...out of the miry blog

2008-08-25T12:17:00.000-07:00

At 8:30 on Saturday night a 58 year old man took the stage at ScottTrade Center here in St. Louis, and proceeded to out last this 38 year old man. His name is Bruce Springsteen, but I call him "The Boss." If you haven't seen him live, then you will just think that, considering that "The King," and "The Killer" were taken, he had to settle for it. You, however, haven't seen him shred "Adam Raised a Cain" live. Folks, that guy has a guitar, and he has learned how to make it talk, indeed. He is my boss, and he is your boss, too. The next time I see a "Jesus is my Co-Pilot" shirt/bumper sticker I will remind that person Jesus is their Lord, and Bruce is their boss. I am the co-pilot. Now get back to coach before I kick your ass!!" I won't say that, really.

Turns out that Bruce was here about 30 years ago when he wasn't quite the wheel that he is now. A fan recognized him in a drug store and invited him home for dinner. Bruce accepted and the kid's mom (Sophie) literally charmed Bruce's pants off with her cooking and hospitality (no, not literally, but that was for Dan). That was why there was a family to my right of the stage that had a sign that read Sophie on it, and an arrow pointing to the belly of a pregnant girl. Sophie (now in her 80's) was in attendance, and so was her whole family (apparently compliments of Bruce), and that is what prompted the 9 song encore.

Here is the set list:

“Then She Kissed Me” (tour premiere)
“Radio Nowhere”
“Out in the Street”
“Adam Raised a Cain”
“Spirit in the Night”
“Rendezvous”
“For You”
“Mountain of Love” (tour premiere)
“Backstreets”
“Gypsy Biker”
“Because the Night”
“She’s the One”
“Livin’ in the Future”
“Cover Me”
“Meet Me at Mary’s Place”
“Drive All Night”
“The Rising”
“Last to Die”
“Long Walk Home”
“Badlands”

Encore
“Girls in Their Summer Clothes”
“Jungleland”
“Detroit Medley”
“Born to Run”
“Dancing in the Dark”
“American Land”
“Thunder Road”
“Little Queenie” (tour premiere)
“Twist and Shout”

What difference does a decade make?

I am 10 years older than my wife. A few years ago we started watching Soprano's on DVD. I turned to her in astonishment and said, "Hey, That's Little Steven!!" Saturday night she turned her head away from the 15 TV screen and said, "Hey! It's Silvio!!"

My wife was surprised by how "damn sexy" Bruce is, and was concerned that that would bother me. "No, baby, it doesn't bother me. Bruce isn't going to come for you, and if he does, you'll need to go with him. I would understand. Hell, I'm leaving you if he comes calling for me."

What the @%$%!@$#!!!!!!

2008-08-01T10:56:00.000-07:00

Follow this link to listen to the song that Senator Orrin Hatch wrote as a tribute to everyone's favorite chauffeur, Senator Edward Kennedy.

Seriously!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/29/hatchs-song-for-kennedy/

Words escape me.

Wow!

The Rebellious Son

2008-07-25T08:47:00.000-07:00

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

That was Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

My wife and I have been spending part of the summer going through OT law, and having discussions on various parts of it. There are several laws similar to this throughout the OT, and they are really harsh. I think they are made all the more harsh and untenable when cast in the light of many of the Psalms which proclaim the great joy we can experience when we obey the law. I have trouble picturing the rapturous joy I would experience as I drag my 20 something slacker son out to the city gates to be stoned by the elders. Would there ever be a day when I looked back on that moment and considered it to be sweeter than the drippings of the honeycomb? (Psalm 19:10)

AND YET!! I know that the law of the LORD is delightful, and that His precepts are true. So how can I reconcile such a harsh law with the pleasure I should find in obeying it? Perhaps God is communicating something to his people here that lies inside of what this law demands. I can't imagine my son descending to a point where I would turn him over to the authorities to be stoned. As frustrating as Trip can be at times we try not to escalate much past the occasional pop on the bottom to keep him from standing on the couch. But maybe that is the point of the law. I think these kinds of laws are God's way of telling families to handle there business in-house.

The fact that the son is a drunkard and a glutton implies that he is no longer a child, but has failed to behave as a man would behave. He is horrifically irresponsible. Perhaps God is sending a message to the young men to honor their parents or get out of the house.

Finally, I think that there is a corporate and community ethos here that creates a stench in our American nostrils. The idea of a real and moral obligation to the community/body is exceedingly foreign to our way of thinking. Where as we rest on the cartesian notion that thinking makes us so, the Biblical model seems to intimate that our existance within the body of Christ is what confirms the reality of our being.

Just a few thoughts. Feel free to dissect and or assert.

Exegetical Paper (Final Installment)

2008-02-16T09:29:00.000-08:00

The second subset of scene 2 is the turning point of the pericope. Everything up to this point is, to some degree, a manageable affair. Though Dinah has been humiliated and the family has lost face, the perpetrator has sought to make reparations. The primary issue to be settled is the issue of intermarriage between the family of Jacob and the Hivite tribe. Taken on its face the offer that is made by the sons of Jacob (Jacob remaining uninvolved even now) seems a fitting solution to the problem. Moses informs us from the beginning of the scene, however, that not one word of the brothers’ offer is anything but deceitful. My original suspicion of this proposed arrangement was that it would have been inappropriate and wrong even without the forthcoming massacre. My reasoning is that the symbol (circumcision) appears to be offered without the substance (faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Wenham’s commentary makes an interesting point; however, when he notes that the brothers do not use the word “nation” which might denote an economic arrangement, but rather their use of the phrase “become one people,” (v. 16) intimates a different motivation. Wenham notes, “In other words, Jacob’s sons insist that money has nothing to do with marriage; it is a question of religious identity.” If misusing the sign of God’s covenant outside of a religious context for the purpose of vengeance is an egregious offense, then it is safe to say that in witnessing the sons of Jacob employing not only the sign but the substance of their faith for their preconceived purposes we behold what might very well be one of the most despicable acts in the entirety of the Pentateuch. This moment is the seed from which the overall pastoral purpose of the narrative will bloom. Perhaps even to the surprise of the brothers the terms are accepted, and Hamor and Shechem return home where “the young man did not delay to do the thing, because he delighted in Jacob’s daughter.” (v. 19)
The third scene of the narrative recounts how Hamor and Shechem explain the terms of the agreement with the men of their city. Clearly, they are aware of the economic impact their merger with Jacob’s family will have for their region, but they are also enthusiastic about the two groups becoming one people. The prince has found a bride, and the whole tribe, in an incredible act of loyalty, determines to join him in assuming the religious identity of the tribes of Israel.
The fourth scene details the horrible massacre that occurs via Simeon and Levi. They commit this act while “they were sore.” Here we see that the very token of God’s covenantal grace to Abraham and his descendants is used as a moment of opportunity to betray a covenantal arrangement. The vengeance wrought by the sons of Jacob is made all the more disturbing through their theft. In verses 28-29, we see how they took everything from livestock to children. At last, in verse 30, Jacob offers a word on the entire episode, and true to his character, there is great concern over his own neck. Hamilton notes in his commentary the irony that Jacob, who has made a career out of deceit and theft, can exhibit disgust towards Simeon and Levi for their failure to honor a deal. For all of his newfound concern; however, Jacob’s protests are met with the curt reply of Simeon and Levi in verse 33, “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?”
Though the events of this story have far-reaching implications within the life of Israel, the story itself is hardly referenced at all by the other biblical writers. Clearly, this is the event that Jacob is referring to when he pronounces his blessings upon his sons in Genesis 49. The specific pronouncement on Levi and Simeon in verses 5-7 is, no doubt, a reference back to this event. Through this, we are able to, perhaps, look into the portion that Simeon receives in the inheritance in the book of Joshua 19:1-9. Simeon’s portion is surrounded on all sides by the isolating cover of Judah, and Levi receives no land at all.
Other implications might include a heightened tension between the children of Leah and the children of Rachel, the usurpation of Jacob’s authority by his sons, and it might not be beyond the scope of possibilities that the sons of Jacob felt a degree of retribution in their selling of Joseph due to Jacob’s thoughtless attitude toward the treatment of their sister. This, though, must be read into the text.
Though this pericope closes with the 33rd verse of chapter 34, the story of Jacob continues on, and it is at the end of the 35th chapter that Moses provides the pastoral payoff for the narrative we are considering. It is necessary to summarize the full villainy conceived and carried out by the sons of Jacob in 34:13-17 in terms of covenant. In spite of Shechem’s sinful behavior which was a slap in the face of Jacob’s family, he showed a genuine and sincere desire to compensate and make things right. Instead of money, though, Jacob’s sons required that they enter into the covenant that God had made with Abraham and Isaac, and that was promised to Jacob. They took the sign of their faith and entered into covenant with Hamor and Shechem for the express purpose of avenging themselves through the submission of their rivals. They were supposed to, through God’s blessing, be a blessing to the nations, and were instead using their role as God’s people to destroy other peoples using the Abrahamic covenant as a disguise and the sign of that covenant as their weapon of choice. I do not know that there is a word fit for print that can describe such evil. Yet, within nine verses, we see God remain faithful to His covenant with Abraham by pronouncing his blessing upon the greedy and cowardly deceiver, Jacob. (35:9-15)
The fact that the people of Israel would be hearing this tale (Chapters 34 and 35) either as they prepared to escape their slave masters, or as they camped on the plains of Moab preparing to enter their inheritance, would undoubtedly highlight the fact that God is faithful to his covenant with his people, and he has not used the covenant or its sign as a means of vengeance. God keeps his promises. They would know that they as a people deserve no more faith to this covenant then they extended to the people of Shechem, and yet they were receiving blessing upon blessing in order that God’s plan to redeem his creation would not be undone.
This pericope, hero-less as it is, serves the vital role of showing the infant nation of Israel what they are at their worst, so that they can somehow glimpse the goodness and grace that is theirs through their unique, intimate, and covenantal relationship with the creator of the universe. The story is not about Dinah, or the sons, or even Jacob. The story is about God. I opined at the beginning of this paper that not one beautiful thing survives over the course of this story, and that point is certainly in need of correction. God’s covenant survives, because His word is more powerful than the sins of men.

Exegetical Paper (Installment 4)

2008-02-14T12:15:00.000-08:00

Concerning the term “daughters of the land,” there is no doubt that this would have thrown up a red flag for the original audience. Aware as they were of Abraham’s concerns over intermarriage in chapter 24, coupled with Rebekah’s concern for the same at the end of chapter 27, they would have no doubt seen trouble on the horizon at this young woman “borne to Jacob,” keeping company with the Canaanite maidens.
There is some considerable debate about whether what happens next constitutes a rape or not, and to what extent Dinah is abused. Verses 2 and 3 create an interesting three-verb comparison that seems to play off itself. In verse two Shechem “takes”, “lies” and “abuses/humiliates/rapes” Dinah. In verse 3 he is “drawn to”, “loves,” and “speaks tenderly to her.” As Sternberg maintains that the point of the overall story is to create a sense of sympathy if not benevolence towards the sons of Jacob, his interpretation of the event is that while the threefold descriptive of “violent emotion” does soften the violent attack of Dinah, the authors use of three verbs “where a single verb might denote the occurrence, quashes the idea of seduction.” More reasonable, perhaps is Lyn Bechtel’s assessment of the event in which the word used here for “humiliate” (`nh) is found in Deuteronomy 22:23-29. These verses submit three cases in which a virgin is involved in sexual misconduct. In the first, she is betrothed and joins with another man, does not cry out, and the word “humiliated” is used. In the second the man seizes a woman at random, forces himself upon her and the word “humiliated” is not used. In the final instance, a virgin that is not betrothed is joined with a man and the man’s behavior is said to “humiliate” her. In instances like the third case, the man is obligated to pay the bride price for the maiden and marry her. This third case seems highly illustrative of the story we are reading. Though culture and millennia separate us from Shechem, it seems problematic to common sense that such an attack would flower into the type of love described by Moses throughout the rest of the account; a love that has Shechem demanding his father’s (Hamor) assistance in procuring Dinah as a bride. Also, though Sternberg wishes to argue that the author intends to make protagonists of the sons of Jacob from the beginning, such a position runs so incredibly contrary to the overarching themes of Genesis that even the best-made case seems difficult to accept.
The rest of this scene involves Jacob and his family learning of the event, and Hamor coming out to speak with Jacob. Again we see that Jacob does not hear that Dinah was defiled, but rather that “his daughter Dinah” was defiled. The silence of Jacob in this moment is contrasted with three things. First, Jacob’s complacency is in direct opposition to the outrage of his sons who were “indignant and very angry.” (v. 7) Second, Jacob’s lack of action or reaction stands out boldly in light of Hamor’s commitment to honor the wishes of his son, and to set things right. Finally, the narrator enters into verse 7 in such a way as to intimate that the wrath of the brothers is, at least at this point, a righteous indignation. Moses describes the act as “an outrageous thing,” and his phrase “for such a thing must not be done,” is almost a nod to the audience that they should take note of the moral and social outrage that has occurred. The first of these terms is used elsewhere in scripture to describe the sin of Achin in Joshua 7:15, and also to describe the behavior of the Benjaminites towards the concubine in Judges 20. The second phrase is, along with the first, used by Tamar in a similar situation in 2 Samuel 13:12.
The second scene can probably best be divided into two subsets. The first consists of the speech act of Hamor and Shechem and their attempt to set the issue aright. The second subset is concerned primarily with the terms of peace offered by the sons of Jacob. Notable in the first subset is that though Hamor came in verse 6 “to speak with him” (that is Jacob), he now speaks “with them,” denoting Jacob’s sons. Again, the reader cannot help but hear the silence of the Israelite patriarch. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the word rendered “long” in the ESV’s verse 8 is the same verb used in Deuteronomy 7:7 to describe God’s love for Israel, thus “an expression denoting an intimate relationship…is put in the mouth of Hamor…indicating that…Shechem’s feelings…are genuine and honorable.” Nevertheless, the offer here boils down to intermarriage, and Moses’ original audience, along with Jacob and his sons, should view this with grave trepidation and concern.

