Beholding the Beauty

Start the Popcorn!

2012-02-08T10:42:00.000-08:00

From here: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pftt3/thank_you_rick_santorum/c3p5rwn

Gingrich and Santorum are Ron Paul's puppets in this cycle. All they are doing is preventing Romney from hitting the magic number of 1144, and attacking Romney so Ron doesn't have to. This Santorum surge in the caucus states? Solid[...]gold for this strategy. Santorum just annihilated Romney's momentum, added confusion to the process, and became the sole focus of every attack ad until Super Tuesday. And he didn't win a single delegate.

Bahahaha....so true.

I suggest you stock up on popcorn. It's going to be a fun season.

2012-01-23T17:09:00.000-08:00

Haha...I'm very busy, but I couldn't pass this one up.

OrthodoxyToday.org | What Brings a World Into Being?

2012-01-18T14:11:00.000-08:00

I find this article (OrthodoxyToday.org | What Brings a World Into Being?) fascinating. 'nough said. :)

Quick non-interventionist post...

2012-01-10T14:38:00.001-08:00

Hey y'all....I'm getting back to your comments...I have a quick moment here, though, to post this:

That's about the size of it. :)

Non-Intervention and WWII

2012-01-07T16:09:00.000-08:00

The question has been raised as to how a non-interventionist policy fits in with the prosecution of WWII. The dilemma is presented as follows:

Given: World War II was war required for the continuance of our way of life.
Given: Non-interventionism would have had us stay out of the war.
Conclusion: If we had kept a non-interventionist policy, we would all be speaking Japanese, Italian, and German, and the Jews and blacks would be extinct.
Ergo, non-interventionism is bunk.

To rephrase in the slightly more sensational terms:

You don't want to interfere in other countries' affairs? But what about Hitler!!!?!!!

(I'm pretty sure this counts as an instance of Godwin's Law, but I'll assume it's a valid question for the time being.)

Here is the most cogent response I can think of at the moment. Others may have things to add, or perhaps might take a different tack, but here's my own answer.

The original question displays a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what non-interventionism actually is. In fact, WWII is the perfect "case study" for how non-interventionism actually works, Constitutionally.

No non-interventionist that I know of would argue that we should have stayed out of the war. I know several (myself included) that would argue that we could have stayed out of the war by making some different choices earlier on. But given that we didn't make said choices, we all agree that getting involved was the necessary thing to do.

This shows that the phrase "non-interventionist" does not represent an absolute. We are not absolutely against all intervention. Our position is not isolationist, nor is it anti-war.¹ This is the point I was trying to make in the very first post on this topic.

If war needs to be done, then let's do it!

But here's where the difference lies: a non-interventionist does not primarily rely on the strength of fear, that is, on the threat death and destruction to be perpetrated by America if we don't get our way.

See, the non-interventionist vision is based on a fundamental principle: respect for others, even those who do not respect you in return.

We are not against carrying (and using!) a big stick, when necessary. But America seems to have forgotten the "walk softly" part. We've also forgotten that the big stick's default state is supposed to be as a defensive weapon, not as an offensive one (in both senses of the word).

I would make a strong clarification here, that "respect" does NOT equal "capitulation". Respect does NOT equal groveling and begging for permission from the UN or other nations to actually do anything. It's not about permission.

Sovereign countries don't need our permission, and we don't need theirs. We can, however, "walk softly", like good neighbors, and check to see if whatever we do will cause burdens on the other nations that they are not able or willing to bear freely, without coercion by fear.

Let's put it in religious terms, since most of the interventionists tend to claim the name, at least nominally, of "Christian", for themselves, and for our nation.

Non-interventionism is the carrying out in national policy of the concept of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Put another way: it's karma on the international scale.

See, not all nations are our friends, and it would be naive in the extreme to imagine this to be so. But even those who, at best, would sell us down the river for their own interests -- that is to say, our enemies -- ought still to be treated as truly sovereign nations, and allowed to run their business as they see fit, even if it is to their own detriment.

Yet another rendition, which is also the basic libertarian precept: If it harms none, do as you will.

The non-interventionist is not against the use of war, both military and economic. Sometimes it is necessary. However, the non-interventionist desires that only truly just wars be fought, and only then with the full consent and cooperation of the nation.

This is enshrined in our Constitution by Article 1, Section 8, which explicitly grants to the Congress the power to declare War, and thereby also explicitly restricts said power from any other national entity, including the Commander in Chief himself.

Now, as to whether Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, Libya, Uganda, etc. actually constitute war or not, and if so whether we should have fought these -- those are entirely different conversations. Also, whether the economic sanctions on Iran and other countries constitute war or not, and if so, whether these wars are just or not -- also entirely different conversations.

Unfortunately, incomplete fragments of those conversations do tend to get pulled into the basic talking points of non-interventionism, and frequently are mistaken for the main point. I say "unfortunately", because I think that it muddies the waters and leads to exactly the kind of misunderstandings I'm trying to correct here.

Perhaps "non-interventionist" is a problematic label for the attitude we espouse. Perhaps an alternative would be "careful", and "open", and "respectful". Maybe even "reluctant", although that has a slightly negative ring to it.

A better label might be "Sovereign-nationalist", although the "nationalist" part has some other baggage with it that we might not want, so maybe just "sovereigntist" would be best. We would mean it as:

We understand and respect the sovereignty of other nations, no matter how small or large. We believe that this respect, whether reciprocated or not, is essential to maintain our own sovereignty, which is based on the same fundamental concept (i.e. of national sovereignty).

To assert our own sovereignty, while denying by actions or words the sovereignty of other nations, is hypocrisy, and will lead (and is leading) to the dissolution of the very sovereignty (our own) which we wish to assert.

War only happens when an aggressor nation voluntarily relinquishes it's own sovereignty in this same way: by violating the sovereignty of other nations. In such cases, said other nations are right and just to defend themselves at the very least, to declare a state of War, and to prosecute the War with all vigor.

Often in these cases, "the best defense is a good offense". This offense differs from the aggressor nation's offense, in that the newly offensive nation is reacting, and is not an aggressor. (You can see clearly, I hope, where the concept of "preemptive strike" falls on this paradigm.)

The aggressor is a rogue state, a feral nation, rabid, and in need of being "put down", having relinquished their own sovereignty by being the aggressor.

In the case of WWII, the Axis powers were undoubtedly the aggressors, and the Allied powers were justly acting to stop this aggression. This was based in reality, not possibility; concrete action, not imaginative speculation.

So what changed? I'll address that in a different post, from a historical perspective, rather than a non-interventionist one (in other words, I'll talk about what actually happened, and not how it could have/should have/might have blah blah blah). Hint: it involves The Bomb.

I may do a post after that one, too, to show how non-interventionist policy, as outlined above -- that is, the reluctance to perpetrate war, while embodying adamant willingness to take it to it's full extent when it is in fact necessary -- still applies in the age of The Bomb, and is, in fact, even more important!

------

¹And yet, in spite of having said this several times, the detractors still insist on displaying their stunted empathy, intellectual disability and mental immaturity by refusing to accept that this is in fact our position. They refuse to engage in subtlety of conversation, of thought. They are incapable, it seems, of nuance.

If this is not deliberate, then I hold some hope (however little) that perhaps they may be taught these things. Nevertheless, I am at the point where I am about to give up, and just leave them to their ignorance.

If, on the other hand, this refusal is deliberate, then I should have left them to their stupidity (for so it is, if deliberate) a long time ago.

So....this will be my last post answering their questions, if they do not display some level of progress in their understanding of my position as I understand it (as opposed to their caricature of it), whether they actually agree with it or not. (I may still post on the topic, but I will not engage with questions that show an inability or unwillingness to engage with what I'm actually saying, and not with a straw man.)

2012-01-05T22:12:00.001-08:00

Really liked this article. It points out that American politics, unfortunately, has been (for a long time!) iteration after iteration of the old con game, "Let's You and Him Fight."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

Iconography and Graphic Design...

2012-01-04T14:38:00.000-08:00

We are an increasingly multi-media culture. We are also an increasingly "connected" culture, in terms of communication and information availability, although increasingly disconnected in terms of many other things -- one wonders if this latter is a direct result of the former? But I digress...

The Church as a whole, has jumped on the bandwagon, as evidenced by the fact that pretty much every church I know of has a website and/or FaceBook page. Even the monasteries are participating; e.g. one of the forums to which I contribute recently got a new member -- a monk residing at Simonas Petras on the Holy Mountain! (I didn't know the Holy Mountain gets internet, let alone had any interest in it. But again, I digress...)

However, even though we might be arriving at the party, I'm not sure we understand the party, and I'm doubly unsure that we've given it the deep, careful inspection it needs.

The Orthodox Church has a carefully developed, long-standing tradition of iconography. It includes a theology and methodology for each and every component of the task and output. True, there is room in it for a great variety of style and presentation, but the underlying principles are clear, and were thought through long ago.

What I have not seen (yet¹) is a careful, prayerful application of the spirit and thought underlying that ancient tradition to the contemporary condition. That is, has anyone looked at how these things might be applied to (or rather, expanded into) the digital and print worlds?

As far as I know, the last time any development of this sort took place was in the application of these principles to Western Renaissance and enlightenment painting methods, and to neon lighting, the results of which can be seen in, respectively, the "Russian-style" icons, and some of the lighting of Russian churches built in the States in the 20's and 30's, when neon was still a novelty.²

But both of these media are still in the hand-produced, physical realm. Since that time, we have seen the rapid development of new media and media types that represent a complete sea change, particularly audio recording, photographs, and moving pictures (both theater and television), etc. This innovation has coincided with the technological advancement of content delivery methods, which expand both the distance and quantity of distribution to previously unheard-of (and largely unimagined) scope, including radio, television, telephones and faxes.

All of these various technologies have congealed into the massive beast we call "the internet". Whether this is the end of the line, or just the precursor to something even more, I do not know. However, there is no doubt that the capabilities of the internet, with all its peripherals (Xbox, computers, smartphones, etc.) are the culmination of the previous things, including and massively expanding each of them, manifesting an easy synergy which is far more than the sum of its parts.

These things have happened quite rapidly, and the Orthodox Church, for the most part, has either completely eschewed them, or has embraced them wholeheartedly, including the techniques for producing content for them, and the assumptions underlying their development and use in general.

My point here is not so much a statement, viz., "This is not good!" or "This is perfectly fine." Rather, I am asking a question: "Is this good? Have given the requisite thought and prayerful consideration to our use of these new technologies? If not, where do we start?"

Like any mere technology, the internet, I think³, is neither inherently good nor inherently evil; it contains both in large quantities (although I'm pretty sure the percentages skew heavily toward the "evil" side -- or, at best, toward the "useless"). But if we are to "baptize" the internet, to make proper use of it for the Kingdom of God, we have to examine it carefully, including not just its outward forms, but also its underlying assumptions, and those of each of its parts.

This is a massive undertaking, no doubt. However, I think this is a vitally important question, and we should not shrink from it simply because of the difficulty of the task.

I'm convinced that this is a critical question because 1) we do have an Orthodox Theology of iconography, and that Theology IS part of the tradition of the Church, and, 2) these modern developments are themselves comprised largely of iconography, even to the point where the universal User Interface, in all but the most basic of its iterations, is shot through with elements that are actually called "icons".

Furthermore, we are called to be "in the world, but not of the world." This means that we do not shrink away from it, but rather, as did our Savior, enter into and redeem it by, as Paul says, "using [it], and not abusing it." We should view it as being crucified to ourselves, and ourselves to it. But what does this crucifiction look like? What form does it take? How is it manifested in this modern technology?

The world has a fully developed, carefully directed, specifically formed iconography (we call it "Graphic Design", and "User Interface Development", etc.). An great example of the world's perfection of this art is the Apple design ethos.

In addition, the Orthodox Church definitely has an active and growing presence in this new, digital world. My question is: what have we, so far, allowed to guide and underlie the shape of that presence? Have we even thought about it?

What does an updated⁴ Orthodox Iconography look like, to the glory of God and the edification of the Church? Maybe it looks like what we're already doing now; maybe it doesn't. But either way, we need to give it a look.

I have no answers in this post. I'm just scratching my head, and trying to start a conversation that I hope will be given some serious prayer and reflection, and perhaps even discussion, both informal and formal, by the Church at large. :)

I am particularly interested in the thoughts and feelings on this matter of the Church's tonsured iconographers, but also of those who have been tasked with maintaining their community's interaction(s) with these new media.

Perhaps these things have already been hammered out, and I'm just late to this particular party. But if not, may the Lord (continue to) direct our steps in all things, that we may in all things be pleasing to Him.

---- NOTES:

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying I haven't seen it yet. If you have, please point me to what you've seen. Thanks! :)

²I personally think that the inclusion of neon signage in the Church, at least in the way I've seen it done so far, is gaudy at best. I think it smacks very much of "we didn't actually think this through all the way". But this is just my opinion; regardless, though, I do think the lack of universal acceptance so far does tend emphasize my point regarding the even newer media discussed.

³Yes, I realize that this paragraph is itself based on (or rather, expressing) some un-addressed assumptions. However, I think that on these, the horse has already left the barn a long time ago.

⁴Not changed! Rather, applied to the modern media situation.

More on Ron Paul's Non-Interventionism

2011-12-22T10:55:00.000-08:00

I just read this article, and watched this video, which explain quite nicely exactly what a Ron Paul foreign policy would look like (the video), and how this is not new or strange (the article), but is in fact exactly "conservative" -- that is, old school Republican, which the party seems to have forgotten.

Something that particularly stuck out was this quote by Warren Buffet's dad, Howard:

Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.

Our condition at the present time proves him right every point. 'Nuff said, I think.

Book Recommendation

2011-12-15T20:52:00.000-08:00

I am almost done reading The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, by Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

I cannot recommend this book more highly!

Of course, I believe it will have the most impact on Orthodox people, in affirming and renewing (again!) their faith, if only because it's written by an Orthodox priest, about the Liturgy that the Faithful experience every week. So we have a real concrete experiential knowledge to what he's talking about.

However, even for those who are not Orthodox, or even who are not liturgical or sacramental, I think it gives a masterfully woven, completely historical and solidly scriptural look into what liturgy and sacrament are really all about. So if you don't want to begin to understand, don't read this book. ;)

If you want to get a taste, Google Books has it, but with most of the book removed. :( However, on quick review, I'm pleased to notice that there is a good portion of the first and second chapters -- definitely enough to get a feel for the book. I must warn you, though, that it just gets better and better as the book progresses (kind of like the Liturgy itself ;) ), so -- as excellent as the first part is -- you're still only getting a little glimpse of the full glory.

Enjoy!

Non-Intervention In the Real World

2011-11-18T10:00:00.001-08:00

I received a list of excellent questions from an Anonymous commenter on my last post, summarized by the first one: "How does non-intervention work in the real world?" There are several followup questions, so I'll answer them here.

You write: "If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our own borders"
So there is some discussion amongst non-interventionists as to whether or not the U.S. would keep a standing army?

This is more a dispute between Libertarians in general. Most non-interventionists (including myself) would not go as far as to completely disband the military. However, we would significantly reduce it's size when not in times of declared war. The details of the reduction (which branches get cut the most, what we do with the hardware in the meanwhile, how we keep people trained in it, etc.) would be up for serious discussion.

Would I be correct in assuming that “standing army” is a metaphor for all branches of the U.S. military?

Yes.

Does that mean no power projection b y the U.S. naval fleet in the Pacific or Persian Gulf?

In the Pacific? No, since those waters directly touch our own. The Persian Gulf? Maybe. This would be an area for discussion

Does that mean no forward military bases in Korea, Germany, etc?

Each base would need to be evaluated, based on several criteria, including consultation with the host government. (I mean, we wouldn't like it if Germany just put some "forward bases" on American soil, would we? No. Sure, we let them use our bases, but we would absolutely object to them owning a base here. Quid pro quo, I say.)

What does this mean for the countries that the U.S. has guaranteed their protection?

Why are we guaranteeing protection for countries? Are they paying for that protection (by money, resources, etc.)? Obviously, Israel is at the top of the list. The solution to that is easy: leave them alone, and stop sending money to their enemies ("Foreign aid").

What happens if some country, say Iran, decides to block the Strait of Hormuz? Keep in mind that even the threat of a blockade would send the oil markets sky-rocketing and the U.S. and world economy into a free fall.

The answer to this is multi-faceted. The first thing to do is to ramp up domestic oil production by removing the suffocating regulations the EPA has placed on the oil companies, and by lowering (or eliminating) the taxes for domestic oil, while (potentially) raising the tariffs for foreign oil. That makes the impact of an action such as you describe much smaller.

Next (maybe even at the same time), we lift the sanctions on Iran: stop choking them out, and start a vigorous trade and diplomacy with them. Become a partner that they would not want to harm. (This is the carrot.)

On the other hand (the stick), make it clear that such an action would be viewed as an act of war. If they proceed, we will get the Congress to declare war with clearly defined objectives, go kick their asses until those objectives are met, then come home.

This is what I was getting at in my original post. Isolationists would just close their eyes and say "none of our business". Non-Interventionists are simply reluctant to get involved militarily. If we must get involved militarily, we will, but we would really prefer to solve the problem through truly peaceful means. Also, if we do finally pull out the guns, we do so by following the constitutional process, and we don't lie about our reasons. We finally "grow a pair". If we're going to war for oil, then say "we're going to war for oil, because we need it. We've tried every other way to get it, and none of it's worked." If Congress won't pass that, then we don't go to war. It's that simple.

One way the U.S. keeps the peace is via its military power projection throughout the world.

Even if this is true (I don't think it is), my point is that this is a flawed method of keeping the peace. It does not work, long-term. In fact, it's already starting to fail.

But why do I say it's not true? Because if you look at the century of US power, you find the bloodiest century in the history of the world. There was no peace in the 20th century. What peace are we keeping, when we are constantly at war?

The US has followed the way of Rome, and has lasted even less time, even when you take the rapidity of modern life into account. Non-Interventionists say that we ought rather to follow the way of Byzantium, which lasted just over 1,000 years, and was only brought down by the combined efforts of the other two superpowers at the time: the Roman Catholic Church and the Muslim Caliphate.

To think that the greatest power in the world would simply walk away from its position is unthinkable. Especially since it would endanger its national security and economic stability.

Non-Interventionists don't advocate that we "simply walk away from [our] position". That's what isolationists advocate. This was my whole point: that we are not isolationists. We are advocating, rather, that we solidify and strengthen our position by putting our military to proper use, and bringing the other engines of state back into the foreground where they belong.

Isolation vs. Non-intervention

2011-11-01T17:50:00.000-07:00

Those conservatives who oppose Ron Paul's bid for presidency tend to do so because of his foreign policy. The word "isolationism" is bandied about rather loosely. To borrow a phrase from Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

The detractors accuse Mr. Paul of wanting to isolate the United States, to stop having anything to do with the rest of the world, to withdraw our entire world presence to within our borders, and "go dark", supporting ourselves and our way of life, and the rest of the world be damned. That is isolationism.

There is another concept, which actually comprises Mr. Paul's (and my) actual stance: Non-Intervention.

What is Non-Intervention? It is maintaining trade and diplomatic relations with the world, to further our national interests, while remaining free of entangling alliances and military action, as much as possible. If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our own borders. We maintain peace through strong defense and being "good neighbors". Non-Intervention is just that: not intervening in the affairs of others.

The warmongers would portray non-interventionists as isolationists, who want to become the weird guy in the house on the dead end of the street, who never comes out and never talks to anybody. If he does come out, it's only to yell at the kids to get off his lawn.

That is far from an accurate picture. We are currently acting like the neighborhood mafia don, with the idea that the world is our territory, we run the show, and if you don't fall in line, we're gonna break your fingers and/or blow out your kneecaps. Non-interventionists just want to be good neighbors.

We want to stop being the bully of the world. We want to be well-adjusted adults, trading and talking with our neighbors, and at the same time maintaining our own sovereignty. The use of military force should be a last resort, entered into reluctantly (although decisively), with clear goals, and a clear declaration of war. It should be ended as soon as possible.

Our platform is one of vigorous trade and open diplomacy, avoiding entangling alliances, in the fashion of old Byzantium, with military force available and decisive, but used only when absolutely no other option remains.

This is not isolationism. This is non-interventionism. Hopefully, you can now stop confusing the two.

On Money....Economics 101

2011-10-24T19:19:00.000-07:00

Something I've noticed recently, even among Ron Paul supporters like myself, is that people seem to have forgotten that ALL money, whether gold, paper, electronic, or moon dust, is fiat.

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value".

(To those reading this who already know how money basically works, feel free to skip down a bit. The important bits that this explanation supports are marked below.)

Let's examine this from a purely economic perspective first. "Value" is entirely subjective. One can only speak of the value of one quantity of a thing in terms of a certain quantity of another thing.

In a barter system, you have individuals delivering goods and/or services (hereinafter, simply: "resources") in trade for other resources. The "value" of each resource is determined by the parties engaged in the transaction, and can only be understood, therefore, in terms of the other resource.

For example, Ghassan the shepherd and Sharif the carpenter each have a need. Sharif needs a few sheep to feed his family, and Ghassan needs a shelter for his sheep. So Ghassan and Sharif get together and talk about this, and come to an agreement: Sharif will build one 100 cubit square shelter for Ghassan's sheep in exchange for ten of those sheep. What is one shelter worth? What are 10 sheep worth? In this transaction: 10 sheep and one shelter, respectively. We cannot speak of actual value of the sheep without reference to the shelter, and vice versa.

But perhaps Sharif does not need sheep. Perhaps he has done this same transaction with all the shepherds in the area, and actually would be happy if he never saw another sheep in his life.

So a direct transaction is not going to happen. Ghassan still needs the shelter, though. He knows that while Sharif does not need sheep, he does need shoes, and the Al-Rabi the cobbler happens to need sheep. So Ghassan, Sharif, and Al-Rabi get together and discuss it for a while, and come to the conclusion that Ghassan will give Al-Rabi six sheep, Al-Rabi will make two pair of shoes for Sharif, and Sharif will build the one shelter that Ghassan needs.

