu, the chest cold/fever variety. Hopefully the baby will fly under the radar...
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 1)
These are terms for sure to evoke strong emotions in debating the subject of politics. We all have views of these forms of "government", whether indoctrinated by our culture or reached by our own self-education. Dictionary definitions carry baggage not present in the basic meanings of each word.
The basic meanings of each word are as follows:
anarchy: an = no, arhcy = ruler - no ruler
monarchy: mon = one, archy = ruler - one ruler
democracy: dem = man, ocracy = rule - man rule
Typically, these terms are used politically,with respect to human government. So, anarchy would be the lack of civil government, monarchy would be rule by one individual, such as a king, and democracy is taken most to mean government by a majority of the people.
But democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people believe a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. This is life in America today. Monarchy is tyranny of an individual. If the ruling individual believes a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. Anarchy, although it can have its own problems, is free from these two forms of tyranny, and I'll talk later about these.
In terms of human civil government, I'm an anarchist.
The basic meanings of each word are as follows:
anarchy: an = no, arhcy = ruler - no ruler
monarchy: mon = one, archy = ruler - one ruler
democracy: dem = man, ocracy = rule - man rule
Typically, these terms are used politically,with respect to human government. So, anarchy would be the lack of civil government, monarchy would be rule by one individual, such as a king, and democracy is taken most to mean government by a majority of the people.
But democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people believe a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. This is life in America today. Monarchy is tyranny of an individual. If the ruling individual believes a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. Anarchy, although it can have its own problems, is free from these two forms of tyranny, and I'll talk later about these.
In terms of human civil government, I'm an anarchist.
Twisted Sister Performs "Oh Come All Ye Faithful"
In a previous post, I mentioned Twisted Sister's performance on Craig Ferguson. I found the video on YouTube here.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Sick Again - and Again
Family update - Since my last prego update, many things have happened. Not only did my mom come down with the flu, but so did my sister-in-law. Our little one became so dehydrated from diarrhea that Mrs. Scott had another all night ER visit. Now I've got another version of the flu/cold. I had a fever with both head and chest cold and headache hit me in a short time and it put me in bed. I just had my first food in two days. My fever broke, but I've still got a nasty cold. My dad got hit with the stomach flu so severely that he collapsed and broke a toe. Can't wait for summer.
During all this, people in our church have been wonderful in providing meals in Mrs. Scott's pregnant stead.
During all this, people in our church have been wonderful in providing meals in Mrs. Scott's pregnant stead.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Westminster Confession Of Faith And Full Subscription To It
Some people, Presbyterian ministers included, are full subscriptionists to The Westminster Confession of Faith. That is, they hold to the teachings of this document, often by oath, and will not depart from it in terms of beliefs. I'd like to look at this idea with respect to the WCF itself. To quote WCF 20.2:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (Source: CRTA)
Now voluntary subscriptionism to this document is not contrary to it; for if one agrees with the WCF he is free to subscribe to it. But mandatory subscriptionism (i.e. the church requiring it of its members) seems to me to be a direct contradiction of WCF 20.2, because man's conscience is free from the doctrines of the men who wrote the WCF. Does this make sense?
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (Source: CRTA)
Now voluntary subscriptionism to this document is not contrary to it; for if one agrees with the WCF he is free to subscribe to it. But mandatory subscriptionism (i.e. the church requiring it of its members) seems to me to be a direct contradiction of WCF 20.2, because man's conscience is free from the doctrines of the men who wrote the WCF. Does this make sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)