Exegetical Paper (Installment 3)

2008-02-12T07:06:00.000-08:00

There are several issues that Moses seeks to address within the pages of Genesis for the edification of the Israelites. In a very broad sense, the work serves as a grand apology for why the Israelites are doing what they are doing in the first place. However, within this far-reaching scheme, Moses takes great care to illustrate some exceptionally fine points concerning where the Israelites are to stand in relationship to both God and man. The scope of the Genesis saga reveals to its audience that the God that has delivered them from Egyptian bondage is the same God that created the world (Gen 1:1-2:25). They learn about the origin of sin in the world (3:1-13) and God’s glorious reclamation project for his creation (3:15). Through the recounting of the patriarchal line the Israelites are made aware of how this God has entered into their own history in a very unique and intimate way, how He has made promises and covenants with their forefathers, the blessings they are to enjoy through their role as God’s people, and the blessings they will bestow as they fulfill their role as God’s people (Gen 12, 15, 17, 35). Through that same recounting, they are educated as to how much of their involvement in this plan is predicated on their own righteousness (examples in 12, 27, 34, 37, and 38).
At the center of the entire account is the promise God makes with Abraham in chapter 12 verses 1-3. “Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’” Gordon J. Wenham notes that within the context of this promise we have presented the thematic elements that undergird the remaining 38 chapters of Genesis: Land, Descendents, Covenant Relationship, and blessings to the nations. The last two items in this list will serve to be primary sources of tension within the content of the pericope that comprises chapter 34. Though the four subjects enumerated above are of primary significance within the scope of Genesis, we do well to note other underlying themes of the work such as the way Israel is to interact among themselves (forgiveness and restitution is exampled in chapter 33), how they are to interact with other nations (fair dealings and seeking peace as in chapter 26), as well as instructions concerning intermarriage with other nations (chapters 24 and 27). Therefore, we see that though there are several pastoral initiatives behind the writing of Genesis, we agree with Wenham’s summation:
“Thus Genesis is not simply a justification for Israel’s occupation of Canaan, it embodies a practical appeal as well. It urges brothers to make peace with each other and to forgive past wrongs. It insists that Israelites should live peaceably with their relatives, with fellow countrymen of different ethnic origins, and implies that as a nation it should not be afraid to make agreements with surrounding nations when they seek peace.”
Having examined the broad scope and purpose of the book of Genesis itself, we are now able, in light of our discovered themes, to drill down into the pericope at hand, chapter 34, which recounts the tale of the raping of Dinah. The previous pericope closes with Jacob deciding not to follow after Esau and settling instead in a place called Succoth (33:17).
The story of Dinah’s defilement and the resulting tragedy breaks down into four sections that serve distinct purposes in the rising action of the story. Some sources break the pericope down into 3 sections (such as Sternberg), and others such as Waltke parse the story into as many as 8 sections including the transitional verses of chapter 33 as part of this pericope. For the purposes of a literary approach, however, the 4-scene approach of Wenham seems the most obvious and the most convenient for exegetical purposes.
The story begins with Dinah going out to see the daughters of the land. We note with interest the uncommon attention paid to Dinah’s lineage upon her introduction, “Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob…” (v.1) Already aware of whom Dinah is based on 30:21 we have to assume that there is a reason for drawing attention to the specifics of her parentage. There are two reasons for this. First, it reminds the reader of the family tension that already exists within Jacob’s family due to Rachel’s favored status. The order in which Jacob arranges his family between himself and Esau is quite telling in chapter 33. Second, we will note that Moses never fails in this story to mention the parent of any child that is mentioned. This is true for both families involved in this tragedy. We never read of Shechem alone, but rather, we read that he is “Shechem the son of Hamor.” As Sternberg notes, this repeated emphasis on familial relations serves as a persuasive tool in placing Jacob “in sharp opposition to his Hivite equivalent: the understanding, energetic, and selfless Hamor.”

Exegetical Paper (Installment 2)

2008-02-11T07:58:00.000-08:00

Having said this, I have trouble ignoring the fact that this is our first intimate encounter with the tribal patriarchs. It is less than impressive, and it sets the table in such a way that we are not going to be surprised when these young men conspire to attempt fratricide in the chapters ahead. It seems to me that presenting this story to its original audience, divided, as they were, into tribal units with names like Simeon and Levi, could serve a dual purpose. First, surely there would be a humbling effect for those that might think that being appointed as the priestly tribe, for example, was in some way predicated on their honorable history. Second, we would be foolish to ignore the gross misuse of the sacrament of circumcision that occurs within this pericope. While I cannot be certain of this, I tend to think that even barring the kill-crazy rampage of the story’s climax, that the sons of Jacob were seriously misusing the sign of God’s grace. Such a presumption is going to stand or fall on what understanding the original audience would have had of circumcision both as an object of law, and as a sign of grace. Also, we would need to investigate how culpable the characters in the story would be for proper stewardship of the rite in the eyes of the original audience.
So, where does this leave us as we approach the story? I find that I have a lot of questions and suspicions, but some fairly reasonable hypotheses. I would maintain that in a story in which the hero of the book (God) is conspicuously absent, the main character’s (Jacob) silence is deafening, and the tokens of this faith community are so grossly abused, that the primary significance of the passage is to turn the hearts of the Israelite community away from any familial pride and towards the true hero of the overall Genesis saga: God.
There has been no small debate over the authorship of Genesis (or the Pentateuch entire), with most of the discussion centering on the role that Moses played in either the work’s assemblage and/or its actual writing. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed that the author was Moses, and that the issue of whether or not his role was as compiler or actual author is of little significance. Such a position is recommended by scripture itself, and by no small amount of scholarship. For scripture, we need not look much further than Luke 24:27 in which authorship is attributed to Moses (ESV). On top of this are two reasonable assertions of Franz Delitzsch who posits that by the time of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt the science of writing had undoubtedly reached a point at which it is logical to credit them with having the means and ability to document their national history and/or codify a national constitution. After roughly 400 years of dwelling in the midst of the premier civilization of the day, it seems probable that some semblance of culture or science would have been incorporated into their worldviews. In addition, we do well to note that Moses was no mere Israelite slave, but rather the adopted son of Pharaoh. As a member of the royal family, we should assume that he received a high level of education in both art and science. Such would render Moses exceedingly capable of penning the Pentateuch even if the slave class Israelites were not.
In his book, He Gave Us Stories, Richard Pratt suggests a couple of time periods in which the book of Genesis might have been written. Because all of the action within the framework of the Genesis narrative occurs prior to the birth of Moses, it is possible that Moses wrote the book prior to the exodus but after the incident at the burning bush. It is equally possible that the work was written post-exodus as the Israelites were wandering around in the wilderness. The motivation behind the work will change, it seems, depending upon which possibility is embraced. If Moses wrote the book of Genesis for an ante-exodus audience, then its purpose would clearly have been to motivate the enslaved Israelites towards fleeing Egypt. If, on the other hand, Genesis were written in the wilderness then the purpose would have been to encourage the people on towards their possession of the Promised Land.
Either one of these time frames is suitable for a functional exposition of Genesis 34 because both of these periods assign the role of original audience to the Israelites prior to their entry into the Promised Land. There are those that might assert that the intended audience for the version of Genesis that we currently possess would be the citizens of the united monarchy under David and Solomon. Such a position seems commendable and makes thematic sense of the book; however, because we attribute initial authorship to Moses, it is his audience that is of the utmost concern within this paper.

(End of Installment 2)

Note: I have omitted citations from this posting and future postings, but am happy to provide information on the sources for my work if anyone is interested. Their omission here should not be construed as anything other than an attempt to avoid unnecessary formatting issues, and in no way is an attempt to claim for myself any work or ideas that are not my own.

Little Rob's First Exegetical Paper (part 1)

2008-02-09T09:32:00.001-08:00

Last semester I wrote my very first exegetical paper. The subject of my paper was Genesis 34, and I think that I did a pretty good job. I am certain that there were lots of things that I could have covered and didn't, but I also feel like a presented a fairly even handed analysis of the material. Over the next few days I want to post the paper in installments. I don't think, even for a second, that I am worthy of any accolades, or that I should be taken seriously as an exegete, but I did take the paper seriously. I don't think it is that bad of a first effort, and look forward to the day when I wish I had never posted it to begin with. So, without further apology or psuedo-humility, here is little Rob's first exegetical paper.

Installment 1:

Of all the stories that the Pentateuch has to offer, there has always been a certain fondness in my soul for the story presented in Genesis Chapter 34. The primary reason for this is that it is such a tremendously entertaining story. Who could write such an entertaining story? The best that Hollywood has to offer has rarely risen to the level of suspense, action, tension, and tragedy that is presented for the audience in this horrific and hero-less story. Clearly, however, we must deduce that God has a far higher motive than raw entertainment value for including such a tale as this within the accounts of the “great” patriarchs, but what is it? What would possess Moses to include such a bloody sampling of film noir in the cannon?
On a personal level the thing that appeals to me the most is the over the top vengeance that Simeon and Levi unleash upon the city of Shechem. That part of me that delights in such bloodshed and retaliation is the same part that thrilled with the opening days of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly, this sin is in my heart, but that is, nonetheless, the appeal. I know that at some levels I have a tendency to repay twofold the sins perpetrated against me, and so I find myself cheering on the bloodlust of the sons of Jacob.
Though I have already hinted at this above, there is another appealing facet of the story that draws my heart, and that is the literary quality of the tale itself. There is not one redeemable character in the story. There is not one shimmer of hope that is not snuffed out through lust, apathy, vengeance, murder, greed, or rebellion. There is absolutely no beautiful thing that survives. Of course, people have made arguments that Dinah, the victim, is redeemable, but I might assert that this was not a rape in the sense that we view the act today, and that she might have been a little more duplicitous in the event then later day section headings might lead us to believe.
I intimated above a sense of exasperation over what reason Moses might have for including this story within the cannon, but that should not lead the reader of this work to surmise that I am without my suspicions. No story this intense, this bloody, and this disturbing is deposited into the cannon as a simple afterthought. I might suggest, however, that this story serves several roles. First of all, I do not think it is an accident that this story is book-ended by two of the most important and intimate encounters that Jacob has with God. In addition, I wonder if it is possible that the second encounter with God is, in fact, the conclusion of this pericope. Only through such an extension can we answer the question: “Where is God in all of this?” Given the above, something in this story makes me want to resist the temptation to give too much attention to the characters that are at work (Dinah, Shechem, Hamor, Levi, Simeon), and turn my attention to the one character that contributes the least to the story, and has the least to say. That character is Jacob.

(End of Installment 1)

A New Year Means New Obligations

2008-01-31T11:43:00.000-08:00

And so the new semester has kicked off with a bang. The new year kicked off with a bang some 30 days ago, and my how things have changed. At the beginning of the year my wife and I realized that a) she wasn't making enough money at her job to fully support us, b) she was working too much for her own emotional or spiritual health, and c) we weren't spending enough time together. After several discussions/debates over what the best fix was for our situation, we came to the conclusion that if I went to work as a waiter at her restaurant we could kill all three birds. Alas, I am waiting tables again.

Also, I have been hired on as the youth pastor at a Korean American church here in Saint Louis. It is challenging. I am responsible for organizing the youth worship service every Sunday, developing Sunday School curricullum for all age groups, and putting together 2 monthly activities for the youth. I think some of the kids are involved in some fairly serious enterprises that fall under the umbrella of illegal. Most of them are not believers. That is a tough thing to say, because you have to be careful in distinguishing between immature faith and no faith at all. Are they simply little versions of Rob Taylor that are being socialized into the faith of their parents, but that will eventually claim the faith as their own? Are they just going through the motions because their parents are making them? Do they really and sincerely believe? I don't know, but it is my job to shepherd them into a vibrant and mature faith. Granted, I will produce no regeneration. That is not my job. But I long to be a faithful servant of my master, and tremble at the prospect of leading any of these precious souls astray. I am in a blessedly precarious position. It isn't a salvific issue for me, so don't hear what I'm not saying (with apologies to C. John Collins), but I long to please my Lord. I do well to take this very seriously.

The following conversation took place a few nights ago between me and one of our customers at Carrabba's when he stopped me prior to going into the kitchen:

Customer: Hey, do you do anything special for birthdays?
Me: Well, I'm 37 and have been married for about 7 years, so I don't do anything really special anymore. Usually we go to dinner and a movie, or something low key like that. What about you?
Customer: Nevermind.

Funny story, I guess.

Here are the courses I am taking this semester and some of the books that we will be reading:

Greek in Exegesis -- no textbooks of note
Elementary Homiletics Practicum -- Between Two Worlds by John Stott
God and Humanity -- Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2 by Bavinck, The Doctrine of Humanity by Charles Sherlock, and The Mission of God by Christopher Wright
Covenant Theology II -- New Testament and the People of God by NT Wright plus a few others
Apologetics and Outreach -- The Heart of Evangelism by Jerram Barrs

If any of you have opinions on these books, or others that you would reccommend as either good companion pieces or counterpoints please feel free to let me know.

I have been blown away by the enormous heart and brilliant mind of Dr. Barrs. He was a close personal friend of Francis Schaeffer, and is the founder of the Francis Schaeffer Institute here at CTS. This guy is just a genius for apologetics, and one of the few people you meet in life that you know is a beautiful person within 5 minutes of meeting them.

I am really enjoying reading NT Wright. He doesn't fly over my head, but he certainly bumps into my forehead a lot. His works are clearly very influential around here. I have miles to go before I decide if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

The Funniest Headline in Quite Sometime

2007-12-10T19:57:00.001-08:00

Finals are in full swing, but when I saw this headline I just had to share it. Enjoy it, and have a great time doing whatever it is you do for the next 2-3 weeks.

Season's Greetings.

Trouble Free Transmission

2007-11-14T17:44:00.000-08:00

Perhaps a lighter note is needed after yesterday's rant. Here it is.

I am on day 6 of the Atkins Diet. Now some of you will say that it isn't healthy, and blah blah blah, but neither is being 218 pounds. So, I'm on that Atkins diet. The first 2 days were pure hell, but things seem to have settled down and I'm used to eating bacon and pork rinds every meal of the day.

Also, I am very excited to see that Itunes has acquired the Led Zeppelin catalog. I have most of their stuff, but have never gotten around to buying "Physical Graffiti." Because I have never owned it, there are some songs on that album that I have never heard. Of course, I have heard most of it, but some of the songs I just don't know. So, tonight I am going to listen to my new Led Zeppelin CD while I study for my exam tomorrow in Preperation and Delivery of Sermons.

Even though I'm on the Atkins Diet, tonight I am going to treat myself to a nice big piece of "Custard Pie."

Take Off the Mask!

2007-11-13T16:32:00.000-08:00

I was talking with one of my professors the other day, and I began to moan and groan about a few things in the church that really bother me. They aren't denominationally specific, and they might not apply to everyone everywhere, but they apply to enough of us within the Christian community that I feel comfort using terms like "all," "everyone," and "always." I call this specific issue, "The Mask." I hate the mask. The mask destroys ministries and marriages and congregations, but we all are so damned in love with the mask that most of us will keep the mask on while we concur with what I am about to say.

What is the mask?