What is the actual value of each item? the shoes are worth either 1/2 a shelter or 3 sheep per pair. The shelter is worth either 2 pair of shoes or 6 sheep. The sheep are worth 1/6 of a shelter or 1/3 a pair of shoes.

As you can see, the value of a sheep has risen in terms of shelters. (from 1/10 to 1/6) We'll come back to this when we discuss supply and demand later.

Now, though, let's focus on the complexity of this transaction. In a barter society, every transaction is like this one, and requires a lot of work to complete. Also, the transaction cannot be completed if Al-Rabi has taken a long journey, since it is his shoes and his need for sheep that allows Ghassan and Sharif to meet each others' needs.

So off goes Al-Rabi to Agorabad. But Ghassan needs that shelter right now! He can't wait until Al-Rabi returns: his sheep might die! So he strikes a deal with Sharif: I know you don't need sheep. But Al-Rabi will when he returns, and you will need his shoes. I will give you right now the sheep he will need then, if you will build me a shelter right now. You can use the sheep later to get what you need.

Ghassan and Sharif have just invented currency, although very primitive, and although it is based on real goods, it is still "fiat". Each sheep's value is set at the time of the transaction. What makes this currency and not simple bartering is that Al-Rabi, who Sharif is expecting to use the currency with later to procure shoes, had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction. Whether the value of the sheep remains stable depends entirely upon how closely the number of sheep Al-Rabi actually asks for in return for the shoes matches the originally expected number.

Well, time goes on, and eventually enough of these kind of transactions occur that people who are not Shepherds are raising a bunch of sheep they don't want. It's getting sort of cumbersome to maintain and transport the currency. So they all get together and decide to use something a lot easier to carry and care for to represent the sheep. They decide to use little wooden sticks: one per sheep. They even begin calling these "sheep", even though they are not actually sheep.

Of course, the little wooden sticks are "fiat" in the universally understood sense of the word. No one in his right mind would trade a little wooden stick for a sheep. But when the little wooden stick is bound by a promise that it can be traded for one sheep...that's important. It is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the sheep owner -- or whoever has the martial ability to take his sheep from him regardless.

-----IMPORTANT BITS-----

This is the foundation of money: trust, and consequences for breaking it.

I repeat: ALL MONEY IS FIAT. There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

(If you disagree, and you got here by skipping the "basic stuff" above, go back and read it. You're back? OK. If you still disagree...let me know in the comments.)

So let's fast-forward to the modern dispute over the gold standard. Gold bugs will typically say, "But Gold has intrinsic value! It cannot lose its value like paper (or electronic bits) can!" Remember: there is no intrinsic value. Gold is useless to all but the goldsmiths (and nowadays, the electronics industry). So for everyone else, gold's "intrinsic value" is still based on the the trust that whoever needs to be paid will actually accept it as payment.

If we ever have a society where goldsmiths and electronics are not needed (post-apocalyptic survival scenario, for example), it won't have any value at all, except whatever people want to assign it for use as currency (fiat again, and very meta).

Now before my fellow Libertarians lynch me as being anti-gold (I'm not), let me qualify: There is an "intrinsic value" of sorts to gold and other precious metals.

This value lies in the statistical likelihood that any particular party will place their full faith in the future usability of the metal as currency. Actually, that's not quite right. It rather lies in the individual's understanding of that statistical likelihood. In other words, whatever "intrinsic value" gold has, it has because the people using it calculate that there is a high statistical likelihood that the other party will also value it (for whatever reason).

In fact, this statistical likelihood is what all value is, let alone "intrinsic" value. (See above.) The reason government "fiat" money has value is because the force of arms raises the calculated statistical likelihood (and therefore the recognized value) of it's acceptance, as long as the people trust that a) the government can and will in fact use force of arms, and b) said use of arms will be effective.

I think by now it should be obvious that the argument over whether paper money is better or worse than gold money lies in the difference of who enforces the fiat: the government's use of arms, or the circumstances of the moment (the free market). :)

In the case of paper money, it's the government issuing the fiat, and enforcing it with the power of the sword. In the case of gold, it's still the government issuing a fiat, and enforcing it with the power of the sword. (See US Constitution, Article I, Section 10, cf. Section 8).

The difference is this: even if the government fell apart entirely, it is most likely that people would still continue to value gold. It is this valuation that is referred to as "intrinsic value".

The argument put forth by the "gold bugs" (myself included) is that the difference between the people's continued valuation and the government's fiat-ed valuation would be significantly smaller, and therefore less damaging to the economy for a plethora of reasons.

One of those reasons is that it's really difficult for the government to just "print" more gold coins, gold being scarce like it is.

While this is true, we must remember that the government could still inflate or deflate the currency another way: by exercising the Constitutional power to fix the value by fiat.

To do so, however, requires openness and explicit action, with a direct, obvious-to-all consequence; as opposed to a second- or third-hand effect that is easily obfuscated, and the primary actions of which are passed off to a third party to carry out (e.g. the Fed), so that the People remain ignorant of what's really going on.

And so (finally) we reach the true point: the argument for the gold standard is not, and should not be framed as, an argument for the inherent good of some material or another, as though that material will magically fix everything.

The argument is, rather, an argument for direct, open government. (If we are going to have government setting the value of the currency at all, that is.)

Gold and silver are the (constitutional) means for carrying this end into effect. They are not the end themselves.

On "the groove"

2011-10-10T11:59:00.000-07:00

I've noticed something. There are times when I am "in the groove", whether I'm working, or playing.

Some After-Action Report observations on these moments, in no particular order. Your experiences may be different; I would love to hear about them!

-- I am not aware of the "larger world": I am completely focused on what I'm doing. This is not to say that I forget about the "larger world", just that it is not important. What I do remember of it is brought to conscious thought only if it's relevant to what I'm doing, and only then for actual application.

-- I am usually enjoying it. Either what I'm doing itself, or the conquering of it.

-- I am usually completely fascinated by the beauty of whatever processes are involved, either physical, mental, or spiritual. (Usually, in fact, it is the unique combination of the three that is fascinating and beautiful.)

I know it's hard to imagine that there is beauty in everything...but there is. A subtler point I've noticed lately is that it's usually the finding and revelling in this beauty that -puts me into the groove-.

-- My ego (or rather, my awareness of it) is usually either completely wiped out, or vastly reduced.

-- When I spend a day "in the zone", I'm very tired afterward, but it's the best tiredness ever. :) And while my body and mind might be exhausted, I'm still refreshed in a way that I have yet to come across any other way. Once I've gotten a good night's sleep after one of these days...the next morning is the absolute best. If I cultivate this, I find it easier to slip back into the zone. If, on the other hand, I allow myself to indulge in a little lazyness and just bask in the "good feeling", it goes to waste. Not only does it go to waste: sometimes it even becomes negative! i.e., my productivity actually dips below average for a few days.

-- There are rhythms and cycles to a) when these "zone days" happen, and b) how intense they are/can be.

So here are a few take-aways I'm going to try to put into conscious practice, and see if they hold true:

1) Find the beauty in everything. Frequently, this is related to Christ somehow. Sometimes, I can't see how, but I can still see the beauty and thank Him for it. Find it. Revel in it.

2) Don't worry. Worrying is counter-productive anyway, not to mention spiritually damaging, since it comes from lack of faith.

3) Don't overwork or underwork yourself. "Whatever you do, do it with your might," yes. But also, take care of the body that allows you to manifest that might. Note: your brain is part of your body. Learn what makes it tick, and don't be stupid.

4) For those times when you just have to overwork yourself, do it in a planned fashion, and take a couple of days off afterwards to recharge. Then GET BACK TO IT. Learn to find the "sweet spots" in your body's (and your mind's/spirit's) rhythms for each different kind of "zone".

Schedule your work and play (remembering that most "play" is actually also work) around these "sweet spots". There are some days where being mentally "in the zone" just is not going to happen. Even these days can be useful, if you've planned for your "grunt work" (any repetitive, relatively mindless tasks) to be done then -- because this is another kind of "zone". For these days, what little mind you have available can be focused on the task at hand. If even this is not possible, focus it using memorized prayer or short, repeatable passages from Scripture.

(Note: you should be doing this all the time, and the focus should not be originated in the mind, while the heart does other things. Rather, it should originate in the heart, and be carried out by the mind. Nevertheless, this is especially important on days where you are doing "mindless" tasks, so as to keep what mind you have from wandering into sin.)

Something I've also noticed lately: If I cannot (or rather, could not...sometimes "can" and "could" are two different things) have at least my heart (if not my mind and body) in prayer while doing a thing, that thing usually turns out not to have been a good thing.

Update...

2011-09-22T16:15:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been quite some time since I posted...a little over a month, in fact.

In the mean while, I've turned 26, and also gotten a chance to visit some relatives I didn't even know (until recently) that I had, in West Virginia.

I had a wonderful time with my Dad, visiting my uncle Tom, my aunt Sharon and her husband Jack, and my Great Aunt Norma!

One of the neatest things about the whole experience was hanging out with Aunt Norma, who is about to turn 91 next month. She's got stories to tell, lemme tell ya! And fascinating ones, at that.

She took us to a couple of unmarked family graveyards from back in the day. (The graves are marked, but the actual graveyards aren't. You have to know where they are, since they are back in the forest off the beaten paths -- you have to hike a bit.)

She told stories about each of the people buried in these graveyards, some of whom she knew from when she was little, and some of whom had even fought in the Civil War!

I took lots of pictures and video, and when I got back to CA, I renewed my Ancestry.com membership and started my research back up with the new data I had gotten from the trip.

It was awesome to find the Civil War military service records of some of my ancestors, and to be able to help some of the other people who are researching the same section of the tree with the more accurate details gleaned from the trip. (Some of them had a lot of fuzziness in their data.)

Anywho...that's it for now.

On communication, the Gospel, and bibliolatry

2011-08-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine sent me a link to this article, about a group of Jewish scholars who are trying to recreate the "authentic Scripture" using all the methods of textual criticism.

She asked me what I thought about it. Here is my response.

My understanding of Mary's story...

2011-07-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

In response to my previous post about the ever-virginity of Mary, a fellow on one of the forums I frequent asked:

I'm wondering why Mary would choose to get married if she took that vow of virginity.

Here is my response, the historical bits of which I drew from On Orthodox Veneration of Mary, by St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco. I also include my own speculation about the motivations of the priests, and several other things, based on the facts of the historical bits.

-----------------------------
/begin forum post answer

This is a very good question, and one that is not answered in the Scriptures. It is, however, answered by the teaching of the Church.

Here is the answer, as best as I understand it:

According to the Tradition, Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, were aged and barren. They asked God for a child, and an angel informed them that they would bring forth a daughter. Overjoyed, they promised to consecrate their child to God, as Samuel was consecrated by Elkanah and Hannah in ancient times, under the same circumstances.

Like Samuel, Mary was delivered to the Temple service at age three. Upon arrival, she walked straight into the Holy of Holies, taking the grace of God which rested upon her into the Temple, which until then had been without grace. (This was the newly-built Temple into which the glory of God had not descended as it had upon the Ark of the Old Covenant, and on the Temple of Solomon.)

While she was given a place in the quarters specifically set aside for the virgins such as herself, she spent so much time in prayer in the Holy of Holies that one might say she lived in it. (Note that this is totally appropriate, if she is, as I have shown above, the Ark of the New Covenant.) So that nothing might distract her from prayer and heedfulness to herself, Mary gave to God a vow of virginity, in order to please only Him her whole life long.

Now, officially consecrated Temple service such as this ended at 12, so that the young ones might take their place in society. Once she reached that age, she was no longer permitted to stay in the Temple. Normally, for a female, the priests arranged a marriage to someone with good prospects, etc., like the parents would have if she were still under their care. If the parents were still living, their wishes would be taken into consideration as well.

However, the priests knew of Mary's vow. Because of it, they understood that she could not enter into a normal marriage. They also knew that they had to marry her off so that she would be taken care of according to both law and custom.

What to do, what to do?

They would solve their dilemma by betrothing her to an elderly widower (with his permission and understanding, of course). The two would be married for society's (and the law's) sake, but remain physically separate for her vow's sake.

But whom to choose?
[Edit: here is where I begin my own speculation]
Now, the priests knew several things. First, they knew that according to the Scriptures, Messiah would come from the house of David. Second, they also knew that according to the same Scriptures, He would be born of a virgin. Third, they knew that the time for that to happen, according to the prophet Daniel, was upon them.

They also had this fellow, Simeon, who had been told that he would see the Messiah in his lifetime, which was already dragging on a bit.

Additionally, because of the promises to the fathers, geneologies were some of the most important records they kept, and they kept them quite fastidiously. (Where else did you think Matthew and Luke got their information? After all, also according to tradition, Matthew's younger brother was a priest, with full access to the archives.) So they knew that any offspring of Mary was "first in line", if you will, for the throne of David, as far as the lineage from Nathan was figured (the secondary line).

They also knew from their records that Joseph was "first in line" for the throne, as far as Solomon's line -- the main line in the first place -- was concerned. And -- oh, look! -- he happens to be an elderly widower, too!

The priests were not stupid. They had "connected the dots" already -- probably as soon as Mary walked straight into the Holy of Holies without being killed, if not before.

How much of all this the priests bothered to tell Mary is not known. I assume not much, since they she seems to be rather clueless when Gabriel makes his announcement to her.

(Joseph doesn't seem particularly surprised. In fact, he seems somewhat hesitant, which would seem to indicate that he knew and believed what was going on. He maintains this humble hesitancy up to the point where Gabriel shows up and tells him to knock it off. This only makes sense if he knew way more than we initially tend to assume, based solely on Scripture. Which would make sense -- how else would he have agreed to this whole thing, unless the priests filled him in?)

But still, Mary and Joseph's ignorance notwithstanding, something tells me the whole birth of the Messiah thing wasn't that much of a surprise to the priests. Well, to a few of them, anyway.

They had all the ingredients in place. The only thing left to do was actually betroth the second in line (Mary, a virgin to boot) to the first in line (Joseph, who also "just happened" to be an elderly widower), and voila! out pops the Messiah. And so they did. And He did.

Suddenly a lot of things make way more sense (to me, anyway). It explains why the priests later on got so upset when Jesus didn't turn out to be quite the kind of Messiah they were hoping for -- they had put a lot of time and effort into setting the whole thing up!

Additionally, the sting of Jesus' rebukes of the scribes and Pharisees seem even more justified with this view in mind. Not only could they have figured out Who He was -- they themselves had set up the circumstances for Him to come! He wasn't condemning them for lazyness -- e.g. "You guys need to get off your duff and figure this out!" No, they knew Who He was. And they still rejected Him.

This scenario also answers one of the nagging questions I had about His visit to the Temple at age 12. How is it that a 12 year old boy from a backwater town is even given an audience among the most learned doctors and scribes of the day? Because they knew even then Who He was.

------

Sorry for being so long-winded, but this reads better as a story than as a straight academic answer, IMHO. :)

/end forum post answer

On the Sacrifices...

2011-07-28T14:09:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: When I ran this by my priest/pastor/spiritual father for review, he said that nothing immediately jumped out at him as incorrect. However, he did say that it reads like it is my own speculation, made without reference to the teaching of the Church. In this, he is correct. So take it for what it's worth, which is to say -- it's my so-far-uninformed opinion on the matter. :) I do look forward to delving into the teaching of the Fathers (old and new) on the Liturgy, but I haven't done so yet.
------------------------------------------
Ok, this is going to wander a bit, but bear with me.

I find it interesting that in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts, the offering is referred to as "this reasonable and unbloody service"; whereas after the invocation, they are referred to as "this reasonable service."

Why the difference? Because the invocation itself calls upon the Holy Spirit to

make...that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ.

Prior to this, the gifts are our offering to God as a royal priesthood, and are symbolic of "ourselves and our whole lives," and all that we have received from Him in the first place. It is "Thine own of Thine own" that "we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all, and for all."

The language around this is reminiscent of St. Paul's admonition to the Romans (12:1,2), and to use, that we "present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is" our "reasonable service."

Now, according to the prayer, we

offer unto Thee gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our [the priests'] sins and for the errors of the people.

However, as these are unbloody at that point, it is evident that they do not take away these sins themselves, for

without the shedding of blood is no remission.

No, we offer these gifts unworthily, and ask that they may be changed into bloody Gifts in which there is remission, since we cannot offer anything of ourselves that would suffice.

And so the very next sentence is:

and make us worthy to find grace in thy sight, that our sacrifice may be acceptable unto thee; and that the good spirit of thy grace may dwell upon us and upon these gifts here offered, and upon all thy people...

This is fulfilled later, in the invocation and change of the gifts into Gifts by the Holy Spirit. The reason being that any offering by the priests is made acceptable only in and through and in conjunction with the offering of the High Priest. And Christ, being our High Priest, has offered Himself upon the Altar.

So when we offer our unworthy oblations (for we received from the Father even that which we offer), we ask that they be "for our sins and for the errors of the people", not in themselves, but in what they will become.

This becoming is not by our power or due to our worthiness, as though this were some magic ritual in which we punch the cosmic vending machine and out pops our treat.

No rather, they are fulfilled,

through the compassions of thine Only-Begotten Son, with Whom Thou art blessed, together with thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

We ought not take these things for granted!

How marvelous are thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast thou made them all.

And again,

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen!

"Therefore", as I noted above, the apostle beseeches us,

by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

And how reasonable!

Selah. [Stop and think about it.]

Ok, moving on. :)

Note that at the invocation, the request is not just that the Holy Spirit descend upon the Gifts. Rather, it is that God would

send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth...

Then comes the request regarding the gifts specifically, that they be changed by Him into the Body and Blood of Christ.

But to what purpose?

Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast.

Id est, the Holy Spirit makes the Sacrifice present to us so that we may partake of it, and receive it

unto cleansing of soul, unto the remission of sins, unto the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, unto the fulfillment of the kingdom of Heaven, unto boldness toward Thee, and not unto judgment or condemnation.

If the Holy Spirit is present only in the Gifts, and not in us also, we do not receive the benefit, for

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing...

The Flesh has no power of it's own, even as it had not power of it's own before it was offered (i.e. while Christ was "in the days of his flesh").

Nevertheless, we must eat the Flesh, since it is actually what was offered (cf. Heb. 10:5-10). The saving action is from the nature of God, and not inherent to the nature of the Flesh.¹ However, the Power is mediated to us by means of the Flesh, for two reasons.

1) The natures are two, true, but the Person is One, and so cannot be separated or divided.

2) We also have flesh, which is to be included in our salvation, as the author says previously,

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same...

And so we must have faith, yes, but we must also eat the Body and Blood.

Since the Holy Spirit is the superintendent (and Actor) of this whole "operation of God", we ask for Him to come down upon not only the Gifts, but us also, that we may be partakers.

This is what is meant by "the communion of the Holy Spirit".

Selah.

Now, some refer to the Liturgy as the "perpetual sacrifice of Christ". Unfortunately, there is a common misunderstanding regarding this. Many propose (some antagonistically, others dogmatically) that we are "re-sacrificing Christ".

But this is an error, as I intend to show.

The epistle to the Hebrews makes this quite clear:

[Christ] needs not daily, as those high priests [under the Law], to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

And later,

nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many...

And again,

...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

No, we do not "re-sacrifice Christ". Rather, by the Holy Spirit, the corruptible, "unbloody" gifts that we set forth (unworthily!) are changed into the already sacrificed Body and already shed Blood of Christ, so that we may eat the sacrifice, and thereby be included in the new covenant of which it is the seal, receiving therein the remission of sins, as was promised,

...their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

It is "perpetual" in that we perpetually receive it, perpetually partake of it, and therefore are perpetually cleansed by it.

This is contra the Protestant error which says that "the blood is applied by faith alone", and their other error of "once saved always saved." If these were not errors, then we would either not need the Eucharist at all (in direct contradiction to the command of the Lord), or need to partake only once (also in direct contradiction to the command of the Lord).

This is because the Sacrifice cleanses the sins that are past (Rom. 3:25), but not those that are not yet committed. This is indicated by the quotation of the promise of the new covenant by the author of the letter to the Hebrews (10:16, 17):

'"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days," saith the LORD, "...their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."'

and by his conclusion based on this:

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. ... For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins...

This is scary! It seems that if we sin willfully after our baptism and first communion, "there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

And yet no man is without sin, and so we must "find the way through repentance", confess our sins, and partake (again) of the sacrifice, and so be cleansed (again) from all unrighteousness.

That is why the author included the word "willfully". We must take the context of the letter into account. First, he writing to Jews, who were being tempted to return to Judaism. Pursuant to this, he makes it clear (10:29, 38, 39) that he is referring to a willful rejection of the Christian Faith, not the incidental sins which we may commit "whether voluntary or involuntary, of word or of deed, in knowledge or in ignorance" due to the weakness of the flesh.

He is not referring to the sincerely repentant sinner, but to "a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition..., knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself", whom we are to "reject", seeing that God already has done so (Hos. 4:6).
------------------------------------------------
¹See Hippolytus, "Against Beron and Helix", beginning at the part (Fragment V), which reads:

For lately a certain person, Beron, along with some others, forsook the delusion of Valentinus, only to involve themselves in deeper error, affirming that the flesh assumed to Himself by the Word became capable of working like works with the deity by virtue of its assumption, and that the deity became susceptible of suffering in the same way with the flesh by virtue of the exinanition; and thus they assert the doctrine that there was at the same time a conversion and a mixing and a fusing of the two aspects one with the other.

Which doctrine was also condemned at Chalcedon.

On the Mary's continued virginity after the birth of our Lord...

2011-07-26T14:36:00.000-07:00

There are some (I used to be among them) who say that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of our Lord, but rather consummated her marriage with Joseph and had several other children by him.

The tradition of the Church is that she was raised as a virgin in the Temple, in accordance with the Law, and was betrothed to Joseph as a protector who was much older (and had several children by a previous wife who had died), and that she preserved her virginity according to her vows even after their marriage.

I converted to the Church's viewpoint on this based on the fact that I thought the Scriptures were ambiguous about it (they do have explanations for those passages that might seem to indicate that she did not remain a virgin), and it did seem to be the majority (actually, the only) viewpoint until the Reformation — there was no reason to disbelieve it. But I didn't hold it dogmatically; just as a "Ok, whatever you say, as long as it's not actually contradicted by Scripture".

However, I recently realized something that has brought me from the "Ok, whatever, Scripture is ambiguous about it" viewpoint to the "I actually believe that this is what Scripture teaches" viewpoint.

So what was this epiphany?

It's rather simple. I realized that Mary's response to Gabriel's initial announcement makes no sense unless she had in fact taken vows of virginity, and had zero plans to change that, in spite of her pending marriage.

Think about it. In the Jewish world, due to the expectation of the Messiah, the gift of having children was seen as a great blessing — you, young lady, might just be the one who bears the Christ! Young Jewish wives who didn't have children were looked down on as rejected of God or some such.

So here comes Gabriel, saying, "Rejoice, Mary, you're going to be blessed with a child, and He will be the Messiah!"

If she was planning at all on consecrating the marriage with sexual intercourse, her response would/should have been something on these lines: "Wonderful! Hallelujah! We'd better get to work straight-away after the wedding! Have you told Joseph yet that he's gonna be the father of the Messiah?"

But she didn't say that. Even nowadays, her response only makes sense in the light of a vow of chastity. How much more so then, when she was already betrothed? If she was planning on having a normal physical relationship with Joseph, then her statement "seeing that I know not a man" as the reason behind her question ("how?"), was not even true, because even if she hadn't "known a man" up to that point, she was certainly planning on it. So there would be no basis for her to ask "how", because the answer would be obvious: by the normal means.

But she wasn't planning on ever participating in the normal means. So she asks: "How, since I know not a man?" In other words, "Well, I know how that would happen normally, but my vow precludes me from that. What means, then, is left?"

Now some might object that she was merely asking how this would be, since it was to happen before she got married. But notice that Gabriel's announcement does not mention a time period. We know from the narrative that it happened before their marriage. But there is no mention of this in the announcement itself, so Mary wasn't reacting to that. Indeed, there is ample evidence in the Scriptures (with which she was quite familiar) that sometimes the promises of God for the bearing of a child would not happen for many years (10, in Sarah's case).

So it's obvious that her response was not triggered by a statement that it would happen before she was actually married to Joseph. No, she was under a vow of virginity, as the Church has always held. And she did not break that vow, even after their marriage ceremony.

Romanides on the East/West Schism...

2011-06-21T15:47:00.001-07:00

I just read this essay by Fr. John Romanides, examining the political realities that lead to the Great Schism of 1094:

http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/romanorthodox.html

I find this fascinating, since it explains very well how so many doctrinal issues crop(ped) up, many of which are being battled over today on various forums.

Big Shepherd, Little Shepherd: An exploration of the pastorate, using Ps. 23(22). (Introduction)

2011-06-13T12:30:00.001-07:00

Today over at the Stuff Fundies Like blog, Pastor Jack Trieber received quite a bit of criticism for a point he made at the end of a sermon.

I responded, in his defense, on the discussion board for that post. In the course of the discussion, it was asserted that Ps. 23 does not describe the job of a pastor.

I disagreed, and promised to produce this blog post as proof of my counter-assertion: that each promise is made into a pastoral responsibility in the New Testament.

However, I now realize that if I do this as one post, it's going to be a long one! So I'm going to break it down into it's constituent parts, as a blog series.

I'll update each post with a "Table of Contents" at the top as I go. I'll also notify the forum of each one.

May the Lord grant me wisdom and knowledge in the Holy Spirit as I study, and humility in my presentation. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

So....life.

2011-04-22T16:09:00.001-07:00

Life sucks.

Life is awesome.

Contradictory statements?

Apparently not.

Paradox.

"God Gave us a Book" -- um....

2011-03-29T17:58:00.000-07:00

I came across this article today, in which the author expresses his opinion regarding Scripture.

I have to wonder, though, if this article is actually satire. It is such a fantastic example of the errors of Protestant (particularly "low-church") thought in many areas!

I will do my best not to die laughing and/or get completely pissed off while I review the problems with it.

In the first section, I do think he's dead on when he says, "Secularism is, more fundamentally, an utter denial of the sacred..." (So you see, I'm not disagreeing just to be contrary.)

In the second, (I'm still agreeing with him), his description of what the Bible is and how it came about (his understanding of inspiration) is excellent!

It's the third section that goes completely off the rails. And even it starts good. All the way through his statement, "Christianity is not merely a creed or an experience", I'm saying, "Amen!"

But his next sentence is astounding: "[Christianity] is, rather, a body of rational ideas which come from the mind of God."

*double-take* Say what?

This is the root of all of Protestant (and, to a large extent, Roman) error. Christianity certainly contains "a body of rational ideas which come from the mind of God." But it is highly inaccurate to say that Christianity IS that body of ideas.

He goes on to say that Jesus personifies the nature of God in that His life perfectly manifested that body of ideas.

Then he piles folly on folly and states, "Now that Jesus is gone, God communicates to us by means of a book." (emphasis his)

Bwahahahaha! He needs to read Matthew 18 and John 14-16.

The importance of Sanctification: an existential viewpoint

2011-02-23T17:54:00.000-08:00

I was over at the Stuff Fundies Like Forum, looking around, and saw a question posed by the Forum's creator:

Our identities are very tied to our flaws here in this world. The "me" (or "id" if you're so inclined) that I live with is prone to all kinds of things that the Bible calls sin and yet those behaviors make up a large part of both how I see myself and how others see me.

Then in Scripture we read that we will enter a sinless state in eternity. So how much of the "me" that I know now will go away? Will I still be recognizable as the person I am today or do we all enter some state of being holy clones when stripped of our battle wounds and fatal flaws?

One answer is that we will enter a state of being the "me" that we were originally intended to be before the fall. But I guess some part of me kind of likes being the one I am now even while recognizing the fallen state with which I still struggle.

My reply was as follows:

=========================================================================

This is an excellent question, one I hadn't really thought about before. But as soon as I did, several verses popped into my head, and I've had somewhat of an epiphany. (And boy am I feeling convicted right now!)

The "me" that is "prone to all kinds of things that the Bible calls sin" is called "the old self" (ESV) or "the old man". Also, "the image of the man of dust."

I think the Bible makes it clear that 1) we do NOT know what we will be, but 2) "when He shall appear", those things that "the Bible calls sin" will be stripped away, no matter how large a part those behaviors make up of our current self-image.

Here's the epiphany: that's why sanctification is so important!

(That's also why we Orthodox don't distinguish between justification and sanctification -- or not nearly as much anyway. But I digress.)

The more like Christ, who is our life, we are, the more of "ourself" we get to keep. ("Nevertheless not I, but Christ...")

Here are the relevant Scriptures that came to mind:

That the "old man" will be stripped away:

...but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. ... Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. -- I Cor. 13:10, 12b

(I know, I know...this verse is referring specifically to certain spiritual gifts. But the general principle is applicable to the conversation here.)

As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. -- I Cor. 15:48ff

That this is a great motivation for sanctification:

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. -- Col. 3:1-10

]Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who thus hopes in Him purifies himself as He is pure. - I John 3:2

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
...
The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."
-- John 12:24-36, cf. pretty much all of I John

Ok, I'm going to go repent in sackcloth and ashes now.

P.S. ephiphany #2:

In these you too once walked, when you were living in them.

I always thought Paul was being redundant here. But he's not. He's saying, "you walked in these things when they were your 'life'. Now they are not your life (or your "id" if you prefer), so why are you walking in them?! You must put them all away."

I need to go ponder that while I'm busy with the sackcloth and ashes. :)

On rocks and mustard seeds

2011-01-10T19:54:00.001-08:00

...And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose Kingdom shall have no end. — Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

Regarding the eschaton, that's as far as the Church takes it, officially.

However, it does have some definite teachings regarding the Kingdom and the End. Here is my understanding of her teaching.

The Kingdom is already established and active. (Or did you miss the whole "Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand" bit?)

1 Cor. 15, and Heb. 2 make it quite clear that Christ is reigning now, "for He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet."

This is the Gospel of the Kingdom: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" (Is. 52:7)

This is why Jesus said, as the foundational reason ("Go ye therefore") for the Great Commission: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matt. 28:18)

To "preach the Gospel" doesn't mean we go get people to check a doctrinal box that says they believe in Christ (although that box will be checked somewhere along the line, as the beginning of their salvation).

No, to "preach the Gospel" means to herald to all that Christ reigns, by death having trampled down death!

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. — Ps. 2:5-9 (MT)

This is why the Apostles (and we as their successors in the Faith [II Tim. 2:2]) were witnesses "unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (Acts 1:8, cf. Is. 52:10)

This is also why the first Gospel Sermon on the day where Acts 1:8 began to be fulfilled was from Ps. 2. :)

Now, there is an admonition that goes with the Proclamation:

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. — Ps. 2:10-12 (MT)

So, since God the Father has set His Son on His Holy Hill of Zion, we proclaim the Kingdom, and teach all men to observe all His (our King's) commandments, lest they perish from the way.

The Jews, who knew the Psalms, understood this, which is why they were "pricked to the heart," and replied, "what shall we do?"

This is why all those who believe the Gospel are saved (I Cor. 15:1); because if you really believe that He is King over all, you will obey Him. (Luke 6:46) Or at least sorrowfully acknowledge your failure to do so, and truly repent, which counts too (I John 1:8-10). The Judgment in Matt. 25 is not a catechetical quiz. It's an examination of life-style, of obedience to the command to of our King to love our neighbor as ourselves.

I mean, how else did Paul get from "gospel = death, burial, resurrection, public witness" (I Cor. 15:1-8) to "He reigns" (v. 25)? Because it was the death, burial, and resurrection that was in mind in Ps. 2, as Peter clearly says (the "public witness" part) in Acts 2.

(In this context, Heb. 2 makes a whole lot of sense! Let the reader understand.)

That's also why Jesus quotes Isaiah 62:11 to John in Rev. 22:12 -- He is The End to whom YHWH said, "Say ye to the daughter of Zion..." So He did. :)

(That He is The End, we see in the next verse, Rev. 22:13: "I am...the end...")

Getting back to eschatology: None of this makes any sense if we are still waiting for the Kingdom. It's here already. Get used to it. :)

(NB: The reason this may not be so obvious to some is that the Kingdom is not a Kingdom of this world [John 18:36], and it's not an outward Kingdom [Luke 17:20, 21], easily seen.)

The Kingdom is already established and growing. "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands," has already come ("which Rock was Christ").

"The stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." That's happening now. (cf. Matt. 13:31, also cf. Matt. 21:44 with Dan. 2:35)

Anybody care to guess what another name for the Kingdom is? (Hint: see I Pet. 2:1-10, cf. Rev. 1:4-7, 5:10, cf. Eph. 1:20-23)

Spinning....

2010-12-10T17:25:00.000-08:00

Reference (Just one of many such stories)

So....basically...the Democrats overspent by $857 Billion dollars on the completely unfounded assumption that they would be able to raise taxes to cover it.

Then they try to blame Republicans (who are not yet in control of either house, btw), who are just doing what they have always done.

They do this by assuming that taxes should be raised (read: more of your money should be ~~stolen~~taken), and then calling anything less than that a "tax cut" and "adding to the deficit".

Does anyone else see the insanity here?

Go-Kart Racing...

2010-12-08T09:20:00.000-08:00

Last night, we had a company Christmas party at the Driven Raceway, recently opened here in Fairfield.

We had the facility to ourselves for two hours, and another hour after that where the public was allowed back in.

We had open snack bar and free games (it's also an arcade) the whole time (the public didn't!), and pizza afterward.

This was seriously one of the most awesome times I've had in a long time. :)

The karts go up to 45 mph, and each race is 17 laps. I raced four races, and won them all and I put up a best lap time of 18.959. Ok, so I didn't exactly win the last race, but that was one with the public involved, and I got fourth. I did, however, beat everyone from our company, so I count that as a win, too. :)

Anyway, if you are in Fairfield looking for something to do, Driven Raceway is definitely great fun to consider!

On the porno-scanners (i.e. the TSA's newest "security measure")

2010-11-09T17:56:00.000-08:00

Sooo....there's been a lot of stuff flying around about the new "backscatter" scanning technology the TSA is making mandatory. Ok, not mandatory; but the only alternative is a thorough groping that would get any normal person slapped with a restraining order at best.

Here, in no particular order, are a few ways I've come up with to do "peaceful resistance."

1. As you walk through the security line, just strip naked. Stark naked. When you are inevitably asked what the h*** you're doing, say, "just trying to make this go faster!"

2. Opt for the grope-down, then vocally "enjoy" it. Ham it up.

3. Insist on quid pro quo with the Agent, whether you do the backscatter or the groping.

4. Make lewd comments on the way to the groping room. (I'll leave the particulars up to your imagination.)

On the Victory of the Cross...

2010-10-07T14:47:00.000-07:00

I was going to repost this, but I figured...I'll just link to it. :)

Here.

On the Soul, Spirit, and Body, death and resurrection

2010-09-13T14:42:00.000-07:00

EDIT (9/15/2010 4:08 p.m.): This is a work in progress, and generally paints with a very broad brush.

However, please understand that my modus operandi with this article is to purposely narrow the semantic range of the words "spirit" and "soul" to their (apparent) usage in Gen. 2:7, and to try to understand and/or translate those exact words as used in the rest of Scripture from their meanings to be consistent with this new narrower range.
--------------------------------
My current understanding of the nature of death and the Scriptural (or more accurately, Traditional, of which Scriptural is a part) definitions of the spirit, soul, and body, is as follows:

That the "living soul" is the union of spirit (from God) and body (from dust). (Gen. 2:7)
That death is the separation of that spirit from the that body, resulting in the corruption of said body, and the return of the spirit to God. (Eccl. 12:7)
(This spirit is what is commonly referred to today as "the soul", which leads to some confusion...thus this essay.)
That the spirit does NOT lose it's individuality — that is, it's identity — upon its return to God. It remains a Person (in the trinitarian sense — a hypostasis), but it is not a "living soul" (a "person" in the sense used in the class on the go CD's — the union of spirit and body), and is unable to perform any acts, because it does not have the body to act through.
That the terms translated as these terms in the Scriptures, particularly "spirit" and "soul" do not always carry the exact meanings given here, so the semantic range shifts (in English for sure, and maybe even in the originals). Therefore "proof texting" is pretty much useless on this topic. Context is key to understanding.
That, for the purposes of this discourse, and limiting the terms to their understandings as described above, "death" is always the separation of the spirit from the body, resulting in the non-being of the "soul" (once again, not the modern "soul" which is more akin to the "spirit" as used here).
(Side note: Therefore, to speak of the "immortality of the soul", in which "the soul" is taken in it's modern meaning more akin to "spirit" as used in this essay, is a non sequiter. To speak of mortality and immortality at all of necessity involves all parts of man in the discussion: body, soul, and spirit. In other words, to speak of death in reference to only one of these is impossible, since they are interconnected in mysterious and inseparable ways.)
That in the original creation, as in the resurrection, the body created from the dust was maintained incorruptible by the perfect union of the spirit with itself, which spirit was in constant communication with God's own life-giving Spirit (inferred from Gen. 3:8) and was in the state we now refer to as "glorified" (inferred from Gen. 2:25), and was not subject to nature, but rather master of it (Gen. 1:26).
That the fall of man was precisely this: when man cut himself off from God by disobedience to His command, his spirit, being from God, lost it's source of sustenance (that is, God, Who alone "has life in Himself"), and the perfect union of the spirit with the body was disrupted, and "the soul that sinned" died "in that day", as had been warned.
So then the body is no longer maintained incorruptible, and is now subject to the laws of nature, rather than nature being subject to it, as at the first. (And as a result, all nature itself lost it's direct connection to the life-giving spirit, and was "made subject to corruption" also.)
Therefore, "death" occurred at the very instant of the fall, but by the mercy and power of God the body was allowed to hold onto the spirit it was given, so that death was not fully manifested in the first Adam for almost 1,000 years after (and a much shorter period now), when the body of the first Adam returned to the dust. (That is to say, naturally -- although death was manifested unnaturally in his offspring through murder. But I digress...)
I say "by the mercy of God", because this delay allowed man to propagate, and obtain a sort of holding pattern, "under bondage to the elements of the world" (Gal. 4:3), until the coming of the Promised One, even though the individual members of the race each returns to the dust in his own time (and still do so).
(Basically, this mercy of God denied Death a final victory, so that He Himself could destroy it "in due time" when He "died for the ungodly.")
However, in all the time that this corrupt body holds onto its spirit, still cut off from God,
the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Gal. 5:17, see also Rom. 7)
That in the coming of the Promised One, God reunited Himself to mankind, (and, conversely, reuninted mankind to Himself). This Man, the second Adam (that is to say, the recreation of the race in, by, through, and to Him), was not merely a body with a spirit from God, but is God Himself (Who is Spirit) united with a body like ours ("made of a woman", Gal. 4:4) to be the God-Man: Jesus.
(NOTE: For the purposes of this discussion, I have intentionally ignored the distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, subsuming them all under the title "God").
And through this God-Man, God once again breaths His Spirit into Mankind (Gal. 4:6). (More on this below.) And so
And so it is written, 'The first man Adam was made a living soul;' the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)
That the death of this Jesus on His Cross was, like the death of all men, the separation of His Spirit from His body (and it's return to God). But the key difference is that His death was voluntary, and not of necessity (as for other men). This is evident, for as He Himself said,
...I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:17b, 18)
That because of it's voluntary nature, His death is the trap wherein God caught (and slew) death: He by right took up again that body which He had voluntarily "offered by the eternal Spirit" (Heb. 9:14). But because He was not subject to death, but voluntarily gave Himself over to it, He also was able to take His life back from death, and thereby to destroy death.
This, incidentally, is the entire purpose of His union with "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) (that is to say, unglorified flesh, subject to death) —
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb. 2:20)
And so
this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost [that is, to rescue from death] that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb. 7:24, 25)
For as He says,
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev. 1:18)
That the "resurrection of the dead" at the end of the age is the reunification of the spirit(s) with the (glorified, incorruptible) body(/ies) -- that is, the body restored to it's pre-fall existence. Christ the firstfruits, and those that are His at His coming.
That the rescue from death occurs for all men, and therefore
the living God...is the Saviour of all men (1 Tim. 4:10)
That all will be raised, He Himself testifies:
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth. (John 5:28)
But that some who are raised will be raised to "damnation", since they did not obey the Gospel of God before their death. And thus
[He] is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)
That although all will be raised, some (who still reject and try to flee from Him) will be raised to everlasting torment, and some (who love and obey and rejoice in Him, i.e. "all them also that love His appearing" [2 Tim. 4:8]), everlasting bliss.
That we who believe, repent, and are baptized into Christ are baptized into His death and resurrection, and thereby receive remission of sins and "the earnest of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Rom. 8:11), Who, if we do not grieve and drive away through a return to unbelief and sin,
seals us unto the day of redemption, (Eph. 3:30)
and
sanctifies us wholly; and preserves our whole spirit and soul and body blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23)
so that
be[ing] found in Him...our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto Himself. (Phil. 3:20)
This is the great hope of all the saints, by which we are saved. (1 Tim. 2:13; Tit. 3:7; 1 Pet. 1:3, 13; 1 John 3:3)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. (Nicene Creed)

On my birthday...

2010-09-13T11:46:00.001-07:00

This past Friday (Sept. 10) was my birthday. I did absolutely nothing to celebrate it.

In fact, I was planning to take the day off; but circumstances (and the fact that I had already taken Monday off for Labor Day) dictated that I actually work, and I wound up working harder than the rest of the week combined (not longer, but definitely harder).

Again, I was planning on a little celebration on Saturday, but got caught up in some more work that wasn't supposed to take that long.

What's surprising to me, though, is that by saying this, I'm not complaining. :) I used to really look forward to my birthday; but this year, it was just another day — and I'm OK with that!

I must be growing up or something.

LOL

QOTD: From the Post-Communion prayers...

2010-08-02T10:21:00.001-07:00

The Church is revealed to all as a brilliantly lit heaven, leading the faithful in the way of the light. Standing therein we cry aloud: make firm the foundation of this house, Lord.

On the use of the word "save" and it's derivatives...

2010-07-29T18:12:00.001-07:00

I wrote the following in response to a forum discussion, and you can see it there as well. But it reads like a Blog Post, and I needed something to put on here, since it's been a while, so here you go. :)

——————————

I think overall Scriptural use of the term "save" and it's derivatives is not as cut-and-dried as popular theology might have it. Or at least not enough to use it as a technical term in soteriological discussions, without further qualification.

Let me throw these into the pot....

I Cor. 7:14-16 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

I Tim. 4:16 "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

Clearly Paul has the idea that one human can "save" another by converting them. He even speaks of himself as saving people (I Cor. 9:22) "...that I might by all means save some." And again in Romans 11:14: "If by any means I...might save some of them."

James (5:20) has the same idea:

"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. "

Jude (1:23) also has this idea: "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

Peter also uses the term, saying that by repentance and baptism (i.e. being converted), one might "save" one's own self (Acts. 2:40). In another place he says that the baptism itself "saves" (I Pet. 3:21), because the conscience is purified by faith, and the convert enters by it into the resurrection.

This is the process whereby God saves a person: upon believing the gospel, and having therefore repented, the convert is baptized into Christ's death, and (by grace through faith working in love) walks in the Spirit -- in newness of life -- shall be (by the operation of God) raised with Him (see Paul: Rom. 6:3, 4 and Col. 2:12). And so Jesus says, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned."

So my thesis is proved: that Scripture uses the term "save" rather broadly -- to refer to the whole process of conversion, including the actions and teachings of those converting another; the repentance, faith, baptism, and continual living in the Spirit by the convert him/herself; and the "operation of God" (i.e. grace).