The mask is the "happy, smiley, everything is beautiful and we are all healthy wealthy and wise" face that everyone puts on about 2 seconds before they get out of the car upon pulling into the church parking lot. The mask is the thing that always has a prayer request that Aunt Millie would receive travelling mercies this week as she has to drive from Jonesboro to TexArkana to see a friend that is having knee surgery. The mask never kicks the dog, isn't concerned that it would rather work until 7:00 every night rather than have to hear her complain, isn't thinking about stepping off of the wagon, never looks at the co-eds on campus, isn't concerned that its 15 year old daughter seems to be spiraling out of control, etc...

The mask is also big enough to fit over an entire house. It places the house behind a fenced in lawn. As the house mask is bigger it requires a two day advance notice to apply so no one should feel comfortable just bopping over to say "hi" and share a cup of coffee.

The mask is very attractive and then all of a sudden one day when Bill and Tina are getting a divorce the mask lets us all call that a "shock" and stand slack-jawed while we try and figure out where this all came from. "I thought Bill was a Christian?!?!" "He had us all fooled I guess."

Man, we are all so damned fooled it's insane! I'm not saying you need to pipe up and and confess your deepest darkest secrets every Sunday school, but you OWE IT TO YOUR BROTHERS IN CHRIST TO LET THEM INTO YOUR WORLD! The mask is bullcrap.

I've been really blessed since I got here to meet up with a group of families that feel pretty much the same way. So we started talking and sharing and looking for ways to be as transparent as possible. Hey guess what?!?! We're not the only family with financial concerns! We aren't the only family that argues and fights! I'm not the only guy here with a temper problem. We're not the only family here that is too proud to ask others to babysit our kids so we can have one night of peace and quiet (and other marital privileges). We aren't the only family here that feels like they have no business going into ministry. WOW!!!

I wish I could communicate to my brothers in Christ out there how liberating it is to know that Paul doesn't lie when he says that "no temptation has seized you but that which is common to man..." To finally know that I am not alone.....what a relief!! That's nothing, however, compared with this wonderful little pearl: I have had the blessing, honor and privilege of being able to minister to my brothers and sisters in Christ in ways that are so rich and beautiful and meaningful. They too, are a constant ministry to me in my weakness. Any mask can prep a meal for a sick family, but it takes a brother to stay up until 3:00am and listen to a man pour out the guilt and pain that is eating him alive.

At 3:00am the only person you are allowed to call is your brother or sister. I think you might find that your sitting in the presence of between 50-500 of them if you would take off your mask. If we could quit chasing God-ishness long enough to pursue true humanness (i.e. zealously seek to be human as humanity was initially designed), we might just find out that the salt has a little flavor left after all.

Things Aren't as Bad as They Seem

2007-11-07T16:05:00.000-08:00

One of the blessings of the internet is that it is such a wonderful vehicle for helping you trace back little pieces of nostalgia that you think you remember. For instance, was there really a Sam the Robot character on Sesame Street? Yes, you can find out about him....here. Viewing that clipped also confirmed that the Gordon that has been on the show for about 500 years is not the original Gordon!! I knew it.

This blog post isn't about nostalgia, it is about the horrifying things I have discovered while chasing down pieces of nostalgia. I want to share them with you, my beloved reader. I was a big fan of H.R. Puffenstuff, and of Lidsville. They were magical shows to me, and I used to play the day away pretending that I was trying to save the magic flute from witchy poo or some such nonsense. Why is that horrifying? See for yourself here and here.

I guess the fact that these shows were called Pufnstuf and LIDSville was lost on me when I was a child, but its pretty obvious what the heck is going on here. Pufnstuf?!?! They weren't even TRYING to hide it. LIDSville?!?! Are you kidding me? Man, people were just getting high high high high high back in the day. Watch this old McDonalds commercial. Apparently a TRIP to McDonalds involved a lot of Wah-Wah peddles and some LSD back in the day. I have to admit, however, if I was ever going to get high again, I can't think of a better place to do it then in the world laid out for me in that old commercial. A hamburger patch? Even the authorities have heads made out of cheeseburgers.

I'm going to call the post early before I start chanting "legalize it."

This is Bucktown!!

2007-11-05T19:46:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was my wife's birthday, and I took her out to a nice restaurant for dinner and drinks. The prime rib was really good, her filet was good, and we drank a bit. All in all it was a lovely evening. Not blog worthy except for the following conversation that took place as we were entering the building.

Rob: Hey man, you got back into town quick.
Man: Yes, that is the nice thing about Kansas City.
Rob: Oh yeah, that's right down the street. I'm from Nashville so I forget that other places are closer.
Man: Yeah, Nashville's a good town. Have a nice dinner.
Rob: You too, nice to meet you.
Abby: Who was that?
Rob: Joe Buck.
Abby: Who is he?
Rob: We watched the World Series together.
(glance over shoulder and smile from Joe Buck.)

Ralph Emery Where Art Thou?

2007-10-28T17:39:00.000-07:00

I've been in Saint Louis now for about four month. The other night I was watching TV when the local news began to air. I watched it for about 5 minutes before I realized that not only did I not really care about what the anchors were discussing, but that I also felt no sense of community with the anchors themselves. I began to ponder this, and I started thinking about what television was like when I was coming along. Those were the days prior to cable television, and about the time of the advent of UHF. Historians and academicians will refer to this era as the "70's."

Not to be overly sentimental, but it seemed like in those days the various networks (in Nashville they were WNGE for ABC, WSMV for NBC, and WTVF for CBS with a PBS station thrown in for good measure) and their local newscasts were more a part of the family then they are now. I remember growing up that we were an NBC family. More specifically, we were a WSMV family. What the heck does that mean? If you lived in Nashville in the 1970's it meant quite a bit. You could tell a lot about a family by the anchormen that they welcomed into their home. I could be wrong on this, but it always seemed like Channel 4 (WSMV/NBC) was a little for the conservative family. The ABC affiliate WNGE (now WKRN) was a little more to the left. To put a finer point on this, there was a difference between the families that started their day with Ralph Emery, and the one's that woke up to David Hartman and Good Morning America. I'm not exactly sure where channel 5 (WTVF/CBS) fit into this, but there was definitely a spectrum.

Maybe this is still the case within communities across the country, and perhaps I am just not dialed in as of yet to the various personalities that comprise the local Saint Louis affiliates, but things just seem different. I know that "blame" is a strong word, but I'll try to use it softly when I say that I tend to blame cable television for this phenomenon. People these days seem to be far more in tune with the news on a national level. CNN and FOX seem to be supplying the fast friends of our newsday in a way that once belonged to the local guys. With news being available on a 24 hour basis through cable television, or just a click away through the internet, it seems that our sense of community, at least on the level of news, has escaped the cozy confines of the hilltop transmitters and replaced them with the super glossy and stylized mugs from New York and Atlanta. There is a certain romance that I feel when I recall having to sit through an hour and a half of farm reports to get to the "Our Gang" reels that were run out of the local station.

I think the kids of today might be missing something by not having to earn their Dora episodes. Their was a real sense of anticipation after enduring "Children's Gospel Hour," that made "Superfriends" seem a lot more special then it probably was.

Comments?

Three Albums and Three Choices

2007-10-22T14:23:00.000-07:00

One of the benefits of having credit cards is that every once in a while you realize that you have amassed enough points to get a $50 gift card from Amazon.com. Such was the case last week. I was going to get books, but let's be honest, I have enough reading to do. As much as I would like to have a nice TV on DVD collection, my Movie on Video collection has taught me that I'm probably only going to watch any of them once. I will probably rent or borrow those. So that leaves music, and music is what I bought. Here are the three CDs I bought:

Jenny Lewis and the Watson Twins -- Rabbit Fur Coat (Really Good)
Alison Kraus and Union Station -- New Favorite (Great background music for studying)
Cat Power -- The Greatest (really good. It's what my wife thinks Nora Jones is, but isn't)

I have about $15 left on my gift card and have a few things in mind. A recent AV Club article has put me in mind to purchase "Every Picture Tells a Story," by Rod Stewart. Say what you want about the Rod Stewart that your parents wouldn't let you listen to (the one who uses words like "sexy,"legs" and "passion" in his song titles), there was a time in the late 60's and early 70's when Stewart had one of the sweetest most unique sounds in music. I've never owned this album, and always felt like I should. If any AV contributors out there have a better idea of where I should place my music dollar, they should comment.

But Rob, what about the 3 choices?

The three choices have nothing to do with music, but rather with parenting. I have a 4 year old daughter who is incapable at this stage of her life of not getting her way without having a complete meltdown. As my fallback strategery of yelling at her hasn't seemed to work, I have come up with a fresh new approach that seems to be working. I call it "The 3 Choices."

The 3 choices are born of the notion that, regardless of how upsetting it is for my daughter to not get her way, I don't want to hear a bunch of crying and carrying on. My house is peopled with 3 people under the age of 5, one wife, and me. This means that there is a 100% chance that someone is going to have a tearful meltdown in my presence every single day of my life. Though my tears are reserved for deaths of family or friends, discovering that I am going to jail for a long long time, or the final 15 minutes of "Rudy," the rest of my family is prone to descend into a weeping abyss over anything from broken candy canes to overcooked banana bread. In an effort to promote a sense of peace and tranquility in my own house, the following three options are currently offered to my children when the need to collapse on the floor in a fit of sobbing discontent consumes them. Here are the options:

1. Go to your room until you get it out of your system.
2. Ask me to comfort you with hugs and holding.
3. Accept my "no" as final and try to be happy in the face of your disappointment.

Well, that's some fine parenting if I do say so myself. You may ask yourself what misogynist, insensitive ass of a man could have come up with such a reasonable, loving, and effective approach? The answer is: me, that's who.

I'm really proud of myself.

Go BoSox!!

The Reigning Lord of Candyland (Candy Land?)

2007-10-17T17:01:00.000-07:00

My daughter beat me like 3 times in a row yesterday at Candyland. I hate that game. I thought I remembered that the cards were stacked in a pile, but she swore up and down that you just left them jumbled in the box and put the card back in the box face down at the end of your turn. It seemed to make sense. Easy to shuffle. You don't have to go through the hassle of stacking the cards all neat. What the hell do I care? It's damn Candyland, Yo!!

One thing I noticed was that she kept drawing the Princess Frostine card (that sends you pretty much all the way through the board and past all the licorice tar pits). Then I noticed that there was a little bit of yellow crayon on the Princess Frostine card. Since when does a 4 year old start marking cards? That's bullcrap! I explained to her that if this was the old west I would probably shoot her. Does she not realize that brothers get shivved all the time in the joint for this kind of crap? Anyway, I took the princess frostine card out and also the Peppermint Forest card (It's actually called Mr. Mint now, but purists like me tend to roll all old school). I marked the Peppermint card with yellow, and then snuck it in during the middle of the game.

I beat her like 10 games in a row with that trick!! She never figured it out. She'd get this confused look on her face when she'd pick it up and have to go back to the beginning. You could tell that she was confused but that she knew that she couldn't really say anything. She will never, and I mean NEVER beat me at Candyland again.

For anyone that remembers, didn't the Princess Frostine place used to be just a slice of Neopolitan ice cream?

Ahmadinejad (polimical rhetoric in red)

2007-09-25T10:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was able to find time to listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech before the students of Columbia University via webcast. It was, to say the least, interesting. What I walked away with was disgust. It wasn't disgust at anything that he specifically said, but really disgust at the fact that I am so ignorant of the facts that would enable me to know if he was right or wrong. As a result I have to go and do research to get up to speed, and worse, rely on the testimony of American pundits for interpretation. Here are a few things I noted:

1. Though it is laughable to assert that "more research" needs to be done in order to validate the historic reality of the holocaust (almost as laughable as it is offensive), Ahmadinejad does raise an interesting question when he asks why Palestinians should have to pay for the crimes of the west for 60 years. Why is Israel the way it is now? How much of our (America's) vehemence for her right to exist is born of a faulty and borderline unbiblical eschatology? I think those are legitimate questions that are born not out of anti-semitism, but out of a concern for justice (not to accuse Ahmadinejad of having a concern for justice).

2. I thought I heard him clarify (though in a rather incomprehensible way) his statements about the destruction of Israel. He seemed to be asserting that the government of modern day Israel is run of, for, and by the Jewish population. This is where my knowledge is sorely lacking. Do Christians and Muslims have a voice in Israeli government? If not, why? Is it anti-semitic to oppose the fact that a people has no voice in their government? Again, I don't know if they do or not. If we are the champions of freedom that we claim to be, shouldn't we be as zealous to see to it that the Palestinians have fair representation as we are the Iraqis?

If Ahmadinejad's comments of the destruction of the Jewish state is a very poorly worded effort to communicate that Palestinians should have a voice in Israel's government, and such is not already the case, then I am prone to agree with him that Israel is behaving in a heavy handed manner. If, however, the government of Israel is already representative of her various and sundry peoples, then he is lying. Worse, he is taking advantage of my lack of knowledge and hoping that I will take the bait without doing the research.

(Note: As I never felt we needed a WMD or "liberate the oppressed" argument to be in favor of the war in Iraq, I don't feel the need justify any similarities or disparities between the two positions)

As several of my readers are probably up to date on things such as the governmental structure of Israel and/or Iran, it would be a real service to me if you would kindly assist in filling in some of these gaps.

Those are the kind words, but they should not be construed to imply that I do not have some very serious concerns regarding the fact that the speech took place at all. I think we are safe in believing that Iran is currently working with great fervor to undermine our efforts in Iraq. Their efforts to arm the insurgency is costing American's their lives. The dead are not only my fellow countrymen, but my brothers in arms. I consider this an act of war. Of course, it is no more an act of war than the overthrow of our embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of 100+ U.S. citizens for over a year. It might be about time for us to wreck a helicopter or two at them. Oh where is Lester Maddox's Lieutenant Governor when we need him the most?

I am excited about CU's enthusiasm for free speech, and look forward to them extending the same invitation to our country's ROTC program that they have to the man that is overseeing the death of our brave men and women in uniform. I won't go as far to say that CU's decision to allow Ahmadinejad a forum is shameful (though it is understandable that some do), but I will say that it is naive and short-sighted and speaks to the type of arrogance that has become the hallmark of higher academia. That is, it accentuates the misguided notion that one can observe truth in a vacuum, be removed from an objects effects, and insure one's self from contaminating the experiment with one's own geographical, historical and cultural pre-conceptions. There is a truth to be known, but the idea that any of us have ever grasped it objectively is, well, no small indication of our God complex.

Love Comes to K-Town

2007-09-23T06:44:00.000-07:00

"We were up in our facility getting ready to come down on the Vol Walk," Fulmer said. "You could tell they were tense and tight and looking for guidance and leadership. I told them, 'Just stand up. We've got three or four minutes, go around and hug everybody in this room.' They got up, hugged everybody in the room. You could hear the chatter. It got louder and louder and better and better and more enthusiastic." --UT Coach Phil Fulmer

The above quote from the Dean of SEC football coaches is surely a sign that the end is near for Coach Phil. Perhaps, however, we should call him Dr. Phil. Has he become so bored with the game that he has to turn the locker room into some Roman bathhouse fantasy.

"Louder and louder. More and more enthusiastic. Cutcliffe and Chavez started makin' out. It was awesome," continued Fulmer.

Are you serious? Has the fat one finally just given up on gameplanning all together? While Urban Meyer and Les Miles are zippin' and zappin', whirlin' and a twirlin' all over the gridiron, Fulmer has finally decided to break away from his stale, dated and easily out strategeried playbook in favor of true innovation.

Hugs.

It will be interesting to see if this new "kill 'em with kindness" approach will lead to success on the field, but I'm certain it will lead to a few invitations to play Navy.

If I were the coach of Georgia, that his who the UT Oprahs will be playing next week, I would offer them hugs every chance I got. If I scored, they get hugs. If the Oprahs make a good play, they get hugs. Hugs all around. Hugs, Hugs, Hugs. Win or lose, when I met Dr. Phil at the 50 yard line immediately following the game I would spread my arms wide, wrap them 1/3 of the way around his over ripe big orange body, and whisper gently in his ear, "Nice game, Lisa."

"Big game against Georgia today boys. Bigger than Arkansas State. Biggest game of your life. Ainge, go ahead and start kissin' on Foster. Come on, boys, towels off. This is serious. You wanna win, don't ya? Do it for coach. That's right. That's right. 'Er ya go. That's a winner!"

Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow!

2007-09-20T19:35:00.000-07:00

On Friday, September 14, 2007, my good friend Wes Bishop and his lovely wife Amy became the proud parents of two beautiful little boys. There names are Barrett Wesley and Brodie Lawton Bishop. Truly God is good all of the time, and all of the time God is good.

Wes has been a constant and blessed friend to me for over 10 years. He has known me in my days of non-belief, and also as a believer. He has loved me as both. I am honored to say that he is my friend, and am thankful that God has put him in my life. It is a wonderful and rare thing for God to provide us with true friends. God has blessed me with several, but I number Wes among the most providential.

Please pray with me that God would bless the home of the Bishops in the days, months and years to come. That God would set fire to the faith that Wes and Amy already possess, and that he would keep a watchful and saving hand on those two precious boys. Pray that Wes and Amy would be zealous to teach their boys of the riches of God's love that are poured out to believers through the atoning work of Jesus Chirst, and that these children would never know a day in which they do not know Jesus as their savior, brother, help and friend. Pray that they may echo the apostle Paul when he says:

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Reflections on 9-11

2007-09-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Is there any better day to wrestle with notions of diety than September 11th? Regardless of where you are theologically (and atheism is a theological position) there are questions that surface in the wake of such a traumatic national event. I don't know which is scarier, the idea that 9-11 was a direct act of God (judgement, wrath, or over the top wake-up call), or that God had nothing to do with it. If God was the author of the event then I can, even outside of a Christian context, wrestle with what he was trying to say. If God was not at work in this event then where is my hope? Where is my anchor? Am I to be my own anchor?

As a Christian I have to insist that God was the author of that event. This does not assume, however, nor should it be understood to necessitate God acting in wrath against a person, persons, or a nation. We do well to recall Joseph's words to his brothers upon their reunion. "As for you, you meant it for evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today (Gen 50:20)." As many lives as were lost, shattered and forever changed on 9-11, we do well to recognize that much good has come about as a result. How many children have been born as a result of that event? How many eyes opened? How many have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through that event?

It is easy to stand by and point the fingers at those that "have it coming." It is comforting. If "they" have it coming, then "we" don't have it coming. The Christian knows better than this. He seconds the notion put forward by Clint Eastwood's character in Unforgiven. "We all got it comin', kid." Was there judgement and wrath from God on that day? Most assuredly. Is it evil for God to do with his creation as he wills? Not at all, but it is his divine right. We tremble when we consider that all things, even this horribly tragic thing, are brought to pass so that glory will be given to Him unto whom all glory is due. When a child dies, a nation is humbled, or we are forcefully brought to the realization that we are not God, we do well to echo the words of John the Baptizer, "He must increase, but I must decrease." It is a commentary on our own self worship that this is when such sentiments are the most difficult to pronounce.

I agree with Dr. Agan in his chapel message today. Our response is but to repent. Repent and be saved. There is rich and unsearchable mercy waiting in the arms of the one through whom and by whom all things were created. In Christ alone will men find shelter from the storm. Outside of Him there can be nought but death. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy the soul and body in hell (Matt 10:28)."

The reality that shook me to the core (and shakes me still) on September 11, 2001 is that we are not promised one more second than the one we are currently enjoying. No one expects a plane to fly into our office, or a bridge to collapse, or a heart attack to end our life as we rake the leaves in our own backyard. It is coming, however. It will come. "All flesh is grass and its loveliness like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever (1Peter 1:24)." We are ever running out of time. We are on a collision course with the almighty, all holy King of Creation.

I would urge all that read this, all that do not know the divine mercy and unfathomable love that can only be had through union with the annointed of God, that is Jesus, to hear the warning and invitation of our Savior, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light (Matt 11: 28-30)." Come. Taste and see that the Lord is good.

Like a Record, Baby, Right Round, Baby, Right Round

2007-09-07T06:34:00.000-07:00

Already I am being torn apart. I suppose it is my own fault for thinking that I would bring a suitcase full of reformed ideology into this experience, receive four years worth of theological high fives, and go pastor a church. It doesn't look like it is going to happen. I am taking a course called Covenant Theology, and it is beating me down like a rented mule. It is challenging even my basic understanding of what knowledge is, and how we can know it. As these were always interesting things to ponder when I used to get high, I never thought they had a whole lot of teeth. I was wrong. NT Wright scares me to death, but I have to admit that he's right concerning knowledge (or I can't argue effectively that he isn't).

Things are easily relegated into categories in a black and white world of pristine objectivity. Such has been my worldview. It is now crumbling around me, and as in the early days of my understanding of Reformed Theology, the God that I was afraid would shrink is only getting bigger. He is getting scarier. He is getting holier. I am becoming more broken, and (praise God) more desirous of a savior.

It isn't all disheartening. As I come to realize that my knowledge that, though the world is an object and therefore an objective thing, I can only know it subjectively (do you hear what they are doing to me!?!?), I am comforted by the fact that these same epistemological rules apply to the rest of the world as well. So when someone says, "You only believe that because of this or that cultural factor," they are right. However, there unstated implication that the same doesn't apply to them is erroneous. Why is it arrogant to assume that our views on faith and religion are cloaked in an inescapable cultural relativism and not arrogant to believe that their secular/scientific approach isn't impeded by the same biases?

A lot of the above is what I'm learning in class, but a lot of the thought is merely inspired by what we are learning in class (and assigned readings). The following are a series of questions that have been inspired by the class, that I feel I am going to have to answer (you may assume my presuppositions, most of you know what they are):

1. If all of our attempts at knowing are impeded by culture, predispositions, loyalties, and agendas, is this a product of our fallen nature or part of our design?

2. If part of our design, to what extent has it been warped by the fall? (the notion that no facet of our being has escaped the curse is implied)

3. Does it follow that, if it is entirely part of the curse, we can know that Jesus did not experience this, but maintained true objectivity in his human nature unlike anyone that has ever lived since Adam?

4. If worldview and cultural relativity are products of our design, yet are perverted by our fallen nature, then can we assume that Jesus, in his human nature, was a product of his environment, though at the same time someone completely different from his socio-historical peers, and therefore, the only real "scientist" the world has ever known?

5. What can we learn about our fallen worldview through the study of Jesus' unfallen worldview (assuming he was effected by this in the first place)?

6. Isn't it interesting that our varied answers to these questions are informed by the very bias and worldview that is prompting the questions, as are the presuppositions (Jesus was divine, Jesus was just a man, natural phenomenon must be explained by natural methods, the supernatural exists...) that we bring to the table?

The Language of a Brave New Year

2007-09-02T11:24:00.000-07:00

What a great week for me. I began class, and have enjoyed all of my classes. I haven't yet attended the Spiritual and Ministry Formation, but I can't imagine that I will hate it. That would be a strange attitude to try to maintain around here. Do you really want to be the guy that actually HATES a class called Spiritual and Ministry Formation? What exactly could you possibly hate about forming a spiritual ministry? Isn't that why you are here?

There is a part of me that kind of wants to be that guy. I don't want to be him, but I'm willing to be him so that I can see the looks on everybody's face (that is a confusing possessive phrase to wrap your mind around...everybody's faces?). Is there room in the pastoral community for such a cynical misanthrope? Probably not. So we have, early in the game, spiritual challenge number 1. I like to make people uncomfortable.

I will go into more detail on the classes I am taking later on, but for now I will tell you what they are:

Preperation and Delivery of Sermons
Beginning Greek
Covenant Theology
Ministry and Spiritual Formation

Covenant Theology is going to be the most challenging. My foreign language background gives me some confidence heading into Greek. I bet a friend of mine a cold beverage that someone would make the "Greek to me" joke before the first class was over. He said it wouldn't happen. It wouldn't have if I hadn't made the joke. AHHHH sweet beer.

Finally, I would like to say something about the world we woke up to this morning. We awoke to a world whose hopes are built on a great tradition and that is speaking the language of a brave new year. Having been told yesterday of the new day dawning, we awoke to breath in the spirit of the Mountaineer!! Michigan took it on the chin from a I-AA school yesterday 34-32. And that, my friends, is why Appalachian is HOT HOT HOT!!!

It's college football time!!!!

Amores Perros

2007-08-24T19:24:00.000-07:00

I want to say a word or two about the Michael Vick situation. I've posted a little bit about this already, but I wanted to put a finer point on what I actually think of the matter.

First, concerning dogfighting and other sports like it. I find them to be reprehensible. It is fitting and proper for such things to be illegal. Why? Well, it certainly isn't to protect the "rights" of dogs. Dogs don't have rights. They are animals, but more on that later. It should be illegal because it tends to court the baser forms of our nature. There is a certain sadism that accompanies activities like dogfighting that sends up red flags all over the place. I haven't read any studies, but one has to wonder how far a leap it is for a person that enjoys watching animals tear each other apart or enjoys killing them for the sake of cruelty to exhibit abuse towards women and children. It is a stepping stone cruelty, if you will, and we do well to nip it in the bud.

Second, I think Vick should have to answer for his crime. He broke the law, and he needs to pay a penalty. But jailtime? Are you serious? That's the part I can't get past. Dogfighting is wrong. Even if it were legal it would still be wrong because you shouldn't take pleasure in cruelty. Having said this, however, they are just dogs. Dogs. Should a man lose a year of his life (or maybe 5) for something he did to a dog? A heavy fine? Sure. The loss of his job? Perhaps. But jail? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Concerning jailtime, I would be very interested to hear who agrees with me, who doesn't, and why (seriously, that is an invitation to comment).

Finally, it is a very emotional issue, and one that is very easy to get worked up over. It doesn't help that the news media keeps showing picture after picture of these horribly wounded animals, but I think that these are pictures that we SHOULD see. The pictures are being shown to us so that we will be moved in our hearts to not only reject dog fighting, but to cry out against it. It is a very effective strategy. The entire country is railing against this enterprise. One need only see these pictures for a minute and he will quickly realize how barbaric and heinous this practice is, and that it should be banned. It tells me that the media knows what it's doing. It tells me why, that if we get this concerned over the life of a dog, we will never see pictures of aborted babies.

Art Linkletter was Right

2007-08-23T15:56:00.000-07:00

Two days ago my 4 year old daughter had to go to the doctor for a routine physical. While there they had to draw blood. The drew it from her finger. Apparently it bled a little more than these little jabs usually do, and this caused her much distress. On the way home, according to my wife, she took off the band-aid and was quite excited that the blood was all gone.

When they arrived back home, I was standing in the parking lot talking to a friend at the seminary.

I wish I had gone with them. Had I been with them it would have been a little less confusing and a fair bit less embarrassing when she got out of the car and ran across the parking lot to me screaming the following at the top of her lungs:

"DADDY!!! DADDY!! MY PRICK STOPPED BLEEDING!!

A Day at the Water Park

2007-08-02T16:58:00.000-07:00

If you live in Creve Coeur (which I do) you and your family have access to the Aquaport Water Park for just $11. Well, I would assume that it would be more than $11 dollars per person, so I loaded up the family shortly after lunch and off to a day of wacky water fun we went. What follows will be a few simple observations that I made today coupled with a story or two about how I am the most embarrassing human being on the face of the planet.

1. As we walked up to the entrance I noted that the loud speaker was playing Red Rider's "Lunatic Fringe." As I hadn't heard that song in quite a while I thought that was pretty cool. It was followed by "Separate Ways" and "Trampled Under Foot." At some point during the day I heard "Any Major Dude." Steely Dan isn't exactly what you expect to hear in a smoker friendly place such as a water park, but it was nice. I decided that a squonk's tears were a good thing to ponder while my fat white carcass was floating along the lazy river. At any rate, I wonder if there is an unwritten rule that water parks have to play classic rock. Do you want to go to a water park that doesn't? When the obese woman in the neon green swimsuit that clings to her like the skin of a grape isn't screaming at a child (presumably hers) or talking on a cell phone (presumably hers) don't you really want to see her patting her chubby hand on top of the water as she keeps the beat to an Eddie Money song? Even though you prefer her in any other situation, wouldn't Amy Winehouse ruin it? Nothing fits like Classic Rock. Nothing gets you through that between slide lull like a rock block.

2. The monied class doesn't spend a lot of time at the water park. I think they are missing out. The water park is a lot of fun. It is probably a lot more fun than the country club pool, albeit the people aren't as beautiful. I mean that sincerely and with present company included. There really was very little chance of my being tempted into lustful thoughts today at the Aquaport.

3. Along the same lines as the previous observation, America is fat! They came over the loud speaker around 2:00 and announced that the park had hit a new water displacement record. It seriously looked like the park was hosting morale day for the crew of the USS King Don.

Embarrassing Things I Said and Did:

All of the events took place on my first and second trip down the slide. Because we had the kids with us Abby and I had to take shifts between watching the kids and riding the big people slides. The kids tend to scream whenever Abby leaves, so I got to go first in hopes that they would be somewhat occupied when Abby tagged up and went to ride the slides. Having failed to lose that annoying freshman 50 from 1988 I usually do the world a favor and keep my shirt on. If you read point 3 above, you will forgive me if I didn't think it would be that big of a deal. So, off I tramped looking not unlike a pro wrestler from the 1950's on the back 9 of his career, but without the Strong Bad mask. I was a little nervous for a couple of reasons. First, I am a 37 year old man without a shirt on cruising through a sea of teenage girls and riding water rides. Second, I have fooled myself into believing that somehow if I have enough "form" when going down the ride that I will compensate for my belly. Do you see what a tragedy I am?