Therefore we see (from the Scriptures) that the process of this salvation is participatory; and not only does the person being saved participate, but also those praying for him, converting him, baptizing him, exhorting him, teaching him, etc (not to mention the operation of God Himself, without which none of the above would have any effect).

(NOTE: This is why we Orthodox offer and participate in the Eucharist "on behalf of all, and for all," and say at the end of Vespers, "Most Holy Theotokos, save us." These are reminders that we are each responsible for our neighbor's salvation, by our prayers, examples, exhortations, etc.)

When this broader definition is understood, the statement of Paul and Silas is rather obvious in it's import. There is no problem affirming that the faith of the one would save the whole household. Not that the merits of the one imputed by his faith would be then imputed to the others by that one's faith, regardless of the others' own faith. But rather that the faith of the one would (or should) be 'contagious,' as it were.

And such is the case, as we see in the following verses: they preached not only to the jailkeeper, but "to all that were in his house." And the jailkeeper "was baptized, he and all his" (italics mine). And he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

busy...

2010-07-28T09:13:00.001-07:00

Don't worry...I haven't forgot about this. I'm just really busy lately.

And I don't really have much to say right now, either. But being busy doesn't help me come up with new stuff in the first place, so...hopefully the two will get fixed at the same time. :)

QOTD

2010-07-04T23:20:00.000-07:00

There’s something in the air out there, a growing realization that the “post-industrial” society probably can’t last. What’s more, people are starting to realize that it doesn’t even really make them happy, that they’re losing touch with many of the activities that make them feel human. This realization is creating a curious junction out there where the self-negating eco-hysterics of the far left meet and exchange ideas with the self-preserving survivalists of the far right. The underlying philosophies differ of course, but both groups seem to be praying for some kind of collapse or zombie apocalypse so that they can quit their crappy, numbing jobs on corporate campuses and start growing their own lettuce after the shit goes down. The left knows that keeping everything local is more practical and sustainable, and the right knows that humans are flawed and someone’s going to have to kill the bastards who want to steal the cauliflower.

From here.

Somewhat (but not too) relevant NOTE: I own the book by Mr. Crawford. :)

On Who I am, and what I want to Do...Followup

2010-06-26T12:36:00.001-07:00

I have a confession to make. I haven't been reading my Bible much this week.

So, I finally had some free time today, and sat down to read my daily Psalms. When I'm following my plan, it goes like this: at least 5 Psalms a day and 1 Proverbs a day. If I have additional time, some part of the Old Testament, usually one of the Prophets. (I typically tend to read the New Testament separately from my planned time.)

If I stick to this plan, it gets me through the Psalms and Proverbs every month. (5 psalms x30 days = all 150 psalms/month. 1 chapter/day in Proverbs = all 31 chapters/month.)

So today being the 26th, 26x5 = 130, so I sat down to read Ps. 126-130.

I love the Scriptures. So often they say exactly what I need to read at the time. And this was the case today.

Earlier this week, I recently came to the monumental conclusion that all I want in life is to be a true and good Husband and (if possible) father — "hearth and home," as my Mom so succinctly put it in a conversation yesterday.

So imagine my joy to have the first thing I read in the Scriptures after this crystallization be the following:

Ps. 126 (LXX)

¹An ode of ascents; for Solomon.

Unless the Lord build the house,
Those who build it labor in vain:
Unless the Lord guard the city,
Those who guard it stay awake in vain.
²It is vain for you to rise early,
To awaken from your rest,
You who eat the bread of grief,
When He gives His beloved ones sleep.

³Behold, children are the Lord's inheritance;
The fruit of the womb His reward.
⁴Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one,
So are the children of those who were outcasts.
⁵Blessed is the man who shall fulfill his desire with them;
They shall not be ashamed, when they speak to their enemies at the gate.

Ps. 127 (LXX)

¹An ode of ascents.

Blessed are all who fear the Lord,
Who walk in His ways.

²You shall eat the fruit of your labor;
You are blessed, and it shall be well with you.
³Your wife shall be like a vine,
Prospering on the sides of your house;
Your children like newly planted olive tress
Around your table.

⁴Behold, so shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord.

⁵May the Lord bless you from Zion,
And may you see the good things of Jerusalem
All the days of your life;
⁶May you see your children's children.
Peace be upon Israel.

On Who I am, and what I want to Do....

2010-06-23T23:04:00.000-07:00

"Color" warning: there are a couple of words in here that some might find taboo, or offensive. I have included them on purpose, and chosen them carefully. If you don't like it, tough. You have been warned. :)
------
I recently posted on FaceBook that I "want to be Tom Bombadil". I think that deserves an explanation.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a very wise friend, who confirmed what several others have told me recently: I need(ed) to figure out who I am and what I want to do with my life.

Now, I know who I am -- I'm a wretch, inexplicably given mercy by God and being led to salvation. This is very bewildering to me.

There are a couple of things I truly regret in my life -- sins against others for which I've since repented in many tears, but which still sting my soul when I ponder them (one very recent, the other half my life ago: you each know who you are). There are a whole lot more things that I've screwed up honestly, and taken a lesson from; so while I may wish they'd turned out differently, I don't REGRET them.

But here's the problem. I'm also a bloody romantic, and dammit if I don't honestly believe that each of us can be, by the grace of Almighty God, a truly good person, and make a difference in someone's life, if given half a chance. And I've got this crazy notion that I'm included in "each of us."

I have also known for quite some time what I want to do with my life. But I never wanted to face it, because, on the surface, it's cheesy. It just comes across as unmanly.

However, my friend was right: I needed to bring it to my conscious mind, accept it, embrace it, and move forward. So, in a fit of soul-searching and crying out to God for help, by His mercy and grace, I have finally done that. I now fully accept what I want to do with my life, cheesy though it may be. I know what is my heart's one desire. And to be honest, I'm quite excited about it. :)

So what's that, Steve?

First, what it's NOT. I do NOT have any aspirations of worldly success, of being rich, of being President (I'm fairly certain I'd be assassinated in the first month), a Bishop, Priest, or any such thing.

I'm not saying these things are wrong, or that I won't do them to the best of my ability if God asks me to do any of them. I'm just saying, these are not my driving goals.

I think the best way to explain it is how I explained it to another friend this morning. When I die (if the Lord doesn't return first), and they plant my body in the ground, there will (hopefully) be something on my headstone. It'll have to be short, and I want it to be true. What do I want it to say?

Here it is: "He was a good Husband." If it has "and father" on there, too, that'll be just fine by me. :)

That's it. That's what I want to do with my life. I want to be the best damn husband I can be, for God's glory, and for the ultimate salvation of those entrusted to me. I want to care for another person, body and soul, with the whole of my being.

So what of my "vocation" or "calling"? That's what I'm saying: my "calling" is to be a husband, true and good.

True, part of that is to be damn good at my job, and to enjoy it -- to advance within the organization (if I work for one, like I do now), or grow my business if I start one, or whatever.

But my driving force is not and will not be my job. It will be my care and love for and rejoicing in my family, or my looking forward to and preparation for that, anyway. And that's all I want.

Hopefully, you see how Tom Bombadil fits that description. He is a character (in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy) much like Adam was created to be -- and would have become, if he had never fallen. He is the master of his domain -- that area of life he has been given care over, yet no more -- and he has no ambitions for more. He has a strong wife, and he loves her dearly. She reciprocates that love. (He also lets her have fairly free reign over the house.) Also, Tom helps others back on their paths, while not trying to walk their path for them.

Bombadil loves life, and life loves him. In fact, he lives a very Orthodox, sacramental existence. As a consequence, the Ring has no power over him -- it neither makes him invisible nor affects his sight of others, and he does not think of it as of any significance.

So, to bring us full circle: by the power of Christ, Who came to restore us to Paradise ("for us men and for our salvation..."), I want to be (like) Tom Bombadil. I want to enjoy whatever job I have at the moment, and be good at it, all to support being a true and good husband (and, if the Lord wills, father) -- the best I can be. Cheesy? Yep. But I don't care; it's who I am.

I'll do the first part (about the job, and living a sacramental life to the glory of God) while waiting/looking for "the one" who will be entrusted to my care (and to whose care I will be entrusted). And we'll see how it goes.

Pray for me!!!

On the Defeat of Satan...

2010-06-07T21:53:00.000-07:00

I just read this article on "Original Sin According to St. Paul," which, in it's conclusion, has these powerful thoughts (emphases in original):

Both Roman scholastics and Protestants are undeniably heretical in their doctrines of grace and ecclesiology simply because they do not see any longer that salvation is only the union of man with the life of God in the body of Christ, where the devil is being ontologically and really destroyed in the life of love. Outside of the life of unity with each other and Christ in the sacramental life of corporate love there is no salvation, because the devil is still ruling the world through the consequences of death and corruption. Extra-sacramental organizations, such as the papacy, cannot be fostered off as the essence of Christianity because they are clearly under the influence of worldly considerations and do not have as their sole aim the life of selfless love. In Western Christianity, the dogmas of the Church have become the object of logical gymnastics in the classrooms of philosophy. What is usually taken as natural human reason is set up as the exponent of revealed theology. The teachings of the Church concerning the Holy Trinity, Christology, and Grace, are no longer the accepted expressions of the continuous and existential experience of the body of Christ, living within the very life of the Holy Trinity through the human nature of Christ, in whose flesh the devil has been destroyed and against whose body (the Church) the gates of death (hades) cannot prevail.
...
The enemy of life and love can be destroyed only when Christians can confidently say, "we are not ignorant of his thoughts." Any theology which cannot define with exactitude the methods and deceptions of the devil is clearly heretical, because such a theology is already deceived by the devil. It is for this reason that the Fathers could assert that heresy is the work of the devil.

Wow. Good stuff. I highly recommend reading the whole thing. So go follow the link above already!

2010-06-01T18:22:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This post is somewhat personal, but it's a personal blog, so what the hay. If you don't want to see the personal side of me, close the tab/window, and wait for my next post(s).

Here goes! *holds breath and dives in*
--------------------

I recently wondered (via my status update on Facebook), if I will ever be "normal."

Let me explain. You see, as far as I know, most guys actually know how to be good friends with females their own age, without getting delusions of grandeur and romance about these friendships. By which I mean getting a crush on Every. Single.¹ One.²

Most guys. Not me. Uh-uh. No, yours truly has to run his heart through the meat grinder for each one before anything resembling a normal friendship with them happens. *facepalm*

Thankfully, there's usually someone whom I can get to slap me real hard (either literally or metaphorically) and snap me out of it. Not always, though.³ And even when there is, it doesn't always "stick".⁴ :(

It sneaks up on me, too. By the time I see it coming, it's already here, and it's too late to do anything about it except ride it out, or seek out the person who can best do the slapping mentioned above (the identity of this person changes case-by-case).⁵

Now, I'm getting better at hiding it (I think), so most of the time they don't even know it. Or if they do, they have the good grace to pretend they don't.⁶ ⁷ ⁸

Anybody⁹ got any advice?¹⁰ This is really annoying to me.¹¹

------
¹NB: "Single" here is to be read both ways -- individual, and not married. There seems to be a switch somewhere in my head that turns off this whole problem if I know the friend is married. That's good, I guess, since that would just cause more problems. But I digress.

²In turn, of course. Usually not all at the same time, although that did happen once — 'twas a very confusing time for me, let me tell ya!

³When there isn't one, the crush wears off; but it takes a whole lot longer. On the other hand, it usually doesn't hurt (me) as much, either. Kind of 6-of-one, 1/2-dozen-of-the-other, I guess.

⁴Thus this post.

⁵You'd think I'd have learned by now! But what am I supposed to do — stop making female friends? I'm pretty sure that's not it.

⁶For those of you who might be reading this who fall into the "knew it, but pretended you didn't" category — a huge thank you.

⁷Incidentally, it's the one's that don't know or pretend they don't know, who actually wind up being normal friends later, and usually really good ones. Ironic, ain't it? Sucks for me, though. (Actually, it's good in the long run, but the getting there burns something fierce.)

⁸Some who have noticed and didn't like it have "back-channeled" their discomfort to me through friends. That's always appreciated. Although every time this happens, I've been over it, or coming out the other end; so they've been behind the curve. Oh well.

⁹Male or female, any age, married or single — I'm taking all perspectives.

¹⁰I've disabled comments here, for this post, just because it's kind of personal, and I feel like I should. So if you've got advice, call me, text me, PM me on FB, send a carrier pigeon, smoke signals, sky writing...something.

¹¹And I imagine it's pretty annoying to the ladies, too.

Found it! (Finally!)

2010-05-04T23:02:00.000-07:00

Eureka! Eureka! Eureka!

No, I'm not running naked down the streets of old Syracuse.

Why so excited, Steve? Call it a little thing, but it always bothered me when Paul writes in Romans 3:10, "As it is written," and proceeds with a litany of accusations against the world that, with the exception of the rest of verse 10, is not found as a single passage anywhere in the Bible, yet it seems like he's quoting a single passage.

For eight verses, Paul is quoting Old Testament Scripture. But where is it found?

Some Bibles have references in the margins. Most Bibles reference the following verses, and have Paul bouncing all over the Scripture. Go ahead, look them up and compare. I'll wait.

Rom. 3:10b-12	Ps. 14:1b-3
Rom. 3:13a	Ps. 5:9
Rom. 3:13b	Ps. 140:3
Rom. 3:14	Ps. 10:7
Rom. 3:15-17	Is. 59:7, 8
Rom. 3:18	Ps. 36:1

You're back. Ok, that's a fairly decent compilation. So that solves the "where's it written?" question.¹

Sort of. It's always bothered me that he treats this as one passage of scripture. In every other place where he compiles scripture together, he puts a divider between the quotes, such as "and again" (Rom. 15: 9-12; I Cor. 3:19, 20; Heb. 1:5, 6; 2:12, 13; 10:30), or "and in another place," (Heb. 5:5, 6).

So why not here? It's always struck me as though Paul is quoting from one passage. But since I couldn't find this as one passage anywhere, I figured, "Oh well, I guess not."

Now, I recently got hold of an English translation of the Septuagint (hereinafter referred to as LXX), which is well known to be the actual Scriptures used by the Greek-writing apostles for quoting Old Testament Scriptures, most of the time verbatim.

I've been reading my daily Psalms out of this translation this month. Since yesterday was the 3rd, I was reading Ps. 11-15, in the LXX numbering (it's off by one starting halfway through 9, since the LXX combines Ps. 9 & 10. For consistency, I will use the Hebrew numbering for this post, even when referring to the LXX. So, put that way, I was reading Ps. 12-16.)

I noticed that 14:3 is much longer than I was expecting! In fact, as I read it, I thought I had switched over to Rom. 3:10ff for a second. It was the whole passage, almost verbatim! Just to be sure, I checked my KJV (closest Hebrew translation Bible to hand), and sure enough, v.3 ends at "[there is] none that doeth good, no, not one." And v.4 reads just like the LXX v.4, so it's not like it's just that the verse numbering is different (as is the case in some passages).

(Now, it wasn't an exact match in English. Very close, but not precise.

But don't worry; just to be sure, I checked the actual underlying Greek of both passages, and it is, in fact, word-for-word². And it's all one passage, just like I always got the impression it should have been. :) )

So what's my point?

Clearly, the Greek translators added these verses (or at the least compiled them into the Psalm from the other places listed above), some 300 years before Paul wrote Romans. The kicker is that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, accepted this editing/adding as inspired Scripture.³

1) Therefore, those who would throw out, as not "inspired by God", the "additions" in the LXX to various Old Testament books, and the so-called "extra" books, have no ground for doing so, because, as Paul demonstrates by actual use,

2) the "All Scripture" he's got in mind in 2 Tim. 3:16 includes the "additions" in question, and he definitively says that this "all Scripture" is "inspired of God."

3) Those who object to the so-called "apocrypha" on doctrinal grounds, would do well to remember that

a) these are included in the very same LXX that Paul says is "inspired", and "[is] profitable for doctrine...",
b) and, therefore, we ought to judge our doctrine by those books, and not those books by our doctrine.

4) Furthermore, those who claim to practice "Sola Scriptura", would do well to include "all Scripture" in that claim, including the "additions" that they so blithely threw out during the Reformation, just because they didn't agree with their preconceived dogmas (see point 3 above).

5) Finally, to those who are "KJV Only", even if you don't agree with some of these conclusions, remember that, at the very least, your KJV is missing a good chunk of fully inspired Scripture out of Ps. 14:3. I'm just sayin'. :)

Anyway, it's late, and I need to get to bed ("for he giveth his beloved sleep!")

'Nite.
--------------------------
¹We take into consideration that Paul combines the phrase

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.

with the obvious "and didn't find any" conclusion, and then (for parallelism, one would assume?) just says,

There is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God.

If this is merely a compilation, Paul appears to take similar liberties with the other verses, particularly Isaiah 59: 7, 8.

²Except for the parallelism adjustment from Ps. 14:2 to Rom. 3:11, mentioned in Footnote 1, which is, apparently, a separate issue.

³Some might say, "Then is the Book of Enoch also to be considered Holy Scripture, based on Jude 14?" Perhaps. But this is not clear. In my opinion, "no", since Jude does not use the introductory phrase, "it is written," which seems to me to be the key indicator that the writer (or speaker, viz. Jesus in Matt. 4) is about to quote what he considers to be inspired, Holy Scripture.

On the one hand, if merely quoting from an "extra-biblical" source puts said source into the "inspired" category, then the heathen Greek poets Epimenides (Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12) and Menander (1 Cor. 15:33) would also have to be considered inspired.

On the other hand, that Jude is relying on the book of Enoch as valid prophecy could mean that Jude considered the book of Enoch to be inspired.

So, when "it is written" is not used, it's not nearly as clear of an issue.

QOTD: On Living the Scriptures

2010-05-04T22:54:00.001-07:00

From here.

St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 3:3) …”you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” This gives a new meaning to the “New Testament Church.” Now we can see that it means the Church which is the “New Testament,” and this same New Testament continues to be read in the Churches who have preserved that same faith.

It is simply not enough to study the Scriptures. We must become the Scriptures so that all might read Christ in our heart and know the Truth of the gospel. Talk about the gospel will not save the world. Only the gospel enfleshed in human lives can be said to constitute preaching. This is what Christians are ordained (Baptized) to do.

QOTD...

2010-04-09T11:41:00.001-07:00

From Apostolic Observation, by Fr. Patrick Reardon.

[I]t is fundamental to the Christian faith that we are not saved by an idea, not even a religious and moral idea, but by God's direct intrusion into our history.

This is the quote I originally started this post for, but here's the next paragraph, which, to me, is just awesome!

This affirmation, we contend, pertains to the very essence of the Christian faith as expressed in its earliest formulation by St. Peter: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." This is the event by which human history acquires significance and every human life receives the offer of salvation.

'Nough said.

Random life update...

2010-04-09T11:06:00.000-07:00

I've posted a lot on theological issues, and a couple of times on political issues. But I haven't really posted much on my life.

A conversation with some (relatively new, but fairly awesome) friends recently has put it in my mind to write a short (by necessity) biography of my life so far. So that's in the works.

But for this post, I just wanted to give a quick rundown of some things I've enjoyed recently. Here they are, in whatever order popped into my head at the moment. :)

I very much enjoyed Becoming Orthodox, by Fr. Peter Gillquist.

A couple of weeks ago, I went with a group from church to the Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco for their Annual Lenten Retreat.

I'm currently reading Changes, by Jim Butcher. It's pretty good so far!

I need to get together with some friends for "powder therapy" (read: fun at the shooting range) again soon. :)

I'm currently (like, as I type) listening to Ancient Faith Radio streaming live. I've also been enjoying the podcast collections Our Life in Christ and At the Intersection of East and West immensely.

I'm going through "Lent withdrawal." I've only been to one church service after Sunday this week, and I feel like someone used to eating three meals a day who is now forced to subsist on one (albeit large) meal every other day. I can't wait (although I'm gonna have to) until tomorrow night! (Vespers service.)

I'm going to a friend's birthday party tonight.

Well, that's it for now. I'm going to lunch. :-D

Christ is Risen!

Excuses, Excuses....

2010-04-09T10:51:00.001-07:00

It has been nearly two months since I posted anything on here. Here are my excuses. :)

I have been extremely busy, especially with Lent.

I have several posts in the works (drafts), but I've not had the time to finish them.

Hey, I'm posting now, am I not? LOL

I'm exploring a much richer, deeper, older tradition of the church than the one I have, until recently, participated in; and the more I learn the less I know. Or at least, the more there is on which I feel I'm being completely arrogant to render an opinion.

I sincerely hope that problem #4 never goes away, although I do hope it diminishes somewhat.

I will still continue to post, but please just take the posts for what they are: my opinion, at the moment. There are certainly some things that are "written in stone," as it were. But not nearly everything I write or say.

Ok, enough for now. Back to work for Steve. :)

Complementarianism...Why?

2010-02-15T21:56:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading this post, entitled "Why women cannot be head pastors", by C. Michael Patton, whose insights I usually find spot on.

However, I must disagree with his argument on this one, for the simple reason that it's not rooted in anything but a generalization, as several of the egalitarians, and a couple of the complementarians even, have pointed out in the comments (to his post, not this one — as of the time of writing at least).

I am a complementarian as well, and as such it pains me to see this kind of argument being offered, because of it's weakness. Since it comes from someone who normally offers great insights, my fear is that people will get the impression, as one commenter did, that this is the best complementarians have to offer.

EDIT 2/16/2010 10:33PM PST: Mr. Patton has clarified that he was not making an argument for complementarianism, but rather speculating on God's reason for the design, assuming it's true. However, I believe this post speaks to that as well.

So what do I have to offer better? Well, in this case not I, but the Eastern Orthodox Church. (One might hope they would, since they are about at patriarchal a hierarchy as one will find anywhere!) I am particularly enthusiastic about this explanation, because it is not rooted in opinion, or subjectivity. It is an argument from theology, clearly backed by Scripture.