I got up to the top of the slide I had to wait for around 10 minutes to actually ride the ride which wouldn't be so bad, but I'm the only person in America that hasn't bought a pair of crocs and so my feet got really hot. Thus, I am now a 37 year old shirtless man that is periodically making an awkward wincing face. The line doesn't move very fast because the lifeguard has to wait until the person on the slide has reached safety before he can let the next person go. It might help to get across my sense of discomfort to give you a idea of what the line looked like: gawky 13 year old white boy, 8-10 year old black boy, slightly overweight 13 year old white girl, me, two 8-10 year old white boys (they seemed like they were planning something), etc...Battling through my mind are the the equally valid notions of "this is going to rule," and "go ride the lazy river old guy."

Eventually I made it to the top of the slide. The lifegaurd is this ultra tan buff kid that doesn't realize that he is probably the coolest he is ever going to be at this exact moment. I have been standing there wanting to feel something other than out of place for about 10 minutes (12 if you count the walk over to the slide) so I thought I would make small talk with the life guard. Here is the pathetic conversation:

"Did you see where that bridge collapsed up in Minnesota?"
"No."
"Oh? Yeah it was pretty bad."
"-------"

The conversation seemed like it took a long time, so I sat down and started to push myself down the slide.

"Not yet."
"Oh, sorry."

I should have just gone on general principal at this point just to be a man, but I didn't. I got called out by a 17 year old and just sat there in 4 inches of water like a beached damn whale waiting until Mr. Seniors Class of 2008 Rules!! decides it's alright for me to go. What's worse is that I can't see over the top anymore because I'm sitting in this pre-slide tidal basin.

"Can I go now?"
(holds palm out in my direction without looking down) "Not yet."
"No problem."
"Go ahead."

I must have been going a lot faster than I thought I was going, because when I shot out of the tube I scraped my back on the bottom of the pool and got water up my nose. There is nothing cool about gasping for air, snorting, and holding your back as you trudge towards the edge of the pool.

I was going to ride the other slide, but after standing in line for a couple of minutes I heard myself say, "no cutting" and decided that maybe I should go see how the kids were doing and see if Abby wanted a turn. She didn't. I sat in the kiddy pool and played with my two year old for the rest of the day. I would throw the plastic Dora and she would go and get it. My son sat next to me and played with a plastic shovel and cried whenever he got water in his eyes. My oldest slid down the kiddie slide about 100 times. As we left the park today I could read the thoughts of the men and women as we passed them.

"There goes," they would think "a combat veteran."

A Good Day with the Wife

2007-08-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest things about living in a community such as the one that I've found here at CTS (that is Covenant Theological Seminary...it will always be CTS from now on so you will have to reference back to this post to know what I'm talking about from now on) is that it is easy to find people that are willing to watch your kids. We entered into a pretty good deal with a couple up the road to do a kids swap. They agreed to watch our kids for a day, and we in turn will watch their kids on the day of their choice. I imagine, or at least hope, that this will get to be an ongoing practice among us and several families on campus.

Yesterday was Taylor's Day Out, and Abby and I had a wonderful time. It is so easy to get into the numbing routine of kids, kids, kids that you forget that there was a time when you had a lot more to talk about than the children. It's funny to go through life knowing that you love your wife, and then realize, as I did yesterday, that you LOVE your wife and that when I got that little girl standing right by my side, you know, I can tell the whole wide world to shove it! Hey...

We went to a cool little section of Saint Louis called The Hill. It is the St. Louis equivalent of of Little Italy. We had a great lunch, shopped around in a few Italian Markets, and invented a game called "Mary in a Bathtub Poker." The game involves driving around and counting all of the Mary statues in yards on your side of the car. Whenever you pass a Protestant church you lose all of your Virgins. The other person has to spot the church or you don't lose anything. The first person to count 20 statues is the High Pontiff, and gets to assign penance to the loser. I regret to report that due to my wife's unwillingness to perform her penance (no talking during football games for an entire season, bowls included) she has been excommunicated. She said she would burn the papal bull. I have taken to calling her Anne Hutchinson.

SPOILER ALERT

We decided to go see a movie (Anne and I), so we went to go see Once. I can not praise this movie highly enough. What a sweet, enjoyable, romantic, and tender story. WOW! WOW! WOW! I almost downloaded the soundtrack on itunes tonight, but decided not to. I don't think I'm quite ready to separate the songs from the movie yet. The songs stand up enough on their own that I fear that they would become just individual songs, and I don't want that. The songs tell a great story both in and with the movie, and I don't want to lose the package. For instance, the first time I saw "Singin' in the Rain" I think I was really just waiting for them to sing the title song. It took a couple of viewings to appreciate some of the other songs in the film, but they will always remind me of the film itself (this might be a bad example, however, because if I remember correctly most of the songs in the film are not original. If this doesn't make sense to you just leave it and go see Once. Buy the soundtrack even. What do I care?

One more thing about the movie. I wish he had gotten the girl. I think he kind of did get the girl, but we don't get to see it. He bought her a piano for crying out loud. You know he's going to come back for her sooner or later especially if he is willing to go back for the cheating slut he left in the first place. I guess you know he's going to go back for her the same way you know that he's going to get a record deal. Hell, how could he not?

Now It Can Be Told

2007-07-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

For those of you that follow the news in Nashville, Tennessee, I was quite the news maker back in May and June. Perhaps you remember the hubbub concerning Out and About Magazine and Krogers. No? Well, there was one. Here is the story.

Prior to coming to CTS here in St. Louis I was the General Manager in Nashville for a company called Distributech. Distributech was created to serve as the distribution arm of a couple of free publications called New Home Guide and Apartment Guide. So that you won't be confused later on, let me explain to you how the business works. Distributech enters into exclusive contracts with retailers across the country (Blockbuster, Kroger, 7-11, etc..) to be the sole provider of free publications within that particular chain. This gives our publications a competition free environment. Now, we are paying these chains for this right, and that is no small debt to incur. So, we place racks in the stores that are large enough to carry between 5 and 25 publications. We then rent space in those racks out to non-competitive publications (auto magazines, thrifty nickels, etc), and thereby cover our expenses and hopefully turn a profit.

In November or October of last year (2006) I began negotiations to bring a publication into our program that was located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The distribution manager for that publication was a woman named Kim Council. Kim informed me upon our first or second meeting that she was serving in an advisory capacity for a GLBT publication called "Out and About." She asked if we would be willing to bring them into our program. I told her that we would look into it and that we would get back to her.

A person might think that this is a cut and dried issue, but it is not. There are a number of factors at play and all of them have the potential to cause problems. First and foremost is the business decision. My job as GM for the area is to generate income for our business. Bringing a new customer into the program will definitely do that, but bringing in a customer that is going to alienate our other customers that don't want their publication sitting next to it on the rack has the potential of costing our business instead of helping it. Also, how ethical (or even legal) is it to refuse to do business with a publication based on the fact that it caters to a community that, though not mainstream or traditional, is not illegal. Then again, we have the right to make the decisions that best serve the endgame of our business: the bottom line. Keep in mind that we have an obligation not only to our bottom line and to our other customers, but also to the stores that host our racks. Should those stores get heat from the general public because of us they might decide not to renew our contract or, even worse, to give it to one of our competitors. Let's not forget, either, that the company isn't the only one with something to lose. I've got a wife and three kids and a mortgage. I don't want to get fired.

So, I did what any self-respecting product of the suburbs would do. I avoided the issue like the plague. I just wanted the issue to go away. I truly felt I was damned if I did, and damned if I didn't. Telling them "no" seemed like a recipe for a lawsuit, and telling them "yes" seemed like a recipe for becoming the scapegoat. I've got too much to lose these days to start carrying the torch for social causes at the workplace. But the whole thing bothered me.

We kept the Nashville Scene in our racks and Kroger never said a word. In April (I think) the Nashville Scene released back to back to back covers that I felt were probably pushing the limits of good taste (at least in the Bible Belt). The covers were a)The Bitch Ho Problem complete with an up close and personal shot of the chest of one of the two aforementioned trouble makers, b)The Apes of Wrath complete with bible toting chimp swinging from a steeple, and c) Marijuana Martyr depicting a smug Bernie Ellis crowned with a laurel wreath of what looked like primarily shake but might have had a decent bud or two in it. Don't mistake me to say that I'm personally offended by these covers, but just that they might be construed of pushing the limits of what is offensive in a town like Nashville or at least for a few of its citizens that frequent places like Kroger. I left these issues on the shelves, however, and received NOT ONE COMPLAINT. I received not one complaint from Kroger or from a concerned citizen. This really got me to thinking what a bunch of crap it was that we weren't putting Out and About on the racks.

And what about Out and About? How did I feel personally about the rag? Well, let me tell you. The first time I saw it on the street I picked it up and didn't know it was a GLBT publication until I had read quite a bit. That is, by the way, how Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd know that I'm gay. Point being, if ever there was such a thing as an innocuous gay publication, this is it. Even if the very idea of homosexuality tends to be controversial in some parts, why hide it? As I've stated before I am a big big big fan of the marketplace of ideas. There are those that attach moral significance to this lifestyle, and those that do not. I need not go over my position on this particular topic. I just feel that truth shines brightest when set next to falsehood, and so there is no reason to hide from things that might be offensive. Paraphrasing one of my good friends from Tarsus, were we to avoid immorality in the world we would have to leave the world.

So I called up Kim Council, apologized for being a coward, and told her that I was going to offer a contract to Out and About. Sometime toward the end of April I met with Kim and the publisher of the publication, Jerry Jones, at Tribe (more ammunition for Seth and Paul), and signed the contract to place Out and About Magazine on the shelves of Kroger and Harris Teeter around Nashville, Franklin, and Murfreesboro. 30 days later the bottom fell out and my name began appearing in newspapers and news reports. I was not allowed to speak to the press and was told that the relationship with O&A would be handled from the corporate level. That is pretty standard practice I imagine in cases like this. I mention it as a point of fact, and not as an indictment.

The bottom line is this. I had absolutely nothing to do with that magazine being pulled from the shelf. That decision was made entirely by our corporate office and by Kroger. Conversely, I had everything to do with putting them on the shelf. It was my decision and no one else's. Most of you probably don't even know what I am talking about, but for those of you who might have heard the story, I just wanted to tell my side in some small way and clear up any idea that I behaved in a discriminatory way towards this publication. I did not.

Concerning the Nashville Scene story linked above, I did not "promptly hang up the phone." I told Sarah Kelley that I was not able to comment about 6 times and then informed her that I was going to hang up. I think hanging up on people is rude, but there was really nothing that I could offer her. I even said, "Goodbye."

Out and About Magazine is a fine group of people, but I thought they were a bit off base on one particular issue. Kroger had them removed for promoting an agenda, stating that they did not allow agenda toting magazines on their racks. O&A claims that they do not promote a social or political agenda, but merely serve as a watchdog publication for the GLBT community. I don't own a watchdog, but if I did, you can be damn sure it would have an agenda. That agenda would be to protect my stuff. It's fine to take up the role of watchdog for the community that you serve, but when you are the self proclaimed watchdog of a community that is as embattled as the gay community, it might be a little disingenuous to say that you don't have an agenda. I do think, however, that it was this specific agenda and not the mere presence of an agenda that prompted Kroger to remove the publication. And yet, Kroger has removed Christian publications from DTech racks in the past as well.

My only regret is that I didn't get mentioned on The Daily Kos. That would have made my day. I am, however, happily responsible for the cover of this weeks Nashville Scene. And you begin to see the lengths I will go to in order to "out" Kenny Chesney.

A quick question or two...

2007-07-26T07:20:00.000-07:00

For those that feel that what people do in the privacy of their own home is ok as long as nobody gets hurt (smoke pot), should all charges be dropped on Michael Vick? It's his house. Nobody is getting hurt (no human anyway).

And what about this guy? Who are we to say what love is?

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1578449844

Granted, he did break into somebody's barn, but people have done worse in the name of love, no? What IS normal? What IS deviant? "What," quipped Pilate, " is truth?"

And by way of clarification, this story takes place in Massachusetts. That's the state. Forward thinking Kennedy country. I'm not accusing the guy of being a Kennedy. We know he isn't a Kennedy because then the sheep would have drowned and been cremated prior to any possible autopsy. In 2005, Massachusetts was 6th in the nation in money spent per student at the secondary and elementary levels. It makes you wonder what the taxpayers of that noble state are getting for their dollar, though, doesn't it? Ironically, it also makes me think that Governor Romney ought to revisit a certain idea of Senator Obama's.

Clang Clang Clang Went the Trolley!!

2007-07-12T16:19:00.000-07:00

I'm in St. Louis now. We've been here for about 10 days, and I really love it. We've essentially settled into the new digs (meaning boxes are all unpacked, but the furniture will be moved around and pictures rehung for the next few months until Abby gets tired of the fight or wins it), and into somewhat of a routine. Went to the Arch. If you get a chance you should go stand under it and look up. That thing is really impressive. Our tourist dollar went towards the elevator ride to the top. I was disappointed, but how do you convince your children that the 35 minute film on the architecture and construction of the arch will be far more entertaining? Catherine was confused that there was even a choice, much like her old man was when his family used to interrupt a perfectly good day of ride riding to go see "For Me and My Gal" at Opryland.

Things are going to start getting pretty interesting around here pretty soon. I look forward to the classes, the late night conversations over beer and cigars, and fine tuning my prayer rug making. Strangely, there is not a Televangelism emphasis to be found here which is disappointing. That does appear to be the most lucrative avenue.

My father asked if the school had a nice compound. He meant to say campus, but I found it very telling. I assured him that the compound was nice, and that aside from having to turn Abby over once a month to "FatherLeader" I was very happy here.

By the way, the Zoo here is superb, AND FREE!! Abby gets annoyed when I try to get the kids to name the Somalian Wild Ass. She gets equally miffed at statements such as the following:

"That's one wild ass exhibit."
"Good thing they keep that wild ass in a cage."
"Tell the zookeeper to get his wild ass over here."
"Let's go check out the wild ass."
"A man is never too old to appreciate wild ass."

Fun times at the zoo, indeed.

Let's Hear it for the Boy Shakira

2007-06-21T11:37:00.001-07:00

I found it:

http://www.rickey.org/?p=4108

Enjoy!!

Maureen McGovern Could See the Future!!

2007-06-21T08:07:00.000-07:00

I am going to make this post as short as I can, because this issue is so absolutely un-fun to talk about. The point of it is to provide my opinion on this issue and go home. Here goes.

I do not think that the morning after pill is an "abortion" pill. The key word is think. My reasoning is that I'm not 100% convinced that life begins at conception. I am 100% convinced that life exists at implantation. Any proceedure that occurs after the fertilized egg is attached to the uteral wall which purposes to terminate the pregnancy is an abortion. I think that abortion should be illegal, because I think that it is murder. You can have a fertilized egg and still not have a pregnant woman. If that egg is implanted in a uterus there is no way around the fact that you have a pregnant woman. That is my line.

I also want to say that I tend to think it is a little disingenuous of the pro-lifers (my side) to lump these two issues together. I don't really think they are the same thing.

One last important point to make is that by saying that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill is in no way saying that I think it is a good thing. Better said, the behaviors that might lead one to take the pill (obvious exceptions omitted) are probably immoral. While I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with taking a pill to avoid pregnancy, I do think there is something immoral about promiscuity and fornication.

In summation:

the morning after pill: not wrong in and of itself. shoud be legal, or I at least don't see how it can be made illegal. I have more issues with the behaviors behind the pill's use than with the pill itself. If it was made illegal, however, I certainly wouldn't protest too loudly.

abortion: this is not a posting about abortion

please feel free to ask any questions you want as I don't want to be misunderstood on this issue.

When is TV great?

2007-06-20T13:53:00.000-07:00

Last night I was treated to what might very well be the funniest 90 seconds of television I have ever seen. Two words: Boy Shakira. This act on "America's Got Talent" was as entertaining as it gets. If you haven't seen it, you need to try to get a clip of the performance. Here are the reasons it was awesome:

1. It was totally not awesome
2. Luigi (Boy Shakira) meant every bit of his act. He wasn't kidding around, and if he hadn't gotten through he would have been heartbroken.
3. It was a fat hispanic guy with bad teeth dancing around like Shakira. For the record, I think that illegals (not that he is one) should have to come up with an act this perposterous and surreal in order to get a Z-Visa.
4. Piers: "Do you think you are the act that is going to bring talent back to 'America's Got Talent?'"
Boy Shakira: "Jes."
5. His name is "Boy Shakira," and not "Shakira Boy." Why is this important? If it had been Shakira Boy then Shakira would be the adjective describing what kind of boy he is. As it stands, however, Boy is the adjective and it tells us what kind of Shakira we are dealing with. The answer: a very talented one. HE'S GOING THROUGH TO VEGAS!!!

This is the hardest I've laughed at television since the snakecharmer puzzle on Catchphrase.

If you know where I can get a clip of Boy Shakira please let me know.

In other news:
I am quickly realizing why I don't live with my parents. We are having to live with them for 3 weeks and it is about to kill me. For those of you in the know they have pulled out every old trick in the book with the exception of a 40 page rule book.

A recent batch of comments concerning a review of the documentary film Unborn in the USA has prompted me to stop and consider how I feel about the morning after pill. I will discuss that tomorrow (or next). I post comments from time to time on various things that I read, but I'm beginning to realize that you can only do something for so long before you have to accept the fact that you are one of those types of people. Put another way I really hate most of the idiots that comment at the AV club, and would like to meet them when I've had just enough beer to tell them what I really think, BUT BUT BUT, I comment from time to time at the AV Club so I guess I'm just another one of the idiots. On this particular review I had to run away as soon as the actual abortion debate began.

I happen to know this particular writer fairly well, and sometimes I'm a little jealous when I see what a little cult following he's developed. Sometimes, however, I wonder if he isn't a little embarrassed by the caliber of his following, and wish that the comments section was disabled altogether. I liken the familiarity they use in their comments towards the writer to me walking up to a performer at the bar after the show and striking up a conversation. Say thanks or good show? Sure. Ask a little deeper question about inspiration or influence? Maybe. What I have to realize, however, is that I'm not going to do anything but look stupid if I start trying to wow the performer with my knowledge of chord progressions or offer helpful advice on how he might improve this or that song. Do you know why? It's because he doesn't care what I think past the first two questions. He's getting paid to be on stage, and I'm paying to watch because I don't have what it takes to make the show.

Anyway, the morning after pill is next...

So What's Been Going On?

2007-06-03T11:16:00.000-07:00

As I said in the previous post, my lack of writing has been more about re-evaluation than time management. I have been fairly busy, but not so busy that I couldn't throw some ideas down for both of my readers to look over, ponder, and reject.

We are still in Nashville, and will be for about one more month. Our condo is under contract, and we will be closing on June 15th, Lord willing. I was going to put in my two weeks notice this week, but have decided that the quickest way to have the closing fall through would be to put in my two weeks notice early based on what seems like a sure thing. I recognize that this is not a comment that harmonizes well with my claim to be effectually called to ministry by a sovereign God, or with my staunch Calvinism, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that part of me burns incense at the altar of Murphy.

We are all squared away with living arrangements in St. Louis, and should be able to pull the move off without a hitch at the end of June or during the first week of July. I will be seeking out some kind of mindless manual labor (the kind that Americans aren't willing to do) when we get there to bridge the gap between our arrival and the start of classes in late August. Why move so early? To secure the on-campus 3 bedroom apartment we had to start the lease in July. If I'm paying for it, I might as well be living in it.

Abby has been waiting tables at Carrabba's Italian Grill since February, and she will be able to make a seamless transfer to their location in St. Louis. That store is only 3 miles from our apartment. Also, she has been able to get insurance through her work, so that is another big worry off of our minds. It is really inspiring to see how God has brought all of this together. I hope I can be as thankful when things go contrary to my will as I am when they are in accordance with it.

That's the scoop, and life is grand.

God is good all of the time.
All of the time God is good.

HEY LOOK!!! A NEW POSTING!!

2007-06-02T11:23:00.001-07:00

Wow, it's already June. I don't think that I've posted since April. It's not really a matter of thinking so much as a matter of looking at the date of my last entry. Yep!! It's April. And now it's June.

There have been a few reasons why I haven't posted of late. Primarily, I've been reevaluating how much I want to put my thoughts on controversial subjects onto the internet. At my core I am a very crass and profane man. Cussing is funny to me. I like to write and say things that I know are going to stir the pot. So I'm having to spend some time deciding if my style of opining is serving any purpose other than getting a few laughs, fanning flames, and helping me to get things off of my chest. All of those are good reasons to do something, but they don't always serve in the most helpful way to advance God's kingdom. Serving God is, of course, my long term goal. So, re-evaluating is taking place.

I had Memorial Day to myself and had a very nice time. I went to SATCO and drank a few beers, ate a few fajitas, and did some people watching. I went to see "Bug." It was good.

My birthday is coming up this Wednesday and we are going to go see "Knocked Up." I loved "40 Year Old Virgin," so I am sure that I will like "Knocked Up."

I ran 8.3 miles this morning. I've been running again for the past 5 weeks, and am preparing for the "RC and Moon Pie 10 mile Run" on June 17, down in Bell Buckle, TN. I really think that I will be able to finish. That is the goal. Last night as I lay awake in bed talking to my wife I told her, "I can't win." She asked me what we were going to do. I told her that I just wanted to go the distance. No one has ever gone the distance before with "RC and Moon Pie 10 Mile Run," and I have reasoned that were I to still be standing when that bell rings then everyone will know that I'm not just some bum. She didn't get it because she was born in 1980 and watches a lot of HGTV.

I feel that if I as a pastor could create in my audience the long term unease and discomfort with my sermons that J.J. Abrams did in me with the season finale of "Lost" I will go down in history as one of the greatest preachers in all of Christendom. Seriously, everytime it stopped bothering me I would think of something else that would bother me all over again. I hope they develop a pill that will take away the anxiety created by that show. What is it Dennis Hopper said in the commercial? I see it in my sleep, and I don't sleep that much.

If you are looking for a fun CD to buy I might reccomend a band called "The View." I don't know how new they are, but they are new to me. Describe them? Let me just say it is the kind of thing that I like. Having said that, when you hear them you'll say, "Yeah, Rob would like this." I think I like them because if I listen to "Same Jeans" a couple of times in the morning it gets stuck in my head and I don't think about "Lost" so much.

When they finally capture and kill Osama Bin Laden, I won't be as happy as a lot of people were at the death of Jerry Falwell. I don't recall a time in my life that he wasn't being accused of promoting hate and of being a hypocrite. Based on the reaction I've read from many of his detractors hate isn't indigenous to the religious right. I wonder if they see the hypocrisy in the venom that they are spewing.

HE IS RISEN INDEED!!

2007-04-08T12:18:00.000-07:00

I forgot to wish everyone a blessed Easter Sunday in my previous post.

Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

Love’s redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Lo! the Sun’s eclipse is over, Alleluia!
Lo! He sets in blood no more, Alleluia!

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ hath burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!

Hail, the Lord of earth and Heaven, Alleluia!
Praise to Thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail, the resurrection, thou, Alleluia!

King of glory, Soul of bliss, Alleluia!
Everlasting life is this, Alleluia!
Thee to know, Thy power to prove, Alleluia!
Thus to sing and thus to love, Alleluia!

Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!

But the pains that He endured, Alleluia!
Our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
Now above the sky He’s King, Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!

A Profound Honor

2007-04-08T10:08:00.000-07:00

I got a call the other night from one of the elders in our church (Covenant Presbyterian Church). As a trivial aside, you might note that Britney Spears is an anagram for Presbyterians. Point being that if it ever becomes illegal to be a Prebyterian we can fall back on this code. Perhaps we might just scratch a cuckoo bird in the dust upon meeting other potential brothers.

Back to the post:

I was shocked and honored to hear him ask me to teach a three week stretch of Sunday School classes beginning in late May. WOW!! What an honor. He told me that they were enthusiastic about my recent decision to attend seminary, and wanted to offer me the opportunity to teach in a formal setting as a form of preperation. I was touched and honored. I accepted the offer on the spot, and then asked him what they wanted me to teach. He told me I could teach on whatever I wanted provided it was scriptural. I asked him to unpack that a little bit, and essentially I am able to teach thematically through scripture (Christology, Soteriology, etc...), or choose a book and work through it. As I am only being given three weeks that pretty much means a survey of a major work (Psalms, Leviticus, etc...) or an intensive study of a minor work (Philemon, pastoral epistle, minor prophet, etc...). Currently, I have narrowed it down to one of two things: Malachi or The Apostle's Creed.

If I choose Malachi I will still have to pick and choose as it is jam packed with content, but not failing to spend substantial time on Malachi as prophecy concerning the coming savior, the doctrine of repentance, the doctrine of election, and tithing. On top of these will be the necessity of laying a solid historical setting for the book itself.

Though The Apostle's Creed is not actual scripture, I feel like we would be well advised to not only know what we are saying every Sunday, but also WHY we are saying it. Such a series would involve a sizable amount of history coupled with various and sundry scripture proofs for the individual statements contained within.

I'm leaning towards walking through The Apostle's Creed. I have spent time in Malachi, and adore it, but feel I have more to gain from unpacking the Creed. Such a survey will require substantially more due diligence on my part, but promises to be very fortifying to me spiritually. I have never failed to be uplifted by diving into the ante-Nicene fathers, and it is always pleasing to see the theological cosistancies that have flowed through the visible church for 2,000 years. Granted, there are plenty of disconnects between the doctrines of the early church and modern church, but not all of them are heretical. Heresy has, in spite of its blasphemous intentions, served the true church quite well in that it has forced the organized church to fine tune its doctrine. The various creeds, councils, and confessions that appear throughout our history are proof enough of that.

So, if you are aware of any good sources of information concerning The Apostle's Creed (genesis and/or scriptural foundations) feel free to make suggestions. Above all else, be sure to pray that God in his grace would provide no opportunities for error in what I teach, but that He would guide my words to effect edification among the believers and the glorification of His mighty and wonderful name.

Also, the elder also informed me that they would be offering an honorarium to me for my time and effort. Though this is greatly appreciated, it puts me in somewhat of a pickle. My assumption is that it is intended as a help to my venture into full time ministry, but I feel awkward in accepting it. I have decided that I will, first and foremost, tithe from the proceeds, and second, use it for a specific item (books, moving costs) and make sure to send a thank you card back to the class to let them know exactly how their gift was used.

A Treasure I've Found

2007-03-26T17:29:00.000-07:00

I found this website through the ITunes Store. Most of you will appreciate it.

http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/index.htm

I'm five chapters into "Frankenstein" (sorry, but I don't know how to underline), and could not be more entertained. Let me know if you have found similar sites.

Surely the Podcast is a blessing from God!! 12 Byzantine Rulers?!?!? Are you kidding me?!?! I'm in heaven!!!

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

2007-03-25T11:24:00.000-07:00

In Matthew 5:9 our Lord pronounces the following, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

I want to take a moment today and take a closer look at what is, perhaps, meant by this term "peacemakers." The whole idea of being a peacemaker implies that there is an absence of peace. Someone, it would seem, is at war. There are two or more parties, then, that are enemies of each other. It seems that we must figure out who these parties are, and then proceed to figure out what peace can be created between them.

Perhaps we are looking at a war that exists between men. There is, surely, a blessedness that we could attribute to one who would end the contentions of his brothers for each other. The history of man is a history of wars. Be it a family feud, a neighborly dispute, or nation pitted against nation, most of us would admit that we are usually at odds with some one individual or some group as a whole. Indeed, the Bible issues forth a call for us to love one another, and to treat others as we would have them treat us. Even non-believers would, for the most part, see the wisdom of this notion. The Bible however, seems to hold such behavior on the part of the believer (old and new testament alike) as a by product of a greater love. The apostle John in his first letter states as much (1 John 4:11-12). Orthodox Christian doctrine would maintain, then, that such behavior would flow forth from true believers as a result of the indwelling of His Spirit. Yet, the desire in some people to see a spirit of unity established within the brotherhood of man is certainly not a phenomenon that is exclusive to Christians. We need only look at the words and work of Ghandi for evidence for this claim.

The notion that men should strive for unity and filial piety, not being exclusive to the Christian community leads me to think that perhaps there is a different enemy with whom we are to seek peace. Such a notion is a theme of Holy Scripture, but I would maintain that it is a subtheme of something far greater, and, at the same time, something far more dire. What do we have to say about the on going war between man and God? In God, at least in the God of the Bible, man finds his greatest enemy. We are all according to Scripture, born enemies of God (Ephesians 2:1-3). Such has been the case since the fall of man in the garden. R.C. Sproul once said (and I paraphrase), that the Bible is the story of how God created man. Man sinned against God, and having brought death upon himself, fled into hiding. The rest of the Bible is certainly not the story of how man gathered himself together and went about finding his way back to God, but rather, it is the story of God's divine determination to pull out from among the fallen a peculiar people to himself.

This, I believe, is the import of the term peacemaker, and it is the most revolutionary notion the world can ever hear. Our enmity with and towards God is so great and so entrenched, so traditional and so historical, that many of us don't even know that there is a war going on at all. And yet, the assertion of Scripture is that the war is very real for all of us, and sadly, quite hopeless. There will not be, as much as we would like to believe, an heroic stand at Thermopylae. We are at war with the very source of our lives and, should he withdraw his gracious patience, are destined to experience the full wrath of his anger.