As a preface, I offer the following:

This is a long post; but if you hang in there to the end, I think you'll find it rewarding.
The following quotes come from the book, The Faith: An Orthodox Catechism, by Mr. Clark Carlton, a convert to Orthodoxy, previously Southern Baptist. In particular, they come from the Special Study entitled "God and Gender", found at the end of the chapter "The Mystery of Love."
The running commentary is mine. :)
All emphases are in the original, unless otherwise noted.

Ok, now that that's done, let's get started.

Few issues are as explosive in our society as those involving gender and religion.

Well, we're off to a good and obvious start. :) Moving on...

The Orthodox Christian addresses these issues within the framework of the Church's self-understanding as the Bride of Christ. Whether the issue at hand is "inclusive language," the role of women in the Church, or homosexual desire, the answer lies in the great mystery: Christ and the Church.

Well, that's a new angle! No, seriously, I'd never seen anyone come at it from this angle before. And to lump having women pastors together with homosexuality? Well, this is either going to be really good or really rubbish. Let's find out...

The peoples of the ancient world frequently worshipped[sic] female deities, accepted priestesses, and thought nothing of homosexual behavior. Israel, however, stood alone in rejecting all of these practices. The reason for this lies in God's revelation of Himself as being radically distinct from His creation.

We have said that the world was created ex nihilo [this was covered in an earlier chapter]. Between the being of God and the being of the world there is an irreducible gulf. The world is not God, has never been God, and will never be God. The fact that God has united creation to Himself in the Incarnation in no way destroys the distinction between the Uncreated and the created. In Christ we participate in the uncreated grace of God, becoming by that grace what He is by nature, yet we never cease being creatures; our created nature is never transformed into the divine nature.

Ok, he's saying is that there is a huge difference between us and God. While it is true that through Christ we are partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), we have not been, are not, and never will be "transformed into the divine nature." That is to say, none of us will ever "have life in himself" (John 5:26); we will always be created, contingent beings. This is the the difference between God and His Creation.

Once again, I'm encouraged by the obvious nature of his propositions. Hopefully, he'll keep it up...

This difference between God and the world is expressed iconically by the disexuality of human nature. In the Divine Scriptures, God is always represented by the male and creation by the female.

STOP!!! Or rather, don't stop. Reading that is. Before you point out that female imagery is sometimes used to refer to God (e.g. "as a mother hen", and others), etc. — don't worry: he's getting to that.

Remember, he said at the beginning of the study that this is in relation to the Church's "self-understanding as the Bride of Christ." This becomes immediately apparent with the next sentence.

God is the Bridegroom, and the world — or more precisely, the Church, which is the world recreated in Christ — is the Bride.

Go back and read that sentence again, since it is foundational to the whole argument. Got it? Ok, let's keep going.

Here's the part where he caveats about the female imagery:

God, of course, is neither male nor female; He is beyond all such created concepts. Nevertheless, He has given us certain images and concepts whereby we have come to know Him. Though these concepts can never fully describe or define the indescribable God, we are nonetheless bound by them.

It is true that the Scriptures occasionally use female imagery in regard to God. For example Christ said of Jerusalem: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicken under her wings, and ye would not (Matthew 23:27). This is, however, a simile. Christ called God "Father," not "Mother." Christ is the "Son" of God, not the "Daughter" of God.

Now is where it start really getting powerful. However, he commits a whole paragraph to "inclusive" language. This paragraph is well-written, but not apropos to the discussion at hand, so I'll skip it. Moving on, we find:

From this [i.e. the iconic relationship of God/male and Creation/female] it should be evident why it is impossible for the Church to have priestesses [or female pastors]. The male, because he is a creature, can represent God only iconically. The female, however, is creation. The Church is essentially female.

Even though it's in the middle of a paragraph, I'll pause for you to re-read that last sentence, and absorb it.

Ok, ready to continue?

If, therefore, the priest — who is the image of Christ the Bridegroom — is a female, then what happens to the male principle? ...[T]he distinction between Creator and creation is destroyed, and a new religion is born.

Wait, what?

"[T]he priest...is the image of Christ"? Since when? Phrased this way, this statement seems to espouse a distinctively non-Protestant doctrine. Well, let me explain. First off, for those of you worried that he is advocating popish dogma — he is not. In the Orthodox tradition, the priest is not viewed as the "vicar" of Christ — that doctrine is (rightly) viewed as a Roman heresy.

But as I said, the statement, when phrased this way, can be confusing to the non-Orthodox. Let me elucidate:

Even in Protestant circles, the pastor is viewed as the under-shepherd to the One Shepherd. In the same manner, the pastor, as the visible leader of the assembly, is viewed as "head" (distinctly lowercase "h") of the church (distinctly lowercase "c") he leads.

So is the priest/pastor Christ? No. Most emphatically not. But does his role in the service mirror and symbolize that of Christ? Yes. I have heard many times in various Baptist churches that in Heaven, the departed saints are "doing church" at the same time we are, and Christ Himself is the Pastor. (This is also a very Orthodox teaching, even if the Baptists do not realize it. :))

The logical implication, if they would care to think about it, is that the pastor in the earthly church service is the "placeholder" for Christ in the heavenly one. He is "image", however imperfect, of the One Head of the Church.

Most Protestants will better understand this when stated symbolically, instead of iconographically; but the concept is the same.

Putting this understanding back into Orthodox parlance, we get, "the priest...is the image of Christ the Bridgegroom."

Now that we've got that under our belt, let's continue. I'll back up a little to get us back in the flow:

If the priest[/pastor]...is a female...the distinction between Creator and creation is destroyed, and a new religion is born. Actually, it is an old religion that is reborn — the religion of pantheism, which Israel and the Church rejected.

The last two paragraphs of the Study apply the argument against homosexuality, and so are not relevant to this discussion (although they are, IMHO, brilliant in their own right).

So we see from this that the Church understands herself as inherently female. To have a female head of the assembly, or even a plurality of heads which included some females, would destroy the imagery that is so clear in the Bible, actually recreating ancient paganism in it's place.

I would like to point out, from Scripture, some additional supports to this argument.

First, the apostle Paul's exhortation to the Ephesians (5:22ff) clearly spells out this understanding of the Church as inherently female. It also applies this imagery to the marriage relationship.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church...

(This, by the way, is one reason [among others] why homosexuality is wrong, and homosexual "marriage" also: it destroys this imagery. But I digress.)

It is to this relationship and imagery that Paul is referring in his letter to Timothy, which is the passage mentioned by Mr. Patton in his blog post: 1 Tim. 2:11-15.

Paul's support for his instruction is not that women are not able to be aggressive in confronting heresy. One could, I suppose, make the argument that, since Adam was not deceived, and Eve was, men are somehow better at spotting heresy.

But "one" would be wrong; Adam did not confront the heresy at all, but rather actively succumbed to it. He just did it with his eyes wide open.

Paul's statement that the woman "was in the transgression" is not to say that Adam was not. In fact, "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," (Rom. 5:14, emphasis mine).

Rather, he is pointing to two things: first, the headship of the husband ("For Adam was first formed, then Eve."), which we have already asserted, and secondly, the headship of the second Adam (Christ [1 Cor. 15:22, 45]) over the second Eve (the Church).

How so?

The first Adam actively transgressed, and the first Eve "being deceived was [also] in the transgression." But the second Adam never transgressed. And if the second Eve looks to her Head for direction, (as the first Eve did not) and not to the other created beings and things (as the first Eve did), she will not be deceived, and will not transgress.

This understanding is also the crux of Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 11:2-10. But this post is already too long, so I will leave that one for now. ("Whoso readeth, let him understand.")

So, to borrow a phrase from Solomon: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter," which I believe I have shown to be fully supported by Scripture.

For an assembly to set up a female leader for itself is for that church to to blur the distinction of God and His creation; or rather, to obliterate it! Even worse, they deny the imagery of Christ/male/head-Church/female/body, and also lose the visual reminder of their protection in Christ, the Reality to Whom the image points.

And that is why I believe we ought not have women pastors — not because men are more aggressive.

Song I started the day with..

2010-01-14T17:06:00.001-08:00

I absolutely love this song! I sang it this morning, and could not contain the joy and gladness that the Holy Spirit wrought in me by it.

God's Perfect Lamb
by Ron Hamilton

God spoke to Israel, "Bring Me a sacrifice,
Morning and evening, ev'ry day.
Offer a spotless lamb, without a blemish.
This is the command you must obey."

Daily the lambs were brought. Daily the blood was shed,
Laid on the altar built by man.
Then at the perfect time, God said to Israel,
"I will now provide the perfect Lamb."

At God's appointed time, Jesus, Messiah, came
To make the sacrifice for all sin.
No longer bring a lamb, Jesus has paid the price,
Clap your hands and let your psalms begin!

CHORUS:
Sing Hallelujah! Praise to Jehovah!
Worship the God of Abraham!
Sing Hallelujah! Praise to Jehovah!
Once for all is slain God's perfect Lamb!

If you've heard the song, you know it has an "Israeli" feel to the tune, and it's quite easy to get to clapping. (And appropriate as well, since it is a joyful song!)

By the end of the last chorus, clapping is exactly what I was doing; when I realized this, I was immediately reminded of the Psalmist's exultation:

O clap your hands, all ye people;
shout unto God with the voice of triumph. (Ps. 47:1)

The joy is not just that He was the perfect sacrifice for sins. Indeed, that would be terrible news indeed if He simply died and that was it! The true magnificence is that He is not still on the altar — the Sacrifice is eternally sufficient. God has raised Him up again!

Now we see Him crowned with glory and honor — He Who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death...that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2:9)

Indeed,

God is gone up with a shout,
{YHWH} with the voice of a trumpet.

Satan could not bind Him;
no Grave could hold Him;
for death hath no power over Life!

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death — that is, the devil — and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb. 2:14, 15)

The JOY is in His Life! The Psalmist distinctly links JOY with the Resurrection of our Lord, and His presence both in this life and in the life to come, when he sings:

Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth:
my flesh also shall rest in hope.
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Thou wilt show me the path of life:
in thy presence is fulness of joy;
at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.
(Ps. 16:10, 11)

Truly,

Blessed (happy) are all they that put their trust in him! (Ps. 2:12b

AMEN and AMEN!

2010-01-05T22:54:00.000-08:00

Before the Throne of God Above

by Charitie L. Bancroft

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood,
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God!

Some things never change...

2009-12-31T15:37:00.000-08:00

From the First Oration of Gregory Nazianzen (St. Gregory the Theologian), in 379 A.D. (found here [PDF], p.24)

[There are] persons who in the theatres perform wrestling
matches in public, but not that kind of wrestling in which
the victory is won according to the rules of the sport, but a
kind to deceive the eyes of those who are ignorant in such
matters, and to catch applause...

And now you know why I don't watch Pro Wrestling. :P

Perseverance of the Saints: Part 2

2009-12-30T11:08:00.001-08:00

This is going to be quite short, since no less a luminary than John Calvin himself has already addressed this (which I discovered after posting Part 1). His commentary can be found here.

The Sincere Milk of the Word

2009-12-16T12:03:00.000-08:00

Preaching today has become, for an alarming portion of the church¹, a circus. Preachers have the attitude that if they don't out-entertain everyone else, people will not listen. (This is largely true, if the "people" in question are unregenerate, which is, unfortunately, the case for the majority of people in "churches" nowadays. But I digress.)

In the circles in which I personally ran (until recently), a solid exegesis of Scripture is almost unheard of. In fact, in that society, the more a preacher can manipulate the crowd's emotions through jokes, "tear-jerker" stories, etc., the more accolades he receives. (Off-topic: preachers should not be looking for accolades.)

A couple of months ago (at the initial time of writing), I had the opportunity to converse with with a well-known (in his religio-social group) pastor over lunch. He is popular for his funny, upbeat, topical messages. I asked him why he preaches mostly topical sermons. His response was, essentially, two-fold:

Expository messages are too much work to prepare.
Expository messages are not relevant to his audience.

Before we continue, let me put a caveat on the first one, and an explanation on the second:

This man is not a lazy man. He was not saying that having to work to put together a sermon is a bad thing because it takes away from his fishing time. Not at all. He was saying it's a bad thing because he has too many other duties as the pastor of a church that regularly runs 600+. It is my opinion that most equivalent pastors would agree that this is their case as well.

Nor was he being flippant. He is very sincere about his duties (as he understands them), and believes that expository messages are detrimental to his performance of those duties. To be specific, he used an example of when he walked through the book of Revelation in a series of Wednesday night Bible Studies. He pointed out that, "I had this one couple over here whose marriage was falling apart, another one over here whose teenager had just run off, and this brand new Christian in the front row who needed discipling, not eschatology. Additionally, there was a family about to leave the church,".... et cetera..."and learning about which vial comes first, and how many heads the beast has, was not addressing their needs." Now, that's true. However, perhaps there is more to Revelation than vials and heads? And there are sixty-five other books of the Bible that are also "profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," on which he could do studies. :)

That said, let's continue.

Do I have a "beef" against Topical preaching? Yes and no. No, if it's done right. But what is "done right"?

Most pastors (fundamental or otherwise) claim a certain hermeneutic for scriptural exegesis. (I know, I know — "Um...what did he just say?") In layman's terms, they claim that the Bible must be interpreted using a certain set of rules, without which there will be misunderstanding at best, outright abuse of the Scriptures at worst. This "set of rules" is called a "hermeneutic", and the application of the "hermeneutic" to the biblical text results in "exegesis", or the explanation of what it means.

Every preacher or Bible teacher has a hermeneutic and does exegesis — whether he realizes it or not, and whether he calls it by those terms or not.

My "beef" is with topical messages in which the hermeneutic is faulty, resulting in abusive exegesis.

Abusive exegesis has been, apparently, a perennial problem, even from the beginning of the church. The Apostle Peter mentioned the problem in the conclusion of his second epistle:

There are some things in them [Paul's epistles] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.²

So the preacher's first point above is true: preparation for an expository message (which tends to be heavy on the exegesis) is a lot of work! But I would contend that it's actually less work than preparing a topical message with proper exegesis.

The reason I say this is that topical messages are frequently done using verses from several (possibly unrelated) passages, chained together. That means that, in order to make sure he is not mangling what the Bible actually says, the preacher must do good exegesis of each passage, and then make sure that what they actually say is, in fact, addressing the topic upon which he wishes to speak.

(NOTE: Whether or not he puts the exegesis into his actual sermon to the people is irrelevant. He's got to do it in study, just to be sure he's not going off the deep end.)

Conversely, an expository message generally addresses only one passage, and so the preacher only needs to do the exegesis for that one passage. (I'm painting with a broad brush here, of course, for reasons of space — I don't have room to address every combination of passages. This post is already too long, and I've still got more to say!)

In my opinion, any preacher who is not willing to do the work necessary to make sure he does not "twist" the Scriptures needs to find another job. But if he is willing to do the work, preparing an expository message around one passage is going to be much quicker than having to prepare a message around several passages.

So what if he is willing to do the work, but he finds himself lacking the time because of his other duties as pastor? The solution to this is delegation, as we see in Acts 6:2-4,

Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Too often, a pastor will get it into his head that, to be a leader, he must go above and beyond in every area of work in which he encourages his people to participate. For example, if he tells his people that personal, door-to-door soul-winning is important, then "bless God, I'd better be out there myself at least 10 or 15 hours a week!"³ These things are time-consuming, yes, but frequently more so because of a misplaced sense of quantity necessary for leadership.

Another activity that might get a preacher bogged down is going to conferences. Conferences are cool — I'm not saying they're evil! But if the preacher has to be at every conference, camp, and retreat put on throughout the year by his particular socio-religious circle, he seriously needs to rethink his priorities.

This is why the position of pastor in the New Testament is referred to as "bishop", coming from a Greek word which means "superintendent", or "administrator". The very name of the position indicates that the man must know how to properly order his work.

In conclusion, preachers need to make the time and put in the effort to feed the flock of God which has been entrusted to their care with solid, exegetical instruction, and not just entertain them. Methinks that they will discover that it's actually less work than they though — and definitely less than if they were to properly prepare their topical sermons!

Oh, and it's even less work in the long run because as we all know, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." (II Hesitations 3:8)

OK, I'd better stop now. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
¹The Protestant branch, anyway.
²2 Pet. 3:16b
³BTW: We were taught this exact statement at Bible College.

Perseverance of the Saints: Part 1

2009-11-27T12:26:00.000-08:00

In the course of research completely unrelated to this entry, I used e-Sword to search the Bible for the word "root".

First item on the list was Deuteronomy 29:18:

Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;

I immediately remembered that Hebrews 12:15 is similarly phrased:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

But they are not phrased exactly the same — not in English, at least. To determine whether the author of Hebrews was, in fact, quoting Deut. 29:18, I took a look at the Greek behind both verses¹.

Here is the Greek for the verse in Deuteronomy:

μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνὴ ἢ πατριὰ ἢ φυλή, τίνος ἡ διάνοια ἐξέκλινεν ἀπὸ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν πορεύεσθαι λατρεύειν τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐκείνων; μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ;

Here is the Greek for the verse in Hebrews:

ἐπισκοποῦντες μή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ, μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ καὶ διὰ ταύτης μιανθῶσι πολλοί,

In case you didn't catch it, take a look at the similar phrases in parallel:

μή τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν ῥίζα ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ;
(Deut.)

μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ
(Heb.)

Now, if we remove the phrase "ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν" ("should be among you") for reasons we'll get to a little further down, we see:

μή τίς ῥίζα ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ;
(Deut.)

μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ
(Heb.)

I think by this point we can say with confidence that the author of Hebrews was in fact quoting Deuteronomy. But it's not an exact quote. Why? How is it changed, and is that significant?

Before we continue, we need to pull our train of thought into the station and pick up a few Greek passengers who will help us with the basic Greek vocabulary involved with these verses.

ἐν "en" (prep.): in
καὶ "kay" (conj.): and
ἄνω "anoe" (adj.): up
ῥίζα "hridza" (n.): root
πικρίᾳ "pikria" (n.): bitterness
πικρίας "pikrias" (adj.): bitter
χολῇ "kholee" (n.)
: poison²
ἐνοχλῇ "enokhlee" (v.): troubles³

Ok, now that they are on board, we also need to do some maintenance on the engine, with the following note:

The English translators of Heb. 12:15 rendered "ῥίζα πικρίας" as "root of bitterness"; but it literally reads "root bitter", or, compensating for Greek word order: "bitter root". This doesn't change the meaning at all; but we do need to note the change from Deuteronomy 29:18 LXX, which literally reads, "root springing up in...bitterness", to Hebrews 12:15, which literally reads, "bitter root springing up".

Ok, now we can fire up the boilers and get this train headed back out on the tracks.

Why did the author of Hebrews make this change?⁴ I'll give you the answer up front: So that he could make a clever play on words with the phrase "ἐν χολῇ" in the original. Specifically, he has conflated "ἐν χολῇ" into one word and flipped "χ" (one letter), and "ο", producing "ἐνοχλῇ", which literally means "to crowd in". (He dropped the "καὶ", because it was no longer needed, "πικρία" having been moved to earlier in the sentence.) So he has changed "in gall and" to "crowd [you] in."

(Incidentally, this is now the verb of the sentence, which is why "ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν" was removed. (See, I told you we'd get to it. :) But I digress...)

So what does all this have to do with anything? What does it mean? What is he trying to teach with this obviously intentional change?

We'll get to that in part two. :)

In the mean while, I've changed my blog settings so that I don't have to preview the comments before they show up, so feel free to comment. (I will delete any comments that I do not deem apropos, such as profane or advertising comments.)

---------------------------------
¹"But the OT was written in Hebrew!" Yes, and it was translated into Greek in the form of the Septuagint, or the "LXX". The Greek LXX was the version most often quoted by Jesus and the Apostles. (I need to do some more research before I can confidently write "exclusively quoted".)

Also, the versification is slightly different in the LXX, so Deuteronomy 29:18 KJV is actually verse 17 in the LXX. For consistency, I will refer to it as verse 18 throughout this post.

²"χολῇ" in Deut. 29:18 is the translation of the Hebrew ראשׁ ("rosh"), which refers to poison.

³Third person present active singular of the infinitive "ἐνοχλέω": "to crowd in, to annoy, to trouble." This is just "ἐν ὀχλέω", but as one word. We have already seen that "ἐν" means "in", and "ὀχλέω" means "to mob", or "to crowd", from the noun "ὄχλος", which is "a crowd, multitude, the common people".

⁴Some might say that this was unintentional — i.e. a copyist's error. However, I would contend that it was intentional, based on the fact that, in order to make grammatical room for the change, the writer 1) altered the word order and part of speech for "πικρίας", appropriately dropping a related conjunction in consequence, and 2) removed an entire phrase, changing the verb of the sentence. If this were merely a copyist's error, such precise changes would not have been made to adjust for the grammatical difference made by the so-called "error".

Something we forget sometimes...

2009-11-20T10:43:00.000-08:00

This article from Parchment and Pen is really good.

I particularly like the quote at the end, from Thomas Oden:

Because of piety’s penchant for taking itself too seriously, theology–more than literary, humanistic, and scientific studies–does well to nurture a modest, unguarded sense of comedy. Some comic sensibility is required to keep in due proportion the pompous pretensions of the study of divinity. I invite the kind of laughter that wells up not from cynicism about reflection on God but from the ironic contradictions accompanying such reflections. Theology is intrinsically funny. This comes from glimpsing the incongruity of humans thinking about God. I have often laughed at myself as these sentences went through their tortuous stages of formation. I invite you to look for the comic dimension of divinity that stalks every page. It is not blasphemy to grasp the human contradiction for what it is. The most enjoyable of all subjects has to be God, because God is the source of all joy.

That's good stuff. :)

Great Thought....not original to me, of course. :)

2009-11-06T19:48:00.000-08:00

Found this on another blog today:

"A certain merchant in Caesarea sent his servant to the market to buy some provisions. Before very long, the servant returned looking frightened and pale. His master inquired of him the reason for his trembling.

In a trembling voice he said, 'While in the market place I was jostled by a man in the crowd, and when I turned around I saw it was the Angel of Death. He looked at me and made a threatening gesture. Master, please lend me your horse, for I must go to Samaria, where the Angel of Death will not find me!'

The merchant agreed, and the servant mounted the horse and galloped away in great haste. Later that day, the merchant went down to the marketplace, and saw the Angel of Death standing in the crowd. He approached him and said, 'Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?'

'That was not a threatening gesture,' said the Angel. 'It was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Caesarea, for I have an appointment with him tonight in Samaria.'"

Great Illustration...

2009-11-02T15:23:00.001-08:00

A sick man turned to his doctor, as he was leaving the room after paying a visit, and said, "Doctor, I am afraid to die. Tell me what lies on the other side."

Very quietly the doctor said, "I don't know."
"You don't know? You, a Christian man, do not know what is on the other side?"

The doctor was holding the handle of the door, on the other side of which came a sound of scratching and whining, and as he opened the door a dog sprang into the room and leaped on him with an eager show of gladness.

Turning to the patient, the doctor said, "Did you notice my dog? He's never been in this room before. He didn't know what was inside. He knew nothing except that his master was here, and when the door opened he sprang in without fear. I know little of what is on the other side of death, but I do know one thing: I know my Master is there, and that is enough. And when the door opens, I shall pass through with no fear, but with gladness."

Sidetakers, and the whole counsel of God...

2009-10-15T22:52:00.000-07:00

I recently found a site called Sidetakers. The gist of the site is that you can anonymously post individual questions asking for advice, or "sides", where each of the people in a dispute can post his/her side of "the story". The other users of the site can then comment and/or vote their advice.

I came across this post, titled "I hate my sister because of the things she has done, am I a bad person?" It's a very sad situation, as you can see:

My older sister, has always bullied me since I was little.
When she started to grow up my parents gave her all the attention because she was a bit of a 'lose cannon". She did drugs, drank heavily and slept around. She made fun of me in public at school, and always took everyone elses side.
My sister when reaching 18 left home and told no1 where she was going. She contacted noone for 6months, we all thought she was dead. I found her through some of my friends, only because of how upset my parents were. She didnt want to be found.
When she left, she started a lot of rumours, about myself and the rest of my family, she got child services called on my parents cause of all her lies.
To this day (5 years on) she still treats me like dirt, when my parents arent around she will hit me and speak to me like crap. She puts all my friends down and my boyfriend and when no one is around treats them like dirt.
I try to be nice to her, but after recent events where she tried to turn my mum against me, have i realised i hate her and cannot bare to look at her face.
Everyone tells me im a bad person cause no one can hate family. In my mind, she has never been family, family doesnt treat family like that.

I responded with the following:

I like what waterbug said: "Love her from a distance, and pray for her."

To do this properly, you /must/ run to Jesus. (If you don't know Him, find someone who does, and have them introduce you.)

The reason I say this is that He has been in your situation, and has demonstrated the best, most righteous loving-kindness toward those who hate Him. No other role model even comes close.

How so? Well, to put it succinctly: "He came to His own, and His own received Him not." (John 1:11) And again, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) And again, "...Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person -- though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die -- but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

What do I mean? Well, let me explain. You see, God says the following about us humans:

"There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understands,
there is none that seeks after God.

They are all gone out of the way,
they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that does good, no, not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre;
with their tongues they have used deceit;
the poison of asps is under their lips:
whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
their feet are swift to shed blood:
destruction and misery are in their ways:
and the way of peace have they not known:
there is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

God created us, and loves us, and wants us to enjoy Him forever. But it is written:

"Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against Yahweh, and against His anointed [Christ],
saying,

'Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us.'" (Psalm 2:1-3)

We want nothing to do with Him Who is the source of all love and blessing. You see, every one us (you, me, and your sister included) has railed against Him, and hated Him, "without a cause" (John 15:25). Indeed,

"He is despised and rejected of man;
a man of sorrows, and aquainted with grief:
and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely He has borne our griefs,
and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem Him stricken,
smitten of God,
and afflicted.

But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon Him;
and with His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and Yahweh has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and He was afflicted,
yet He opened not his mouth:
He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so He opens not His mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgement:
and who shall declare His generation?
for He was cut off out of the land of the living:
for the transgression of my people was He stricken.

And He made His grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in His death;
because He had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in His mouth.

Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise [literally, 'crush'] Him;
He has put Him to grief:
when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in His hand.

He shall see the travail of His soul, and be satisfied:
by His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for He shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great,
and He shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because He has poured out His soul unto death:
and He was numbered with the transgressors;
and He bare the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53)

Note that /because/ He sacrificed Himself for our sins, His Father "prolong[ed] His days." That means, He raised Him from the dead, and now, "He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing that He ever lives to make intercession for them."

That includes "saving" your situation with your sister. But you have to "come unto God," and you have to come to God "by Him." (He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by me." [John 14:6])

Meditate on His sacrifice, and believe on His name. Ask Him to assist you in doing what He said, regarding your sister:

"You have heard that it has been said,

'Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.'

But I say unto you,

'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;'

that you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:43-45)

(On a side note: there is a 5K character limit to the comments; and my reply is exactly 5K characters. :)

Anyway, I post this to make a point. Jesus is the answer to everything ("According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue..." 1 Pet. 1:3)

It may seem as though my comment is "off-topic", or "irrelevant", because I speak of the Gospel, instead of "directly" (as the world defines it) addressing the woman's issue. But there is no more relevant advice than saying, in essence, "The love of Christ as demonstrated on the Cross is what's called for here. For you and she both are sinners, hating God, and He gave His life for you. So, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.'"

How often are we guilty of giving people our opinion and psychology instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Of course, we can (and should!) apply it to their situation ("the light shines in darkness"), but if the central message of our counseling is not what He has done to fix their situation, then we are "the blind leading the blind." (And we both fall into the ditch.) Indeed, "if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor. 4:3, 4 ESV)

So what then? should we not bring the gospel into the situations of the unbelievers, simply because Satan has blinded them to it's truth? God forbid,

"For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 4:5, 6 ESV, emphasis mine)

God called light out of darkness, and how much more can He shine into the darkness of their hearts, and give the light of the knowledge of His glory, crushing the powers of darkness under His feet!

How dare we substitute our own "counsels" for "the whole counsel of God"! May it never be.

Christ is risen.

Eschatology -- Funny?

2009-10-09T19:49:00.000-07:00

Just got done watching this video, entitled "An Evening of Eschatology", in which each of the three major views regarding the Millenium are presented, and discussed. The event was hosted by Bethlehem College and Seminary, produced by Desiring God, and moderated by Pastor John Piper.

I highly recommend this as a primer on the three views presented, and as a starting point for one's own internal journey in the area of eschatology. (If you don't know what "eschatology" is, watch the first few minutes of the video: they explain it in layman's terms.)

I never thought such a "dry" subject could be discussed so hilariously. I laughed more through those two hours than through the majority of "comedy" movies/shows I've seen, put together. These men are genuinely hilarious! You can tell they truly enjoy each other's company, even though, at the same time, they vociferously object to various points of each other's positions.

This video is also a great example of how believers can hold differing viewpoints on the "non-essentials", vigorously debate and defend those viewpoints, and still be one in Christ, because of the love of Christ flowing in and through them. Many Fundamentalists would do well to take note.

I hope you enjoy the video. Whether you enjoy it or not, feel free to comment below. :)

On the Deity of Christ: Christ Himself Claimed It (Intro.)

2009-09-29T23:07:00.001-07:00

I have given some meditation to how to present the claims of Jesus clearly, regarding His Name.

There are many places in which Jesus' direct claims that He Himself is YHWH are recorded.

Unfortunately, however, most modern readers are unfamiliar with the Old Testament in general, and with Jewish thought on certain personages and passages found therein in particular, which are essential to recognition of the aforementioned claims by Jesus "to be equal with God". Therefore, the majority of these claims will not be immediately obvious. I cannot just quote the relevant passages from the Gospels (and the Revelation) and expect the reader to understand.

So, it will be my goal over the next couple (or more) posts on this sub-topic of this series, to lay the exegetical groundwork for comprehension not only of His claims, but of the stark clarity and exactitude of those claims.

I will be borrowing heavily from a couple of key sources, and cherry-picking several others, so I will footnote appropriately. If the footnote sections start getting really long, I may simply eliminate the actual notes, and do a final post of this sub-topic that will consist only of the endnotes (formerly footnotes). We'll see.

This ought to be interesting. :)

Oops...

2009-09-21T17:51:00.000-07:00

I just realized that I have not continued the study on the Deity of Christ! I have several posts in Draft, but have been very busy, and not able to finish them. I should probably do that. :)

B-Day...

2009-09-10T13:30:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday to me.
Happy Birthday to me.
May God richly bless me....
Happy Birthday to me.

:-D

Suggestion for new Bible version....

2009-09-04T22:16:00.000-07:00

0. Start with the KJV.

1. Replace "thee" and "thou" with "you", and "ye" and "you [plural]" with "y'all" or "youse guys" (just kidding!); a subscript, such as "you_p"; or just a marginal note.

2. Render the Tetragrammaton as "YHWH", not "the LORD". In addition, transliterate the other names of God with their underlying Hebrew/Aramaic (i.e. El Elohim, Adonai, etc.), since they are names. Marginally note the meaning (i.e. the translation).

3. Update the spellings and archaic words with the modern ones (i.e. musick -> music, emerods -> hemorrhoids).

4. Marginally note idiomatic expressions as such, and where possible explain the idiom.

5. Minimize the interference of chapter and verse divisions (viz. the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible).

6. Try to cut down on the number of translator inserted words.

I may update this list later on...that's all I can think of for now.

QOTD

2009-08-28T18:28:00.000-07:00

Speaking to lost people who think that God's justice doesn't include horrible things like Hell and anger being poured out on the wicked, John Piper reminds them:

When blood flows as high as the horse's bridle, you will think differently about justice than when your biggest problem is an air conditioner that doesn't work.

Great description of our generation...

2009-08-25T23:10:00.001-07:00

I was recently "In the Nick of Time", a blog by Kevin T. Bauder, and came across a series by him in which he lays the groundwork for any reasonable discussion of the propriety of theater as a medium.

In it, he makes a statement that applies generally, and not just to a discussion of theater. It is long, but worth quoting in it's entirety. You could replace "forbade theater" in the first sentence with whatever your favorite topic would be.

Generation after generation of believers thought that biblical principles forbade theater. My generation disagrees. To which group should I listen?

Suppose we were to gauge the spiritual depth of these two groups. The first group somehow preserved the faith through persecutions by pagans, betrayals by heretics, and the decadence of the Romish system. At enormous sacrifice they reformed a corrupted Christendom, built the great missionary movements, and conducted the great revivals and awakenings. When they were called upon to do so, they went triumphantly into martyrdom.

The second group is part of the so-called “boomer” generation. When we boomers were still in our teens, we set ourselves up as moral judges over our parents and their parents. Our apparent idealism turned out to be cynical, however, and the moment we discovered that we could make money we dropped everything else. If we worked hard, it was only so that we could play harder. We brought in the sexual revolution, widespread pornography, and abortion on demand. More than anything else, we demanded more and more amusements of greater and greater sophistication, but lower and lower morality. We established ourselves as the most narcissistic, self-obsessed, self-indulgent, hypocritical and swinish generation ever to occupy space. But wait till you see what we do when we retire!

Christian boomers have been far more influenced by the mores of our generation than we admit. There are exceptions, of course, but we had to be bribed into going to church with promises of entertainment and programs. When we came of age, the mission fields began to decline. Biblical literacy went on the wane. We managed to produce the most notoriously immoral ministry since the papacy of Alexander VI Borgia. We did, however, manage to score high at PacMan.

The Gen-Xers have not done noticeably better, except perhaps to score high at Halo 2. We have, in fact, reached a nadir in American Christianity. A fundamentalist pastor is arrested and charged with decades of child molestation. The head of the NAE steps down, admitting to a liaison with a homosexual prostitute. Christian “artists” believe that they are edifying the Lord’s people by shouting obscenities from the stage. A Christian lifestyle magazine recommends a Sports Illustrated swimsuit girl as a Christian role model. Believers sport bumper stickers like “For All You Do, This Blood’s for You,” and “Grace Happens.” Fundamentalists cannot even agree whether the New American Standard Bible should be treated as the Word of God.

This is the generation whose word I am supposed to take? Of course. With all this obvious discernment going on, why wouldn’t I?

Quite a scathing (but not inaccurate) description of us. Definitely worth thinking about.

QOTD

2009-08-25T22:02:00.000-07:00

"Today we are too much about what we do, and not enough about who we are." — Paul Washer

An important grammatical nuance of 1 Pet. 3:1,2

2009-08-24T21:00:00.000-07:00

I was reading I Peter again the other day, and when I came to the beginning sentence of chapter 3, I noticed¹ something in it's grammatical structure that I haven't noticed before. This item is not so much a correction of previous error in my thought on this sentence, but rather an expansion of it.

Before I get into what I noticed, let me repeat the sentence itself:

Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

First, let me point out that the popular teaching² on this verse is that a believing woman's unbelieving may husband may yet be won through her biblical submission to his authority, even though he may (at first) reject the authority of the Scriptures.

Now on to the actual discovery, which is found at the end of the first verse. The application listed above implies a reading of "by the conversation of their wives", which, incidentally, is how the ASV, ESV, and RV render the text (as well as the 1909 Reina-Valera³).

However, the text rendered in the KJV is "of the wives".

It is not only the KJV that renders the text this way. In fact, the Bishop's and Geneva Bibles also give this reading. Additionally, there is no support in the Greek⁴ — in any of the major or minor variations — for "their" over "the". The manuscript evidence is 100% on this particular phrase, and the Vulgate witnesses the same⁵.

This reading ("the") seems to place the focus on the collective conversation of the entire group of "the" wives, in contradistinction to the usual focus of the individual conversations of the individual wives to "their" individual husbands.

Now, the individualistic application I first mentioned is, I believe, a valid application of this passage. However, in light of the grammatical nuance (of the implied reading versus the actual reading), coupled with the larger context of the book — I am beginning to think that the individualistic reading is not the primary interpretation of the verse.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more solidly opinionated I become that it is, in fact, harmful, in that it entirely loses the point the Holy Ghost, through Peter, is actually making in the larger context, completely missing the primary interpretation and application of the passage. Furthermore, the popular, individualist reading is an unnecessary limitation on the scope of the passage, because it is — evidently, I hope — included as a subset of the collectivist reading.

I will expound on what I believe⁶ to be the primary, collectivist interpretation in a follow-up post. In the mean while, 1) I need to go home and go to bed, and 2) I want to see your thoughts on this, via the comments.⁷

-----------------------
¹When I say, "I noticed", I do not mean to imply that it was at all my own discovery, apart from the Spirit's teaching. I only phrase it this way because, this being a seed thought (not fully discussed and developed), I do not wish to blame the Spirit for this if I am wrong. Insofar as the thought is correct, it is the teaching of the Spirit, and not of myself. Insofar as I am incorrect, it is my own error.

²Indeed, I do not remember ever having heard the "larger context" that I am about to explore taught, nor have I read it in any commentary on the passage. Whether this is because it is not being taught or whether I just need to "get out more", I would be interested to discover. :)

³Largely held in KJV-preferred circles to be the Spanish equivalent of the KJV. It reads, "por la conversación de sus mujeres". "Sus" is the possessive plural, directly equivalent to "their".

⁴The entire phrase reads, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται. "The wives" is τῆς...ἀναστροφῆς. There is no possessive explicitly written or even implied. In fact, there is a Greek phrase "of their wives", used in two places in the Old Testament (LXX — Neh. 5:1; Jer. 44:9), which looks like this: τῶν γυναικῶν ὑμῶν. It stands to reason that if the Holy Spirit meant "of their wives", He would have had Peter write "of their wives" (though being dogmatic about it may be stretching the point, which you , indubitably by this time, get).

⁵per mulierum conversationem sine verbo lucri fiant. Once again, no possessive.

⁶Indeed, I have no source to draw upon for guidance (see footnote 2)! This fact does, of course, scare me, since I am of the opinion that, as ye olde Anonymous put it, "If it's new, it ain't true."

⁷Or you can contact me otherwise, if you know my contact info.

Great Article....

2009-08-19T17:08:00.000-07:00

I just read this great article, on "Christ, the breath of our nostrils", out of Lamentations 4:20ff.

I think the Expostulation to sinners at the end is particularly well written. It has definite Jonathan Edwards overtones, don't you think? Particularly this bit:

Do you doubt that God would put you to torment? Look to the cross, where he was pleased to put his own Son to torment for sins, and look to the lives of Christians everywhere who, although indwelt by the Spirit of Christ himself, he is pleased to bring through many trials and tribulations; and do you doubt that he will have the heart to put you to shame and torment? Your life is fleeting and uncertain if Christ is not your breath, and it may be cut off at any time, and you will be plunged into the fiery chasm of God’s eternal wrath. Flee to Christ at once, or you will be left utterly without hope!

On Elephants and Lies...

2009-08-12T15:09:00.000-07:00

No, this is not a political post (although I might do one using this title on my political blog). :)

I was reading a book the other day, and I was once again reminded of an old analogy used by ecumenicalists to explain their god, and how he is the same god all the other religions have.

The analogy goes something like this:

There were once three blind men who came upon an elephant. They said to each other: "Well, this is a strange creature! What is it?" The first, who had caught the tail, said, "It is like a long rope." The second, touching the massive leg, replied, "That's impossible. This is very sturdy, like a strong oak tree! This creature is nothing like a rope." The third, hearing the descriptions of the others, and comparing it with the elephant's trunk, which was his point of contact, laughed, saying, "You're both very wrong! The creature is not a rope, nor a tree, but like a large snake. How could you both be so silly?"

The moral frequently given is that they were all right, and they were all wrong, for none of them could see the elephant in it's entirety, but could only encounter small parts of it.

The supposed application is this: the elephant is god, and we are the blind men. None of us is capable of knowing god's full shape, and so we fight and argue about what god looks like, but we are all right and we are all wrong. The Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Taoists, Buddhists, Christians, etc. all worship the same god in different ways.

Immediately, the Holy Spirit pointed out several truths and several outright lies in this analogy. The truths first, as it's a fairly short list:

God is wholly different from us in His very nature. (Ps. 50:21; Ps. 8; Is. 55:8-9)

We are blind (John 9:39-41), and incapable of full comprehension of Him. (Deut. 29:29)

Now for the lies. (These are too long to put into list form.)

First, there is the underlying assumption that fallen, unconverted man is searching for God. But God says,

There is none righteous, no, not one:
there is not that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way,
they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Their throat [is] an open sepulcher;
with their tongues they have used deceit;
the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
and the way of peace have they not known:
there is no fear of God before their eyes.
(Rom. 3:10ff, eph. mine)

And again, Jesus said,

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
...
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(John 3:19-21; 6:44)

One more should suffice:

And you [hath he quickened,] who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Eph. 2:1-13)

...cf. this (esp. vss. 8, 9) with Heb. 11:6:
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him:] for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

'Nuff said.

Secondly, there is a blasphemous assumption, even if we were to seek after God without His drawing us, that we could discover anything about Him apart from what He reveals of Himself to us.

Moses said,

The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
(Deut. 29:29)

Jesus reiterated:

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].
(Matt. 11:27)

Paul confirmed:

But as it is written, 'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.' But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them,] because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Cor. 2:10-14, eph. mine)

Once again, 'nuff said.

Corollary to this is an assumption that God has not revealed to us what we need to know about Himself, that we must figure it out on our own. But we've seen above that "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit..."

Indeed, God reveals Himself fully in His Son Jesus Christ (John 1:18; 14:9; Col. 1:19), and we have direct access to His revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ by 1) the Scriptures (John 5:39) and His Spirit (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:13-16).

So, in conclusion, the analogy is a demonic deception, designed around assumptions that flatly deny the depravity of man and the revelation of God in Christ!

In fact, upon further meditation, it occurs to me that this analogy is very applicable to the god(s) of every religion but that of our Lord Christ. These religions indeed all serve the same god (1 Cor. 10:20, cf. Deut. 32:17), the god of this age, the prince and the power of the air (and/or his minions), and they will join them in their full punishment -- the wrath of God poured out upon them for all eterenity. (2 Thess. 1:7-9, 2 Pet. 2, 3)

QOTD

2009-08-07T00:54:00.000-07:00

You don't tell men that they are saved; you tell men how to be saved. God tells them that they are saved.
— Paul Washer

Busy Busy Busy...

2009-08-06T17:37:00.001-07:00

Don't worry...I haven't forgotten about the blog. I'm just really busy lately.

Well, that's interesting.

2009-08-03T20:58:00.000-07:00

Turns out I'm a Covenant Theologian -- at least insofar as totally agreeing with this post makes me one. :)

This is, IMHO, a great breakdown of the Abrahamic Covenant and how it applies/doesn't apply to us (and the Jews, a.k.a. the "Israelites according to the flesh") today.

Let me know what you think!

Reply to Comment

2009-07-31T10:19:00.000-07:00

"the anonymous" W. Holmes made a good point in the first comment on this post. This post is a reply to that. (I tried to do this as a second comment, but the Comments don't allow the "<sup>" HTML tag, which I use for my footnotes.

That said, here's my reply:
--------------------------------
Great thought, W. I completely concur. As Moses said in Deuteronomy 29:29,

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

What "things" are revealed to us now? All things (that we need to know, anyway), are revealed in Christ. Indeed, even though the "secret things belong unto the LORD", we can know all we need to know and understand about Him, since He has revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ, His "Son...Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,"¹ and "[W]ho of God is make unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, 'He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.'"^2,3 I am reminded of the Hymn, All I Need, which goes like this:

Jesus Christ is made to me,
All I need, all I need,
He alone is all my plea,
He is all I need.

[Refrain

Wisdom righteousness and pow’r,
Holiness forevermore,
My redemption full and sure,
He is all I need.]

Jesus is my all in all,
All I need, all I need,
While He keeps I cannot fall,
He is all I need.

[Refrain]

He redeemed me when He died,
All I need, all I need,
I with Him was crucified,
He is all I need.