2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

This golden chain expressed by our Savior is a divine summary of the work of the Spirit within the believer. If we cherry pick the individual attributes of the whole we might fool ourselves into believing that some element of the prize will be ours to claim. I truly see the value in showing people mercy. If, therefore, I show others mercy then God will surely be pleased with at least that aspect of my performance. We must be careful not to misinterpret the Beatitudes as a checklist of righteous acts that it behooves us to endorse. This is to miss the point. What Jesus presents for us here are the terms of our surrender prior to the destruction of our strongest strongholds.

We must acknowledge our poverty of spirit, that is, confess our complete spiritual unworthiness before God. Having done so, we will mourn our treason, and thus be made meek before our fellow beings. Such poverty must drive us, necessarily, to hunger and thirst for that true righteousness that is only found in the love of God himself. This is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we mentioned earlier. This Spirit is the source of our regeneration and the seed bed from which springs the outpouring of all righteous mercy, purity of heart, and peacemaking. The peacemaking that we are discussing is the delivery of these terms to our fellow men. The war is over, if you will have it. The price for your treason is paid. You have but to acknowledge the propitiation and claim your sonship. To those who will have it, the entirety of every promise ever made by God unto men is legally decreed by divine fiat to be wholly and entirely theirs. This is the majesty and regality of the Beatitudes.

Imagine for a moment that you sought to strike your own peace with America's greatest enemy. Undoubtedly, such an act would create some fairly sizable enmity between you and your fellow citizens. Such is the case with the Christian, and this is exactly what our precious Savior promised in the fifteenth chapter of John's Gospel:

18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, [3] but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

For the believer, however, the battle is over. The peace has been won. His faith, placed rightly in the Great Peacemaker, has rendered him eternally and unimpeachably a son of the Living God. How can he but tell the world, enemies of his King though they are, of the blessed assurance that is offered to all who would come. Truly the yoke is easy, and the burden is light.

Blessed, indeed, are the peacemakers. For though they were once enemies of God Almighty, today they are called his children. For while we were still his mortal enemies God sent His Son to pay the price for our galactic treason. How shall any of us escape if we ignore such a wonderful salvation?

The Rob Taylors of the World

2007-03-24T06:09:00.000-07:00

I think that maybe I'm going crazy. I have always believed that the simplest answer is probably the best answer, so it has been easy for me to look down my nose at groups such as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or the JFK assassination guys or people of that ilk. So it is easy to just sit back and buy into the John and Elizabeth Edwards story from this week. Something about it doesn't sit right with me.

I had probably better stop here and say that I hope Elizabeth Edwards finds a rapid remission and lives for many many more years. I would not wish such a situation on any family or marriage. I am certain that this is all very stressful and I wish the Edwards family the best. You aren't going to think that I wish them the best by the time this post is over, but I do.

This whole things just reeks of political grandstanding, and it's right out of the Democrats' playbook. As much as you might hate Coulter for "bashing" the 9/11 widows, her description of the tactic is spot-on. Anyone can say what they want about Pelosi's view of the war, but what kind of jerk would disagree with those poor 9/11 widows? It is a brilliant tactic.

"Fine you Republican hate-mongers!! You be the one that looks poor Christopher Reeve in the eyes and tell him you don't WANT him to walk again!! Superman is in a wheelchair, and Bush could make it better!! He could, but he WON'T!! John Kerry WANTS to save Superman. I think Superman would save us if he could, but he can't. He's in a wheelchair!! Bush is mean!!"

Now let's take a look at the issues that are near and dear to John Edwards' heart: nationalized healthcare, stem cell research, socking it to the rich (himself excluded), and winning the presidency.

Taking them in the above order we should analyze how the latest developments with his wife might be useful:

Nationalized Healthcare: "My wife has been where you are. In our time in the hospitals we have talked to common people. Good men and women who just want to go to the mailbox without vomiting blood on the lawn. The Republicans want them to vomit blood on the lawn. Elizabeth and I think that these people have a God given right to not vomit blood on the lawn. Breast cancer is horrible, but through this ordeal we have been inspired to go out and give Americans the healthcare system that they deserve."

Stem cell research: "Why do you want my wife to die?" (Kind of like when I ask my friends why they are so committed to leaving children behind. The program is called "No Child Left Behind." If you are against it, then you are obviously for leaving children behind.)

The Rich: "We've seen first hand how the rich have hurt you. We talked to the elderly while we were at the hospital...."

The Presidency: "I am the most emotionally available man in the world. Who has better values than me? Look at how I love my wife. She says that all she wants before, God forbid, she dies is for me to be President. Why do you hate her so much? She's sick and you don't want to grant her wish."

I'm not saying that this is the way it is, or the way that it is going to be. I'm just saying that I can see this kind of thing coming. And who's can say anything about it without looking like a complete a-hole? Hell, you probably think I'm an a-hole for just writing it. I'm sitting here writing it thinking, "Dude, you're an a-hole." But if you see the leaves turning upside down and the sky grows dark and the air gets perfectly still, are you an a-hole for thinking that it might rain? Man, this is just what politicians do. Besides, if Edwards really thinks this is all too personal to politicize, why have a press conference. Doesn't making a point to notify the world about your personal business pretty much make it the world's business. At the very least, doesn't it kind of give the world a right to voice an opinion?

Let's play a game. Let's pretend that Edwards read this post. Now let's guess what he would have to say. Here's my guess.

EDWARDS: "Ya know Katie, we live in a country where people are free to hate. Elizabeth and I want to use our free speech to unite. There are always going to be hateful people in the world. People like Rob Taylor. But I think the American people see through the hate and venom of the Rob Taylors and are ready for compassion. They are ready to end the back-biting. They are ready for a government that wants everyone to prosper not just a select few. They are ready for change, and I believe that we are going to bring that change. If you don't vote for me, Katie, then you love cancer. The American people have a choice: They are either voting FOR cancer, or AGAINST cancer. And that's the point, Katie, and it's really simple. John Edwards is against cancer. If you want a cancer free world vote for me. If you want your children to grow up without a mother, vote Republican."

COURIC: "Very compelling arguements, Senator. Well coming up next, (video footage of precious doe-eyed Iraqi girl peeping timidly out from behind what looks like a bullet riddled disattached refrigerator door. She is covered in dirt, but still precious) we'll take you inside the most dangerous neighborhood in Baghdad and meet the children. Children too frightened to go to school even if their parents were alive. Stay tuned."

No One Knows What Goes On Behind Closed Doors

2007-03-21T17:35:00.000-07:00

I want to preface tonight's posting with a quick disclaimer. It will become important as you read further into the post. It is this: In 6 years of marriage I have never been turned down. Not once. Not ever.

Tonight's Post:

I think that there is nothing more cruel and unloving that a wife can do to her husband than to turn him down for sex. I also think that there are times that a husband should be sensitive to his wife's feelings and recognize that it might not be the best time for such activity. Such recognition and sensitivity plays a huge role in his obligation to nurture and care for her. Having said this, I would be willing to wager quite a hefty sum that the greater majority of the time that a wife denies her husband in this way it is based far more on control and manipulation than it is on being tired or under the weather.

There is some truth in every stereotype, and such is the case with the notion that men are only interested in one thing. Men are not ONLY interested in sex, but we, for the most part, are very very very interested. Very few wars have been fought over really good meatloaf.

Women are far more complicated than men in my experience. We don't, as a general rule, require special Ph balancing in our cosmetics. We don't require much of anything. In fact, I would submit that 99% of our problems can be solved with one of two things. One of these things is a ham sandwich (or a Reuben if you are one of my neo-con friends). Women, on the other hand, seem to need time and affection, an understanding ear, or a kind word. When I have had a bad day, it requires very little to make it better.

So why would a woman that vowed before God and family refuse her husband something that means so much to him. I can't imagine what kind of reaction I would get from others were they to hear that Abby came to me with emotional needs and I told her I was too tired or not in the mood, or that tomorrow night MIGHT be a possibility. Everyone would agree that I was being a first class jerk.

"You should be there for her, Rob." They would say. "You're her husband. That's your job."

Unfortunately we live in an age where it is considered completely neanderthal for a man to assert that his wife owes him anything at all. That, however, is garbage. She does have obligations, and, like it or not, I believe that being available sexually is one of them. Of course, I don't think that there is anything that he can really do about it. His obligation to love her and be there for her is not conditional on her meeting any of her obligations. I've been to a few weddings, and I've never heard anyone make conditional vows. All of this to say that a man must press on in his role as husband. He must remain faithful. He must love without ceasing.

I can only guess what is going through a wife's mind when she decides to turn down her husband. At some level, though, it is probably about power, and it is probably about control. Maybe she doesn't have the sayso she desires with the finances. Maybe she doesn't respect him (I don't see how she could make the claim that she does). Regardless, to use sex as a weapon in this manner is nothing short of sinister. To dangle the object of his desires before him like a carrot is to make him into a pathetic lapdog. Why would anyone do that to someone that they love?

Then, of course, you have his reaction. Many are the men who make the "mistake" of getting angry at being turned down. Many are the wives that use this as all the more reason to lock the carrot away. As if to teach a three year old that huffing and puffing will only cost you your cookie tomorrow night as well. I say again, sinister.

Why shouldn't he be angry? Indeed there are a lengthy list of reasons that he married her, but this was way up near the top of it. He is angry because deep down inside he knows that he is being manipulated. He knows that he is being controlled. He knows, above all things, that he is being disrespected. But this is a lesson about teeth. This is a lesson about who gets to really show power. Men hate to see women cry. As much as they hate it, though, I can assure you that they don't hate it nearly as much as women hate to see men get angry. Why do they hate it? I maintain that it is the most uncomfortable of reminders. Thus, it is the surest way in the world to get the carrot pulled further away.

I close with the following statement. Regardless of what a wife thinks she is saying to her husband by turning him down, in the end she is telling him that for all of her vows and words and professions, she will never really be his. There will be hand holding in public, and there will be cuddles on the couch. At the end of the day, however, when no one can see and the lights are out and it's just the two of them she can let him know without a word that he has nothing at all. How powerful and evolved she must feel.

I say again, sinister! Sinister. Sinister. Sinister.

Turning the Other Cheek

2007-03-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

I have taken a bit of chiding of late from several people (relatives and associates) because I have decided that I am going to raise my son to be a man. I am of the opinion that part of this training involves learning how to stand up for and defend yourself. In short, I am going to make sure that my son is not afraid to fight.

Most of the objections are coming from two schools. The first rebuttal is coming from women. This is not surprising as the pervasive attitude in our culture is that women have sole authority in defining what a real man is supposed to be. These same women, you will note, bristle at the notion that a man would seek to define what it means to be a woman. Yet, they are quite insistant upon determining what defines a man. More directly, they have final say in what a man is not. The defining characteristics seem to be that men don't fight. Men don't get angry. Men don't raise their voice. Men don't assert their authority. Men never take advantage of the fact that they are bigger stronger faster. Men essentially are women, but without teeth. I would assert that any other form of a man scares the crap out of them. Aside from the paragraph length evidence to the contrary, I can say with a great degree of seriousness that I don't really care what a bunch of women feel a man is supposed to be, or not supposed to be.

The other school, whose opinion matters a great deal to me, is the Christian community. Many of them would maintain that teaching my child to fight would be a direct contradiction of the Christian doctrine of turning the other cheek. The kindest word I can think of for this position is that it is misguided. In my upbringing fighting has always been frowned upon. I maintain that it should, indeed, be the last recourse. It should, however, be a recourse. I have watched several of my friends fall back on the idea of turning the other cheek when I know for a fact they were simply scared of getting the snot beat out of them. This isn't Christian love. This is cowardice, and there is a world of difference between the two ideas. If my son refuses to stand up for himself because he is simply incapable of dealing with whatever version of Goliath is mocking him in the field, then he is afraid. Turning the other cheek at that point is NOT an act of love, but rather, a state of cowardice. If, however, everyone in the room knows for a fact that he is more than capable of not only engaging his enemy, but winning the contest, then that is a message worth discussing.

Jesus made no mystery of what he was capable of doing should he so choose (Matthew 26: 52-54). A look at his life and ministry would also reveal that he was not afraid to stand up for the poor and oppressed. Why should I raise my son to be any different?

Be clear, though, that I am not raising a bully. I admit, also, that Trip might one day be guilty of bullying one of his peers. This will be dealt with severely and quickly. Young men are stupid creatures, and they have to be taught. They are prone to test the limits of decency and good behavior. My job as a father is to strive to steer him in the right direction from the outset, and then to redirect him when he opts for the unrighteous path.

"Trip, why did you get in a fight?"

The answers to that question are numerous. If it's because the other kid wouldn't give up his milk money than Trip will have to pay the price for his actions. If it is because the other kid wouldn't stop harassing a weaker peer, then I feel Trip is to be commended. Anyone that has spent time in the schoolyard (one populated by children or adults) knows that the only way to stop a bully is to extract a price from him that he is unwilling to pay.

I am going to teach my child to be a man. I'm not going to teach him to be some weak spined ninny that is incapable of standing up for himself or others. To do so would rob him of dignity. Even submission to proper authority is rendered all the more noble when it is coupled with strength of character and purpose. The Lamb of God was also the Lion of Judah. Both are worthy of emulation.

Oh Nurse! Theres' a Bureaucrat in My Colostomy Bag

2007-03-13T18:09:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a big push these days for some kind of nationalized health care. I've participated in its equivelant in my life, and many of you have heard what it is going to be like in recent headlines. I speak specifically here about the recent problems they are having over at Walter Reed.

I am here to tell you that if you think that the situation in the Army hospitals that we are currently hearing about sounds appealing, then you are going to absolutely adore nationalized health care. It will be great. It will be like someone took all of the highlights from those recent headlines, and turned them over to the good folks at the DMV and the IRS. I feel confident that were my child to have a serious medical issue nothing would comfort me more than 3 or 4 weeks of petty bureaucratic paperwork being shuffled around while some faceless automaton decides the fate of my baby.

For all of its bad healthcare, it will at least be fair. We will all find solace in knowing that the guy sitting next to us is rich. As long as the rich aren't getting something that I can't have I will probably not mind dying unnecessarily. And of course that "rich" person might even be a doctor. They will be so much more motivated when they are employed by the government.

Also, who are you going to complain to if it doesn't meet your standards? The government? Yeah right! If you think hospitals can get the legal wheels turning to defend themselves, wait until the apparatus behind them is the Fed. I'm sure they will just pull their hair out trying to fix your complaints about something that's already "free." Of course, it's not free. They just stole the money out of everyone's paycheck or forced it out of our pockets upon threat of jailtime.