[Refrain]

Glory, glory to the Lamb,
All I need, all I need,
By His Spirit sealed I am,
He is all I need.

[Refrain]

As I indicated previously, I can only pray that God will enable the man, by grace, to believe what his mind is telling him is impossible, so that, believing, he would 1) be saved, and 2) begin (through the Spirit, of course⁴), to "behold the beauty of the LORD", even though he ~~might~~will not understand it all until we see Him face to face.⁵
--------------------------------
¹Heb. 1:3a
²1 Cor. 1:30
³Paul quotes Jeremiah 9:23-24, which is highly relevant here:

Thus saith the LORD, 'Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty [man] glory in his might, let not the rich [man] glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these [things] I delight,' saith the LORD.

As a comment reply, this post is already getting long, so I'm going to leave the significance of Jer. 9:23, 24, and how it relates to W. Holmes' comment, this comment, and Paul's own letter (i.e. why Paul quoted it) as an exercise for the reader's meditation (and comments, hopefully).

:)
⁴1 Cor. 2:9-16
⁵1 Cor. 13:12

QOTD

2009-07-30T00:53:00.000-07:00

Should a hymn, which has endured the test of time, be stripped away from God’s people merely because it does not appeal to the ear of individuals who do not love God?

— Dan Miller, Pastor
From his article at Sharper Iron.org.

First Meeting with JW's: Summary

2009-07-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

I finally got together, this afternoon, with the Watchtowerites for a discussion over coffee. From our phone conversations setting up the meeting, I was let to believe that we would have at least 45 minutes, and possibly an hour.

For the last couple of weeks, I have been studying, as a refreshment and expanding of previous study, the topic of the Deity of Christ: that His title as the "unique Son of God" necessitates that He is "God the Son".

Well, we started the conversation by looking at the the Watchtower organization's "restoration of the name" to the New Testament. If you read the New World Translation, you will notice the name "Jehovah" popping up all over the New Testament, where it is not in the Greek. The Watchtower avers that the name was in the originals, but was written out of them in reverence for the name. They cite Hebrew Translations "from the 14th century onward" that include the Tetragrammaton ("YHWH"), which is where the name "Jehovah" comes from ("LORD" in the KJV Old Testament, or "JEHOVAH" in places).

Their NWT purports to have "restored" the divine Name JEHOVAH to the text, based on these Hebrew sources. I would have no problem with this, if they were consistent. However, there is scholarly evidence that they were arbitrarily selective in where they chose to "restore" the name or not, based on whether it seems to be supporting Christ's Deity or not.

I started with this evidence, and we looked at Hebrews 1:10 specifically.

Of course, they tended to interrupt me quite regularly, and barely let me finish any thought. But thankfully, the Lord allowed me to get them to look at the entire context of Heb. 1, see what was being said and why the OT was being quoted in v. 8-10, and about Whom. Then I showed them that the very Hebrew sources that the NWT relies on the restore the Name to the text use the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in reference to the Son in v. 10.

They didn't like that at all. The following is, as best as I can remember, how the argument went from there:

The older fellow said, "I have a son. He is not me. How can the Son be God if there is only one God and that God is the Father?" I said, "It's the doctrine of the Trinity. God is One God in Three Persons. These persons are distinct Persons, yet One Being, of the same substance. It's as Jesus said, 'I and my Father are one.'"

He replied, "You are quoting John 10:30."

Me: "Correct."

Him: "Well, the Greek word there means 'one in purpose', not 'one in substance'."

Me: "Actually, it's 'hen', and it literally only means 'one', and has no shade of meaning except what is put on it through the context."

Him: "Exactly, but you have to look at how Jesus used it in other passages of the same kind. In John 17, He prays that the church may be 'one' as He is 'one' with the Father. He is not praying that the church be of the same substance with each other, or that they become God. He is praying that they be 'one' in purpose."

Me: "I do not disagree with your interpretation of the word in John 17. He does indeed use it to mean 'one in purpose' there. However, that is a completely different context, and He is saying a completely different thing."

Him: "But it's the same word!"

Me: "No, it's not. Let me give you an example. Let's say I say to you, 'Thanks!' [said very sarcastically, like 'thanks for nothing']. Then, James here comes over with the coffee (which he did), and I say, 'Thanks!' [said very sincerely and in a praising manner]. I, the same person, said exactly the same thing. But in two completely different contexts, and with exactly opposite meanings. That's the way language works. We cannot judge John 10:30 based on John 17, because they are two completely different situations. We have to judge John 10:30 based on the reaction and understanding of the people to whom He was talking, and whether He affirms their understanding to be correct or not."

We then read the passage.

Me (cont'd): "So you see, the Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God."

Him: "But they were apostate, and were wrong. They misunderstood Him."

Me: "Well, did they? Let's look at what His response is. The easy response to this, assuming you're right, is 'Hey, look, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that my purpose is aligned with the Father's. I'm not God! That's preposterous.' Problem solved."

Me (cont'd): "But instead, He gives a defense from their own scriptures (Ps. 82 specifically) of His Deity."

Him: "That's not what He was saying. He was saying that other humans had been called 'gods', so what's the big deal calling Him a god?"

Me: "On the surface, it seems that way. However, let's look at their reaction to that, and see if they understood Him to be saying that. If so, they would have had no reason to stone Him, saying, 'Oh, ok. Sorry about the wanting to kill you and all. You're OK. had us worried there for a second, though.' Then they would all have a good laugh about it and go home."

Me (cont'd): "But that's not what happened. They wanted to kill Him even more. They understood that His defense was not, 'Well, you know, I'm not actually YHWH, that would be blasphemy. I'm just a god, in the same sense you are.' They understood that His defense was, 'Yeah, I am indeed YHWH, and the Scriptures affirm that I exist, and I'm telling you that I'm here now. Get used to it.'"

Him: "But the Son can't be the Father!"

Me: "I never said He is. They are two distinct Persons, but one is substance and essence, as well as in purpose."

Him: "It just doesn't make sense. There is only one God. I agree that Jesus is the Son of God, but He is not God the Son, and He is not YHWH."

Me: "The two are synonymous. By every standard of Scripture, both Old Testament and New, you cannot deny one and affirm the other. To deny one is to deny the other. And we know that if you deny the Son, you deny the Father, and you dwell in darkness: there is no life in you — you do not have everlasting life."

Him: "....!"

Him (looking physically pained): "Um, I just remembered...I've got to be somewhere. I've got to go. Nice meeting you."

Then he got up and walked away. I'm not saying he was running away, but his body language screamed "fleeing". Since I do not see the heart, but only the outside, I cannot exactly know his reason for such a hasty exit. However, I pray that the Holy Spirit is working on him and bearing witness in his heart that Jesus is, not just "the Son of God", as they define that term, but also, as the Scriptures clearly indicate, "God the Son."

Please pray for him; his name is Lou. He told me his last name also, but I do not remember it. (To protect his privacy, I would not post it here anyway.)

After Lou's rather precipitous departure, James took over the conversation again — or rather I should say his wife did. About five minutes later (about 1:15), she mentioned that they had to leave for her doctor's appointment, which was, at most, about an hour away (I'm not going to say where, to protect her privacy). So I said, "Ok, so you have to leave by...oh...2:00?"

Their rather hasty response was, "Oh, no, we have to leave right now."

So we wrapped it up. I gave James the printout of the proof for the Name changing monkey-business that Watchtower was doing, including the actual Hebrew texts in question. I said, and he agreed, that we needed to do this again. I tentatively suggested Saturday. He said, "Call me."

I think next time, I'm going to suggest putting some official parameters in place for the conversation, to prevent us from getting into a zeal-based shouting match.

I have in mind, for example, that only one person at a time could be speaking, and they must indicate that they are finished speaking by a certain phrase or sentence. For example: "I yield the floor." or "Ok, I'm finished."

Another suggestion might be that, since only one person can be speaking at a time (see the first suggestion), all other parties would need to wait three full seconds before beginning their response, and that whoever wishes to respond raise his or her hand and be recognized by the person who just finished. If more than one wishes to speak, they both get to speak, but in the order that the one who is just finished talking chooses, if one doesn't submit to the other before the previous speaker can make his decision.

Let me know in the comments if you have any other potential "keeping it cordial" suggestions.

Update on the Discussion Over Coffee...

2009-07-27T10:28:00.001-07:00

The JW I was talking to put off our meeting, because he wanted to bring along "a buddy," who wasn't able to make it that day. Then, on the newly appointed day (last Saturday), I called, and he put it off again, claiming he is tired from a long week of "Bible training". He asked to "tentatively" schedule it for Wednesday, to which I agreed.

I am going to attempt to record the conversation (with his permission, of course) if/when we finally get to it.

QOTD

2009-07-24T22:11:00.000-07:00

Together for the Gospel, 2008 conference, Session 7: How the Supremacy of Christ Creates Radical Christian Sacrifice, by John Piper. Quote starts 13m23s.

The quote is in context of I Tim. 6:9, and pastoral ministry.

The world is not going to glorify Christ because they see that Christians are wealthy, and healthy, and prosperous.

Very simple reason why: that's what they live for!

So you use Jesus to get it? They use other means to get it. They're not impressed!

Jesus is the ticket? When the show starts, you throw the ticket away! They don't need your ticket. They're not impressed!

You should really listen to the sermon, since there are nuances of expression that don't come through in transcription. :)

Splitting the blog...

2009-07-22T20:22:00.001-07:00

I just split this blog into two. I started a new blog called On Freedom and Oppression, and moved a few of the posts I had here over there.

Beholding the Beauty is still my main blog, since the majority of my posts are related to spiritual things, but I really got the sense that the political stuff needed it's own space to play in.

On the Deity of Christ: The Love of God Requires It

2009-07-22T19:35:00.000-07:00

...but thou hast in love to my soul [delivered it] from the pit of corruption: for thou has cast all my sins behind thy back. (Isaiah 38:17)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8)

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law. (Rom. 13:10)

Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
...
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it...(Eph. 5:1, 2, 25)

But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)

Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren. (1 John 3:16)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

It is clear from these verses that love, as defined by God Himself, is shown best by sacrificing oneself.

According to Rom. 5:8, God demonstrated His own love toward us by sacrificing His Son on the cross for our sins.

It's glaringly obvious from this, that if the Son were a created being, separate from the Father in substance, that this is not a demonstration of God's love, but only of Christ's love.

In order for God (YHWH) to demonstrate His own love by His Son's sacrifice of Himself, The Son must also be YHWH.

On the Deity of Christ: It's Importance

2009-07-18T12:16:00.000-07:00

I'd like to start this series by asking the question: Why am I doing this? Why am I taking all this time to prove plainly from the Scriptures that Jesus is God -- not a created being inferior to the Father -- Who is one with the Father not just in purpose, but also in substance? What difference does it make whether we see Him as a created being or the One Who has no beginning?

Why is it important that we understand what the phrase "the Son of God" means?

First, Jesus thought it was important enough to explicitly take time to make sure His disciples "got it," and had the Holy Ghost record the lesson through Matthew.

When He was here, some of the people were confused about Who He was: His identity. Let's take a look (Matt. 16:13ff):

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

But He starts out by asking who other people were saying that He was. Turns out other people thought He was all kinds of different great men, but all men nonetheless: nothing more.

Then, to correct this misperception in His disciples, He asks them Who they think He is. Peter speaks up and says, "You're the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus acknowledges this, even going so far as to say that the Father had revealed it to Peter, and giving Peter a high position in the early church as a direct reward for getting it right (see the rest of the passage).

So, first, Jesus thought it was important to understand correctly Who He is.

Secondly, it is essential to salvation. For someone to be saved, he must believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that He is the Son of God. To believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, you have to know what those terms mean. Let's start with the first part -- that you have to believe the terms -- by looking at John's first letter:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father... (1 John 2:22, 23a)

Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:15)

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God... (1 John 5:1)

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:5 [cf. Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7])

So we see that it is imperative for salvation that one believe that Jesus is 1) the Christ, and 2) the Son of God. This is the same formula that Peter gave, Thou art 1) the Christ, 2) the Son of the living God.

The way Peter said it, and Jesus confirmed, the phrase the Son of the living God is the Christ's identity -- i.e. Who He is. Therefore, if you deny that Jesus is the Christ, you also deny that He is the Son of God, and vice versa.

Also, John indicates (1 John 2:22, 23a - see above) that to "deny the Son" is to deny the Father also (v23). To "deny the Son" is to deny that Jesus is the Christ (v22).

So it's pretty important that we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

It's elementary that you cannot believe something you don't understand. Jesus indicated this when He said, in His explanation of the parable of the sower,

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]... (Matthew 13:23a, emphasis mine)

The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was reading the words of Isaiah 53, but they did him no good because he didn't understand them. It wasn't until Phillip explained them, and he understood, that he was able to believe on Christ, of which the passage speaks. In fact, only upon understanding Phillip's explanation can he (v37) recite the creedal formula given earlier: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:6, 7) that there were some who had turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. People were trying to teach by parroting words, but they themselves didn't understand what the words really meant.

So we see it's actually very important not only 1) to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but also 2) to understand what those titles mean.

It is my contention, and that of the general church, that those titles have a specific meaning: one that defines Jesus as God, and not as a created being.

If it is true that the definition of the term "Son of God" does not include "a created being", then to say that Jesus is a created being is to deny that He is the Son of God, and is therefore to be an anti-Christ, who has not the Father or the Son, and who therefore has not eternal life. To put it colloquially, "this is heavy, dude." This is a very serious topic -- the "heaviest" topic ever!

It is my goal in this series On the Deity of Christ to prove, according to the Scriptures, that the definition of the terms "Son of God" and "the Christ" necessarily exclude the idea of "a created being," and necessarily include the idea that the One who holds those titles is God Almighty, a.k.a. Jehovah (or Yahweh -- however you want to translate YHWH), a.k.a. God the Son.

I am writing this series so that any who read it may know, from the Scriptures, what all goes into the phrase "the Son of God", and therefore, as John wrote (1 John 5:13), ...that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

On the Deity of Christ: Introduction

2009-07-14T11:12:00.001-07:00

The place I work is an actual office, but it is in a neighborhood. As I was pulling into the parking lot, two gentlemen from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (commonly called the "Jehovah's Witnesses") were crossing the entrance. They waited to cross until I was parked, and started to address me through my open window.

Now, it has been some time since I had any substantial interaction with any from this (IMHO) cult, and I was in a particularly spunky mood today, so I grabbed by Bible off of the front seat next to me, and prepared for battle.

(Disclaimer: I make it sound as though my attitude was one of wanting to destroy these men. It was not. In fact, I realized that they are trapped in false teaching, and only want to destroy their belief in that. I want them to see our matchless God and Savior in all of His wondrous glory -- not as a created, and therefore necessarily inferior, being.)

They began the conversation by mentioning my Bible (it's a rather large one, and it was prominently displayed under my left arm when I exited the vehicle). Then they asked what I thought about what was going on in the world -- how bad it is, etc. (They use this in a good majority of the literature and initial interactions as a "hook" to get people interested and talking.)

I replied that my God is in control, that I "keep a weather eye on it", and contribute where I can to maintain freedom, but that ultimately, it's not my job to worry about it.

Well, they liked that answer (what's not to like?), so they moved on. They said, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?" I replied, "Of course, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, a.k.a God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity." Well, that got us started!

We had a very good discussion of the deity of Christ. I must give credit where credit is due. They argued reasonably, and without trying to change the subject (much). (This ability to stick to the subject is, in my experience with JW's, a rare thing). We ended the conversation cordially, when RCC's secretary showed up and told me I needed to get to work.

The man with whom I was primarily conversing suggested that we continue the conversation over coffee (he's buying), to which I agreed. I set this coming Saturday around noon as the time, so please pray that the Holy Spirit will use me and will work in this man's heart, to bring him out of the false religion, into true knowledge of our wonderful Savior.

But I digress: the point of this post is that, even during the discussion, the Holy Spirit showed me yet more proofs of Christ's Deity from the Scriptures, and I would like to share those with whoever cares to read them. I will address each one individually, in a series, over the next few weeks.

Enjoy, and feel free to comment.

Our Advocate: Jesus Christ the Righteous

2009-07-13T16:12:00.000-07:00

The Lord is so good to me. He instructs me constantly, even in my faults. Over the weekend, He has taught me even more the value, meaning, and joy of sanctification: living daily in the grace of God by applying the same faith that brought justification -- faith in His Son.

This past week at Family Camp, Dr. Fox brought a great message on advocacy of Jesus, and how that relates to our daily forgiveness for sin. I really enjoyed the messages all week, and was greatly instructed in the Lord; and that message was no exception.

So, of course, I got an opportunity to apply that teaching. Unfortunately, I yielded to temptation in a certain area, and in doing so I sinned! (Don't look at me in that tone of voice! cf. Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1; 1 Cor. 4:5, James 4:11, 12; 1 John 1:8-10)

Instantly, the Holy Spirit worked me over with conviction, and assured me constantly that my fellowship with the Father was going to be pretty much nonexistent until we got this thing taken care of.

At once, having been reminded of the surpassing, eternal joy of fellowship with the Light, I greatly desired to be restored to Him. But I also greatly feared His wrath at having yielded to a temptation so obvious (and clearly warned against!). (Don't even ask -- I'm not going to tell you. As you are about to see, even God doesn't make it His business anymore, so why should you? :) )

After all,

...make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of mean sold his birthright.

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to the them any more (for they could not endure that which was commanded, 'And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be soned, or thrust through with a dart:' and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, 'I exceedingly fear and quake'): but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.'"

And this word, 'Yet once more,' signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire.

And again,

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is their any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

(Yikes! If you don't have a healthy fear of the Lord after understanding those passages...well, check your salvation. cf. 1 Cor. 2:14, Php. 2:12, Heb. 12:8)

Anyway, with the concept of being separated from fellowship with my wonderful Lord, and over something so stupid and temporary, the Holy Spirit brought me to my knees in godly sorrow and repentance.

But I was yet afraid to even "enter into his gates...into his courts" -- forget coming before Him with singing! Like the Hebrews before me, I could not look on the brightness of His glory and holiness.

Then the sweet Comforter (once His job of conviction was accomplished, He switched roles) reminded me that the wrath of God that I had brought on myself through my sin (Eph. 2:3, etc.), has already been poured out on Jesus at the Cross, and that, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." He encouraged me to "...therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that [I would] obtain mercy."

Furthermore, He assured me that "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitation for our sins."

Additionally, He reminded me that I do not have to stand naked before the judgment bar and face the fierce wrath of God, which "cometh on the children of disobedience" (for Jesus is my advocate, standing at that bar for me, having already face that awesome wrath and "propitiated" [satisfied] it through His blood), and that "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

You see, it is only by living this life in the flesh "by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" that I can overcome the world.

God promises that, when we come boldly¹ to the throne of grace, not only will we receive mercy, but we will also "find grace to help in time of need." In other words, if we remember all this in future temptation, He will supply our need for strength and grant us grace to stand. "Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him to stand." For it is only by His grace that we will overcome the world, and we have access into said grace by our faith (which is also a gift -- so don't get a big head about it. :)

Once reminded of all this, the blessed Holy Spirit lovingly came along side me and brought me into the courtroom (through prayer), where He helped me to confess my guilt. As promised, Jesus also came along side and stood for me against my Adversary, the Devil (who was constantly railing against me, and accusing me before our Father).

Now, I am once again restored to fellowship with Him -- and how sweet it is! He continually makes me to rejoice in His love, and I sing with David:

"But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice:
let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them:
let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee.

For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous;
with favor wilt thou compass him
as with a shield." (Ps. 5:11,12)

Sing with me!

"O come, let us sing
unto the LORD:
let us make a joyful noise
to the rock of our salvation.

Let us come before his presence
with thanksgiving,
and make a joyful noise unto him
with psalms.

For the LORD is a great God,
and a great King
above all gods.

In his hand
are the deep places of the earth:
the strength of the hills
is his also.

The sea is his,
and he made it:
and his hands formed
the dry land.

O come,
let us worship and bow down:
let us kneel
before the LORD our maker.

For he is our God;
and we are the people
of his pasture,
and the sheep
of his hand.

To day if ye will hear his voice,

'Harden not your heart, as in the provocation,
and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.

Forty years long was I grieved with this generation,
and said,

"It is a people that do err in their heart,
and they have not known my ways:"

Unto whom I sware in my wrath
that they should not enter into my rest.'" (Ps. 95)
" (Ps. 95:1,2)
---------------------------------------------------
¹(trembling, for our God is a consuming fire, yet bold in the faith that the righteous Christ [who alone, because of His righteousness, can approach the throne] is our advocate and high priest, having satisfied the wrath of God through the shedding of His blood, to which God gave witness by raising Him from the dead by His Power)

Praising Him

2009-07-11T11:48:00.000-07:00

I waited patiently for the LORD;
and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

He brought me up also
out of an horrible pit,
out of the miry clay,
and set my feet upon a rock,
and established my goings.

And he hath put a new song in my mouth,
even praise unto our God:
many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

(Ps. 40:1-3)

And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel:

Asaph the chief, and next to him, Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obededom: and Jeiel with psalteris and with harps; but Asaph made a sound with cymbals; Benaiah also and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God.

Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the LORD into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.

"Give thanks unto the LORD,
call upon his name,
make known his deeds among the people.

Sing unto him,
sing psalms unto him,
talk ye of all his wondrous works.

Glory ye in his holy name:
let the heart of them rejoice
that seek the LORD .

Seek the LORD and his strenght,
seek his face continually.

Remember his marvelous works
that he hath done, his wonders,
and the judgments of his mouth;
...
Sing unto the LORD, all the earh;
shew forth from day to day his salvation.

Declare his glory
among the heathen;
his marvelous works
among all nations.

For great is the LORD,
and greatly to be praised:
he also is to be feared
above all gods.

For all the gods of the people are idols:
but the LORD made the heavens.

Glory and honor are in his presence;
strength and gladness are in his place.

Give unto the LORD,
ye kindreds of the people,
give unto the LORD
glory and strength.

Give unto the LORD
the glory due unto his name:
bring an offering, and come before him:
worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

Fear before him, all the earth:
the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Let the heavens be glad, and
let the earth rejoice: and
let men say among the nations,
'The LORD reigneth.'

Let the sea roar,
and the fullness thereof:
let the fields rejoice,
and all that is therin.

Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD,
because he cometh to judge the earth.

O give thanks unto the LORD;
for he is good;
for his mercy endureth for ever.

And say ye, 'Save us,
O God of our salvation,
and gather us together,
and deliver us from the heathen,
that we may give thanks to thy holy name,
and glory in thy praise.

Blessed by the LORD God of Israel for ever and ever."

And all the people said, "Amen," and praised the LORD.

(I Chron. 16:4-12, 23-36)

Sing praises to the LORD,
which dwelleth in Zion:
declare among the people his doings.
...
That I may shew forth all thy praise
in the gates of the daughter of Zion:
I will rejoice in thy salvation.
...
Put them in fear, O LORD:
that the nations may know themselves
to be but men. Selah.

(Psalm 9:11, 14, 20)

...they shall praise the LORD that seek him:
your hear shall live for ever.

All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD:
and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

(Ps. 22:26b, 27)

Rejoice in the LORD,
O ye righteous:
for praise is comely
for the upright.

Praise the LORD
with harp:
sing unto him
with the psaltery
and an instrument of ten strings.

Sing unto him
a new song;
play skilfully
with a loud noise.

For the word of the LORD
is right;
and all his works
are done in truth.

He loveth righteousness and judgment:
the earth is full
of the goodness of the LORD.

By the word of the LORD
were the heavens made;
and all the host of them
by the breath of his mouth.

He gathereth the waters of the sea
together as an heap:
he layeth up the depth
in storehouses.

Let all the earth
fear the LORD:
let all the inhabitants of the world
stand in awe of him.

(Ps. 33:1-8)

I will bless the LORD
at all time:
his praise shall continually
be in my mouth.

My soul shall make her boast
in the LORD:
the humble shall hear thereof,
and be glad.

O magnify the LORD
with me,
and let us exalt his name
together.

(Ps. 34:1-3)

I will give thee thanks
in the great congregation:
I will praise thee
among much people.

(Ps. 35:18)

My heart is fixed, O God,
my heart is fixed:
I will sing and give praise.

Awake up, my glory;
awake, psaltery and harp:
I myself will awake early.

I will praise thee, O Lord,
among the people:
I will sing unto thee
among the nations.

For thy mercy is great
unto the heavens,
and thy truth
unto the clouds.

Be thou exalted, O God,
above the heavens:
let thy glory be
above all the earth.

(Ps. 57:7-11)

Make a joyful noise unto God, all ye lands:
Sing forth the honor of his name:
make his praise glorious.

Say unto God,
'How terrible art thou
in thy works!
through the greatness of thy power
shall thine enemies submit themselves
unto thee.'

All the earth
shall worship thee,
and shall sing unto thee;
they shall sing
to thy name.
Selah.

Come and see the works of God:
he is terrible in his doing
toward the children of men.

He turned the sea into dry land:
they went through the flood on foot:
there did we rejoice in him.

He ruleth by his power for ever;
his eyes behold the nations:
let not the rebellious exalt themselves.
Selah.

O bless our God, ye people,
and make the voice of his praise
to be heard:

which holdeth our soul
in life,
and sufferth not our feet
to be moved.
...
Come and hear,
all ye that fear God,
and I will declare
what he hath done for my soul.

(Ps. 66:1-9, 16)

God be merciful unto us,
and bless us,
and cause his face to shine
upon us; Selah.

That thy way may be known
upon the earth,
thy saving health
among all nations.

Let the people praise thee,
O God:
let all the people praise thee.

O let the nations be glad
and sing for joy:
for thou shalt judge the people righteously,
and govern the nations upon the earth.
Selah.

Let the people praise thee,
O God;
let all the people praise thee.

Then shall the earth
yield her increase;
and God, even our own God,
shall bless us.

God shall bless us;
and all the ends of the earth
shall fear him.

(Ps. 67)

So we thy people and
sheep of thy pasture
will give thee thanks for ever:

we will shew forth thy praises
to all generations.

(Ps. 79:13)

O sing unto the LORD
a new song;
for he hath done
marvelous things:

his right hand, and
his holy arm,
hath gotten him the victory.

The LORD hath made known
his salvation:
his righteousness
hath he openly shewed
in the sight of the heathen.

He hath remembered
his mercy and
his truth
toward the house of Israel:

all the ends of the earth have seen
the salvation of our God.

Make a joyful noise
unto the LORD,
all the earth:

make a loud noise,
and rejoice,
and sing praise.

Sing unto the LORD
with the harp;
with the harp,
and the voice of a psalm.

With trumpets
and sound of cornet
make a joyful noise
before the LORD, the King.

Let the sea roar,
and the fullness thereof;
the world,
and they that dwell therein.

Let the floods
clap their hands:
let the hills
be joyful together
before the LORD;
for he cometh
to judge the earth:

with righteousness
shall he judge the world,
and the people
with equity.

(Ps. 98)

Then believed they
his words;
they sang
his praise.

(Ps. 106:12)

O that men would praise the LORD
for his goodness, and
for his wonderful works
to the children of men!

(Ps. 107:8, 15, 21, 31)

I will greatly praise the LORD
with my mouth;
yea, I will praise him
among the multitude.

(Ps. 109:30)

Wherefore should the heathen say,
'Where now is their God?'
...
But we will bless the LORD
from this time forth
and for evermore.

Praise the LORD.

(Ps. 115:2, 18)

O praise the LORD,
all ye nations:
praise him,
all ye people.

For his merciful kindness is great toward us:
and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever.

Praise ye the LORD.

(Ps. 117)

I will extol thee,
my God, O king;
and I will bless thy name
for ever and ever.

Every day
will I bless thee;
and I will praise thy name
for ever and ever.

Great is the LORD
and greatly to be prasied;
and his greatness is unsearchable.

One generation
shall praise thy works
to another,
and shall declare thy mighty acts.

I will speak
of the glorious honor
of thy majesty,
and of thy wondrous works.

And men shall speak
of the might
of thy terrible acts:
and I will declare thy greatness.

They shall abundantly utter the memory
of thy great goodness,
and shall sing
of thy righteousness.

The LORD is gracious,
and full of compassion;
slow to anger,
and of great mercy.

The LORD is good to all:
and his tender mercies
are over all his works.

All thy works
shall praise thee,
O LORD;
and thy saints
shall bless thee.

They shall speak
of the glory
of thy kingdom,
and talk
of thy power;

To make known to the sons of men
his mighty acts,
and the glorious majesty
of his kingdom.

Thy kingdom is
an everlasting kingdom,
and thy dominion endureth
throughout all generations.

The LORD upholdeth
all that fall,
and raiseth up
all those that be bowed down.

The eyes of all
wait upon thee;
and thou givest them their meat
in due season.

Thou openest thine hand,
and satisfiest the desire
of every living thing.

The LORD is righteous
in all his ways,
and holy
in all his works.

The LORD is nigh
unto all them that call upon him,
to all that call upon him
in truth.

He will fulfill the desire
of them that fear him:
he also will hear their cry,
and will save them.

The LORD preserveth
all them that love him:
but all the wicked
will he destroy.

My mouth shall speak
the praise of the LORD:
and let all flesh bless
his holy name
for ever and ever.

(Ps. 145)

Praise ye the LORD.

Praise ye the LORD
from the heavens:
praise him
in the heights.

Praise ye him,
all his angels:

praise ye him,
all his hosts.

Praise ye him,
sun and moon:

praise him,
all ye stars of light.

Praise him,
ye heavens of heavens,
and ye waters that be
above the heavens.

Let them praise the name of the LORD:
for he commanded,
and they were created.

He hath also stablished them
for ever and ever:
he hath made a decree
which shall not pass.

Praise the LORD
from the earth,
ye dragons,
and all deeps:

Fire, and hail;
snow, and vapor;
stormy wind
fulfilling his word:

Mountains, and all hills;
Fruitful trees, and all cedars:

Beasts, and all cattle;
creeping things, and flying fowl:

Kings of the earth, and all people;
princes, and all judges of the earth:

Both young men, and maidens;
old men, and children:

Let them praise the name of the LORD:
for his name alone
is excellent;
his glory
is above the earth and heaven.

He also exalteth the horn of his people,
the praise of all his saints;
even of the children of Israel,
a people near unto him.

Praise ye the LORD.

(Ps. 148)

And in that day thou shalt say,

"O LORD, I will praise thee:
though thou wast angry with me,
thine anger is turned away,
and thou comfortedst me.

Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and not be afraid:
for the LORD JEHOVAH is
my strength and my song;
he also is become
my salvation."

Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.

And in that day shall ye say,

"Praise the LORD,
call upon his name,
declare his doings among the people,
make mention that his name is exalted.

Sing unto the LORD;
for he hath done excellent things:
this is known in all the earth.

Cry and shout,
thou inhabitant of Zion:
for great is the Holy One of Israel
in the midst of thee."

(Is. 12)

Waiting on Him...

2009-07-03T18:20:00.001-07:00

For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes: nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee. (Ps. 31:22)

I never noticed this verse before. I was thinking earlier today about the folly of making "snap" decisions for most things in life (to be blogged about later), and so I did a search (using e-Sword) for the word "haste," which brought me to this verse.

I got to meditating on it, and several things occurred to me.

I know I've been there before: You pray for something, and when it doesn't happen immediately, or as you planned, you get cynical and pouty. "But I trusted You, Lord! What happened?"

My question is: what are we trusting Him for? Too often, we "trust" Him to immediately swoop to our aid like a magic genie -- to do our will. Then we act all surprised and get despondent when He doesn't do it.

Then, much later, when some or all of the details of God's plan come out, we say, with David: "For I said in my haste, 'I am cut off from before thine eyes:' nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee."

There are several lessons here, each of which I have, at some point, been guilty of ignoring, and I'm willing to bet you have too:

Don't assume that your plan is God's plan.
Don't assume that because you can't understand what's happening, God can't either.
Don't assume that because you can't see God working, He isn't.
Don't ever assume that you could have actually been happy/fulfilled/joyful/etc. with your own plan, and God just happened to get lucky this once.
Don't ever take a "no" answer as a sign that God has "cut [you] off from before [His] eyes." Remember, "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, 'I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.' So that we may boldly say, 'The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.'"

This topic is so rich, that I know I've left out a few really good points. Feel free to add your own in the comments.

(Disclaimer: I moderate my comments, so don't feel bad if yours 1) don't show up, or 2) don't show up immediately.)

FileMaker Wish List

2009-06-26T22:11:00.001-07:00

I know, it's not even Christmas! But here's my wish list for FileMaker Santa to consider for inclusion in future versions(s). (Hopefully sooner rather than later.)

It's a long list, so bear with me. Feel free to leave comments, but know that I moderate my comments, so don't be surprised (or offended, please) if yours doesn't show up immediately (or at all).

NOTE: If you are not a FileMaker developer, this list will not mean anything to you, so you can feel free to skip this post. Don't worry: I'm not offended. :)

Formatting Enhancements

Conditional Formatting of Number/Date/Time/Container types.
(currently only supports conditional formatting of Text)
Conditional Formatting of Line/Fill Patterns.
Conditional Formatting of object'sexistence.
(i.e. whether it even displays)
Ability to specify Alpha channel (transparency/opacity) for all Fills & Colors
(RGBA instead of RGB).

Developer Features

Manage Scripts

Script Numbers
Quick Find: search inside scripts also
Currently only searches Script Names.
Currently only available by printing script(s) to PDF and searching that.

Script Editor

Script Line Numbers
Colorization of Script Steps
Expand/Collapse code blocks
Specifically Loop...End Loop and If...Else If...Else...End If blocks.
Defaults to Expanded
State stored
—per file?
—per session? (i.e. until last window close)
—per FM Instance? (like Save Layout Changes Automatically)

Calculation Editor

Most of these would be toggleable and customizable.
See Apatana or any decent IDE for example(s).

Calculation Line Numbers
Colorize/Format Calculation
Type-Ahead Code Suggetions
Automatic Code Completion
Similar to Code Suggestions, but actually inserts other half of pairs of Parentheses and Brackets, and also inserts semicolons where it can, etc.
Automatic Whitespacing (default Off)
Enclosure Highlighting (parentheses/brackets)
e.g. Click an Open Parenthesis, and it's highlighted, and the Closing Parenthesis (if any) that FM think corresponds is also highlighted.
Code Collapsing
If FM determines that you have closed a particular code block properly, it should let you collapse that code, at least until the Calculation is saved.
The "Expand All" state would be restored when the user is finished editing the Calculation and closed the Calculation window, either by OK or Cancel.

Layouts

Layout Numbers
Display automatically to the left of the Layout Name, wherever it appears.
This is the number that displays in the Status Area ("flip book" number).
Layout Folders (like Script Folders)

New/Altered Calculation Functions

Altered: TableNames becomes TableOccurrenceNames
This more accurately reflects this function's actual feature set.
Altered: TableIDs becomes TableOccurrenceIDs
This more accurately reflects this function's actual feature set.
New: TableNames
Lists the names of the actual base tables in the file.
New: TableIDs
Lists the internal FM IDs of the actual base tables in the file.
In case there is any confusion:
by "base tables", I'm referring to the tables and their names, as displayed in the Tables tab of Manage Database.
New: Get ( ActiveScripts )
Lists the active scripts — the script stack.
This is currently only available in the bottom of the Script Debugger window.
New: Get ( VariableNames )
Lists the names of the active variables, including scope indicator.
This is currently only available in the "Current" tab of the Data Viewer.
New: VariableType ( Variable )
Returns the data type (Text, Number, Container, Date, Time, TimeStamp) of the data stored in the variable.
Does for Variables what FieldType does for fields.
Altered: Last updated to handle Lists, too.
Equivalent to
GetValue ( listOfValues ; ValueCount ( listOfValues ) )
Altered: FilterValues updated to allow user to specify whichFilter to apply.
Currently only does Intersection.
New: CollapseValues ( listOfValues )
De-duplicates Value List.
New: ReplaceValues ( listOfValues ; start ; numberOfValues ; replacementValues )
New: FilterValuesByPattern ( listOfValues ; searchText )
Acts like FilterValues combined with PatternCount
Iterates over values, and keeps the ones where PatternCount ( value ; searchText ) >0
New: ForEach ( listOfValues ; do )
Iterates over value list, and runs the do code block.
Uses Self to reference current value.
New: While ( condition ; do )
As long as condition evaluates to Boolean TRUE, it evaluates the do block, and reiterates.
Otherwise, it stops.
New: Function ( {[}paramName1 {= defaultValue1} {; paramName2 ]}; do {; {{$}$}functionName } )
Allows custom functions to be defined on the fly.
Can recurse.
Scope assigned like variables.
Example:

I do:Set Variable [
$create_function ; Function (
myParam = 0 ; Case ( myParam ; "Hello World" ; 0 ) ; "$my_hello_world_function"
) ]

I then do:
Set Variable [ $call_my_function ; $my_hello_world_function( TRUE ) ]
$call_my_function is now set to the string "Hello World".
IsValid would be used to check if a Function is defined or not, like normal.
Scope is defined exactly like variables:
no initial sign = calculation scope (like Let variables)
$ = local/script scope
$$ = global scope
Added to the Data Viewer's Current tab. The "Value" column would show the parameters (their defaults) and the text of the do block —notthe results of evaluating the do block, since it hasn't been called specifically (that's what the Watch tab is for).

Miscellaneous

ActiveX object update
1. Allow Script Parameters
2. Script calls return Script Result to ActiveX object for retrieval.
Ability to designate Custom Function parameters as Optional.
Ability to display Variables on Layouts, as Merge Data.
1. "Merge Data" = New name for "Merge Fields".
2. Includes Function variables of the Script and Global scopes — see above.
3. Would cut down significantly on the number of "display" calculation fields clogging up the Schema.
Ability to specify OR relationships.
Ability to use Variables in relationships.
Change Self when used on Buttons to refer to the underlying object, not the FM "ghost" object grouped on top of it when the button is created.
New Layout Object: Calendar (details TBD)
Make all Windows windows independent of main FM App window, like on Mac.
Ability to programmaticaly manipulate layout objects
1. Includes ability to hide/delete them, and create/show them.
2. Any changes are temporaray. For how long would be TBD, but no longer than 'til the last window for the File closes.
3. Relevant layout editing permissions would apply.
4. Perhaps new function?: SetLayoutObjectAttribute ( objectName ; attributeName ; value )
5. Perhaps new Script Step?: Set Layout Object [ object ; attribute ; value ]
Ability to trigger Scripts from Calculations
New function: PerformScript ( fileName ; scriptName ; parameter )
Function returns Script Result (if any).
Ability to programmatically (script steps) create/alter/delete Schema items
- Tables
- Table Occurrences
- Fields
- Relationships
- Layouts
- Layout Folders
- Layout Objects (see above)
- Scripts
- Script Steps
- Script Folders
- etcetera

2009-06-26T21:36:00.000-07:00

Has it been a whole week already? Wow.

Anyway. Here's a random update on my life:

I can't see more than a couple of days ahead of me (and my "seeing" of those is pure conjecture), but Jesus is with me, and I'm enjoying walking with Him day-by-day.

I went ahead and ordered Atlas Shrugged. I got it yesterday, and will be reading it (or at least starting to) over the weekend.

I'm starting to dabble in LISP.

Learning Arabic -- slowly!

Discovered Kubuntu 9.04 and Intel embedded graphics cards get along fine: until you try to do Dual Screens, in which case the KDE GUI for Screen management has a huge bug in it -- it doesn't display the "Position" properties of a piece of hardware unless that hardware is not available/disabled/otherwise grayed out, at which condition it's useless anyway. :( Apparently this bug has been in it for a couple of revisions now, and, while it's been assigned for handling, I'm not holding my breath.

Came up with a FileMaker feature wish-list of mostly "low-hanging fruit" -- I suppose-- for FileMaker to consider implementing in future versions. I'll post that separately, because it's really long.

That's it for now.

Excellent Essay...

2009-06-19T12:08:00.001-07:00

I just read this excellent essay:

http://www.sharperiron.org/heart-of-collective-king

On Creeds, Confessions, and Statements of Faith

2009-06-17T14:45:00.000-07:00

I think it's funny that some churches can genuinely detest the idea of Creeds and Confessions -- and then turn around and have a "Statement of Faith," "Our Distinctives," or "We Believe" page on their church website.

I think it's even funnier that these churches frequently hold attestation (read: Confession) of agreement with their "Statement of Faith" (or other similar) document as a condition of membership.

To each his own, I guess. Praise the Lord for the Priesthood of the Individual Believer.

*walks away chuckling*

Monday

2009-06-15T11:24:00.001-07:00

I usually don't like Mondays (who does?). But today, I'm actually glad, because it seems that I'm back in the swing of things. You see, this weekend was particularly bad.

We had a great day at church...that wasn't it. But it was still not a great weekend for me. I had a low-level headache all weekend, and couldn't focus to save my life. I basically felt like crawling in a hole somewhere and staying there until I felt better. Problem is, Sunday for me is not a day I can crawl in a hole. :( Oh, well.

Anyway, I seem to be over whatever it was, and I'm actually looking forward to the week. :)

Mornings...Ugh...

2009-06-12T10:43:00.000-07:00

I hate mornings. Perhaps this is a leftover from my childhood, and I will grow out of it eventually. Perhaps it's hereditary (my father is also not a "morning person", although he bears up under the necessity of early rising much better and more consistently than I). Or perhaps I'm just, at some level lazy. I don't know.

Either way, I hate mornings. Indeed, my worst time of day is the moment I have to arise -- not simply to awake (that is fine, as long as I can just lie in bed and "veg"), but the moment that I must actually haul my carcass out of bed. Now, that doesn't mean I don't do it. It just means that I dread doing it, and would gladly skip mornings if I could.

So, you can imagine my horror when, after having worked until 4:00 a.m. and gotten to sleep at 5:00 a.m. (today), the client for whom I was working calls my cell phone with the *ahem* wonderful news that something else was broken, and that I had to fix it immediately because the person whose job it is to do something with the process that was broken was there "now". Oh, joy!

Well, anyway, before I realized it, I was in the shower: awake and getting ready. And so I made an interesting observation: I find it much less painful to get out of bed after only a few hours' sleep (3 hrs., 49 min., to be exact, in this case) than after a full 8 or 9 hours of regular sleep.

(Of course, I wind up paying for it in dulled focus and constant need to "push" myself throughout the day; but I'll take what I can get. :) )

I've noticed this in the past as well: I can get up at oh-dark-30 to get to the airport for a 6:00 a.m. flight, or to get to the church to leave for a week of camp at 7:00 a.m.; but to get up at 8:45 a.m. (after having gone to bed at midnight) in order to get to work on time at 9:30 a.m. is absolute torture. So I suffer the same amount in either case, but if I've only gotten a few hours' sleep, the suffering is spread out.

QOTD

2009-06-10T16:21:00.000-07:00

Raking is easy, but all you get is leaves. Digging is hard, but you might find gold.

John Piper

My New Blog

2009-06-08T16:43:00.001-07:00

So why am I starting a blog?

I'm not really. More like I'm moving my blog from FaceBook Notes to here.

I've been posting random thoughts and essays on my FaceBook Notes. However, two things occurred to me that warranted giving that up and starting here:

1. Only FaceBook users can read FaceBook Notes from my Profile. However, I have some non-FaceBook friends (Hi Mom! *wave* ) who would like to be able to read my writings also. Basically, I'm broadening my potential readership base.

2. What I was doing over at FaceBook was not just making Notes. I was, functionally, blogging. So why not use the right tool for the job? Thus this blog.

When I signed up, they asked me what I wanted to call my blog. I thought about it for a while, and I came up with "Beholding the Beauty" because that is one of my goals for each day, and the only -- to live life beholding the beauty of the LORD working in and through and around me. (From Psalm 24:7)