Can we vote it out of existance? Yes, we could. But why get rid of such a wonderful program that helps so many people? What will be needed is reform. And by reform, I don't mean letting some rich conservative put some of that money back into your pocket. He only wants you to die. Healthcare is too important to let it be privatized. No, only reform will cure this problem. Of course, the reforms mean raising your healthcare taxes. Sorry about that, but it's the only way.

What a crock of poo!!

I don't understand how any one could want such a foolish thing. Oh yes, I suppose I need look back at the last sentence and see the word foolish.

A coworker of mine was fussing the other day about how Bush was planning on taking money away from the Department of Education. I told her that I was mad about it too. "Why so?" she asked. I told her that I was mad because implicit in the idea of taking monies away from the Department of Education was the idea that such a department existed at all. Standardized education. Standardized healthcare. Standardized income. Standardized lifestyles. Blah Blah Blah....

This country will eventually get the government it wants. If the people are stupid enough to vote all of their power away to the government, I say it is the government they deserve.

Romney and the LDS

2007-03-12T18:31:00.000-07:00

I've been listening over the last few weeks to talk about Mitt Romney. Will status as a member of the LDS church be an issue? I don't think it will, ultimately, for the country. I think it will, however, for me. Why? I'm not anti-mormon, but I am anti-Mormonism. Now don't go thinking that this means that I'm interested in making it illegal to be a Mormon. I am not, as many of you know, interested in keeping people out of the marketplace of ideas. The LDS Church, however, gets under my skin.

Now, when I was in the Army I was in military intelligence as a Korean Linguist. For whatever reason, you couldn't swing a dead rat around the language school without hitting a Mormon in the face. As linguists are a very small community within the Army, I became very close friends with a number of Mormons (or should I say people that happened to be Mormon). I will go as far as to say that the one person in Afghanistan that helped to make it endurable was a guy named Harden. He is a Mormon. One of the brightest most entertaining people I have met in my life is a Mormon named Melissa Honey. I would call all of them true blue friends, but every one of them knows what I think of Mormonism. We've all gone back and forth on our beliefs in conversations that have been both humorous and heated. They may all secretly think that I am the biggest jerk in the world. If I had any control over their thinking, however, I believe I would change their opinions of Mormonism long before I tampered with their views on my lack of couth.

I have researched Mormonism, and not just on anti-Mormon websites. As you might have gathered from this post, I am not impressed. Atheism makes more sense to me. Mormons are probably better for property values, but atheists don't call themselves Christians when they are not Christians. Indeed Mormons have the name of "Jesus Christ" in their title. Regardless, I can have Jesus's name in the title of my organization, but if I happen to be referring to the empty ink cartridge in my printer when I say "Jesus" I really don't know that I would be on firm footing in calling my organization "Christian."

I will give the Mormons credit for this. They have managed to seamlessly combine the defining elements of two of the most notorious heresies in the history of Christendom: Arianism and Gnosticism.

My friend Harden said something to me one time that stung a little bit. It stung because it was true. He said, "Christians in America today believe more like we do than they believe like you do." I have to admit, that he is still right. Such, I am afraid, is the seductive allure of works righteousness on fallen man.

Back to Romney, I suppose that nothing mirrors the morality of red state America quite as well as the LDS belief system. We all love good behavior. The god of America loves good behavior. Self detemination and not the blood of Christ has ever been the cornerstone of American Christianity. How fitting the banners of colonial America are that read, "We Serve No Sovereign Here."

In the end, I believe that Giuliani will get the nod, and not Romney. Giuliani is not the social conservative that fundamentalists are going to want appointing judges, but perhaps he will get the props from the Christian Right that he deserves for believing that the individual states should make their own decisions on matters like gun control, marriage rights, and abortion. I don't think that I'm capable of asking for much more. Even if the justices are legislating from the bench in a manner that I find pleasing, they are still legislating from the bench. It is the practice and not the content of the legislation that I am the most concerned about.

What worries me the most about Romney in the upcoming primaries is not the fact that Romney is a practicing Mormon. I fear, though, that Romney's candidacy coupled with the spirit of inclusion that is so pervasive in our country (and not always in a negative way), will seduce the church (already paying the price for its war on all things doctrinal) to compromise on the very doctrines that define her existance. C.H. Mackintosh once said, and I paraphrase, that there are those who claim the virtue of unity at all costs; however, such a notion will ultimately exclude truth. We must proclaim the virtue of truth at all costs; even if that means that we sacrifice unity for a season.

I simply can not, with a clean conscience, endorse the candidacy of any person whose faith invites such potential storms within the body of the church. No matter how much I may appreciate and agree with Romney's politics, my first loyalty is to my God and Master. I must place the integrity of His bride ahead of my love for my country. I must sacrifice the short term gain of a political agenda in favor of the long term glory that is the life of the church eternal.

I Rolled the Book Dollar Dice Today

2007-03-09T17:51:00.000-08:00

I went out today and bought a book. I have never heard of the guy, and I have never heard of the book. It is a book called Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson.

Now, enough of my friends are sci-fi/fantasy geeks that at least one of you should be able to tell me if this is going to be any good, or if the author is of any count.

Well, why the hell did I buy it? It looked interesting, and the blurb on the back was inticing. I know, the same can be said of "Open Water," but sometimes you have to take a shot. Today I did. Anyway, should I save the receipt?

Random Notes

2007-03-07T17:08:00.000-08:00

So I'm sitting here watching American Idol. As I often do when watching this show I've been doing a good bit of channel hopping. On PBS they were showing some clips of an old Cab Calloway performance. So it occurs to me, when was the last time that there was truly an original style of singing presented to world audiences? It seems as if everyone these days, in some form or fashion, is borrowing from someone from the past. Now, I readily admit that even the great voices that we have recordings of from the past are, more than likely, another link in an evolutionary chain of singing that we don't have on record.

But then it occurs to me that Rap and Hip Hop could be credited with a introducing a completely new style of singing to the world. There are those, of course, that would say that it isn't really "singing." I would assert, however, that it is more than just talking. I have no problem discerning the difference between Paul McCartney and Willie Nelson. Likewise, I can differentiate between Snoop and Chuck D (and yes, I'm dating myself). How far into a song do you have to get before you know that it's Nelly or OutKast. Each artist is unique, and though we can all debate the "message" or the "means," I don't know how much debate there is between distinctive voices within the genre.

So I'm giving mad props to the Rap and Hip Hop genre for all but inventing a style of vocal and musical presentation that was, for the most part, previously unknown.

NEXT:

I'm currently reading "Wizards and Glass" by Stephen King. On the positive side, I can't think of many other current authors that can get me to a fourth 600 page + installment of a story. I had friends in the Army that swore by the "Wheel of Time" series, but after about 200 pages of Book One, I was done. Yawn.

On the negative side, Stephen King can be awfully embarrassing from time to time. Specifically, I'm pretty tuned into most bodily functions; their causes, effects, and odors. I would think that a man in or near his 60's would have gotten past the need to describe them in such sophomoric detail. It is a testament to King, however, that readers keep wanting more of the story. I know I do.

NEXT:

The SEC Tournament starts this week, and I like the bracket quite a bit. All I am going to say is that things could go my way. I fear, sadly, that I've already said too much.

The War on Terrorism: Iraq Front

2007-03-04T00:51:00.000-08:00

I want to talk a little bit about the Iraq front of the war on terrorism. I am a supporter of this phase of the war. Many, I imagine, would roll there eyes at my calling it the Iraqi front, but these are the same people that would have questioned our response to Pearl Harbor of placing ground troops in northern Africa. They are also the same people (for the most part) that have never lifted a finger outside of the voting booth for their country. Based on what many of them stand for as people, I would challenge the notion that the vote they are casting would qualify as having done anything for the country either.

I suppose my vision for Iraq is somewhat archaic at best, and stupid at its worst. I want to win. I know people that have been over there, and I know people (very close friends) that are over there right now. They deserve every chance at winning, and they CAN win. Ours is the superior fighting force, and ours is the noble cause.

I remember sitting in the DFAC (that's the mess hall for those of you who have never served) a week or so after 9/11. Our forces were gearing up for the invasion of Afghanistan and CNN was running a 24/7 campaign of stories about how hopeless this effort would be. The tyrannical monarchy that we overthrew in 1776 was chased out of the country a long time ago, and the misunderstood Soviet Union had seen the bear sent back over the mountain in shame during the 1980's. All that was lacking was Walter Cronkite declaring the war unwinnable on the evening news. It was going to be bloody, and we should all prepare for the thousands upon thousands of GI bodies that would soon begin leading the evening newscast. For those of you that haven't followed the story, the good guys pretty much beat the crap of of the Taliban in about 3 months. I've been there. Trust me. We won.

I remember when the invasion of Iraq was in full swing. A swarm of tanks and troops were speeding across the desert on the way to Baghdad when they paused to regroup and refuel. Major news networks were foaming at the mouth to inform the country that Tommy Franks and the boys were experiencing the first major setback of the war. It was, truly, the beginning of the end. Some two weeks later we had occupied Baghdad and Hussein was on the run.

I also remember the casualty estimates the media "experts" were predicting for the first few months of the conflict. They were in the tens of thousands. To date, I don't think we have lost 4,000 total.

Now I watch the news every night and see congress championing their non-binding resolutions. What a bunch of cowards. If they really believe what they are saying, they should just have a straight up vote to cut funding. That is a power they DO have under the constitution. But they don't have the guts to put their money where their mouth is. Why not? If the war is as unpopular as they claim that it is, they are one floor vote away from being the next version of the greatest generation. They won't do that, however. They are, in truth, cowards. I would call them traitors, but I have too much respect for Benedict Arnold.

Where was the moral indignation during Kosovo? If you want to discuss military operations that had no bearing on us whatsoever, that would be a good starting place. By the way, there is still no exit strategy for that venture. For that matter, I'd like an exit strategy for the war on poverty. That waste of time and resources has been sucking the life out of the country for close to 40 years. When are we going to pull out of Japan or South Korea?

I have to agree with Dennis Miller on something. Even if I disagreed with the war, I would never say anything about it as long as our troops were in harm's way. Those soldiers need our support, and that means cheering them on to victory or keeping your mouth closed. This notion that you can support the troops but not the war is such a bunch of double speak that it makes me sick. If I gave my wife the kind of support that the Democrats claim to give our troops I can assure you that we wouldn't have made it to our sixth anniversary. That was today. Happy Anniversary, baby. I love you (and support you).

From what I can tell the Democrats idea of support is a firm commitment to no longer spit on soldiers as they get off the plane following a tour of duty. Support, however, isn't just a matter of NOT doing things to undermine someone, but implies an active attempt to help someone acheive success. By the current definition it could be said that I support public television. I don't throw rocks at Big Bird, so he knows that I love him. You may ask what kind of sick person would throw a rock at Big Bird. I would assert that if Big Bird was trying to win a ground war under a conservative president that sick person would be the democrat party.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Democrats want to kill Big Bird. So go ahead, Democrats. If you honestly believe that stoning a damned muppet to a bloody pulp is going to make this a stronger country...

In all seriousness, go look at the current cover of Newsweek. What message do you think the editorial staff of that rag is trying to send. A female double amputee in an army t-shirt graces the cover. Yes, just look at what our senseless foreign affairs fiasco has wrought!! If Bush hadn't lied this girl would still have here legs!! What those idiots at Newsweek don't get, sadly, is that such a message isn't going to do anything but cost other soldiers their legs or lives.

I am a soldier. I can assure you that the last thing I would want were the same fate handed to me is your pity. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that I would be mortified at the thought that I sacrificed my legs for nothing. The country might owe me a hearty "thank you," but the government would owe me a victory. It is victory and not words that will ultimately render the most honor to the sacrifice of that noble soldier on the cover.

Finally, if you are one that tends to vote for the party of George Wallace, Lester Maddox and his Lieutenant Governor James Earl Carter, I urge you to support the war effort in Iraq until the victory is won. There will be plenty of time following the after party to play the blame game. No one, after all, minds taking the blame for a victory.

John Edwards....You Go Girl!!

2007-03-03T06:54:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. What's funny about that? Not anything really, although I think it's funny that this multi-zillionaire living in his 50 guh-zillion square foot house that claims to have a heart for the poor got called a "faggot."

Even funnier? Howard Dean being "offended" by the bigotry. He demands that the Republican party denounce Ann Coulter. I demand that Howard Dean go hang himself and his recently outed friend John Edwards.

Some one needs to explain to the Dems that it's OK to be gay. It's OK to do whatever you want as long as it feels good and no one gets hurt. Senator Edwards should wear this as a badge of honor.

The gay community, however, should be horribly offended. I would be if Coulter had called Edwards a Taylor. My demographic has its problems, but don't try to say that John Edwards is one of us. That, Ms. Coulter, is going to far!!

To protect against this type of thing in the future, we need to develop a hip version of the word. Perhaps it wouldn't be offensive if we dropped the -T. As in: What up, my fagguh!! That fagguh crazy!! Fagguh don't play that!! Damn Fagguh!! Those curtains look fabulous!!

Regardless, I will definitely Tivo "The View" this week. Rosie is going to go ape crackers!! This type of base hatred is something that she WILL NOT TOLERATE!!

Maybe Coulter should release this speech on a CD. I don't think it would sell very much, but I would be interested to see what rating it was given by Tipper Gore. Was Tipper a Republican back in the day? Or was that just another example of the Dems knowing what's best for the cattle. MOO!!

Would You Like Ice With That?

2007-03-02T16:17:00.000-08:00

Man!! I have really been enjoying this global warming over the past few days. 70 degrees in early March is certainly a sign of the end times. As I puttered around in my SUV today with the windows rolled down and the AC going (more out of spite than a need to stay cool, as if I could get any cooler) I thought about how horrible it is going to be for my great grandchildren when it's 90 degrees in March. Then I decided that I didn't care.

I have by no means done my due diligence on the whole global warming "crisis," but that puts me in good company with 75% of the idiots who have bought into this madness. I'm quite certain that there is a crisis. I don't know, however, which is the more frightening: a) the fact that our grandchildren are going to fry, die of thirst, or die of starvation because of my filament lighting, or b) the only way for us to avoid this catastrophe is for me to give up more of my freedom and money to the federal government. Complex legislation designed to sock it to the rich is, historically, the only way out of any and all problems.

Who the hell is Al Gore? For that matter, who the hell are Leonardo DiCapprio or George Clooney?

I do have a real question based somewhat on science. I am hoping, also, that someone can answer it.

The other day I was very thirsty. I packed tumbler full of ice and then filled it with water. The ice, as you have probably seen yourself, clumped together and floated to the top. Half of it above, and half below the water. Three chapters of a Calvin Commentary later I realized that I hadn't had a drop. The ice had all melted. It was then that I noticed the most peculiar thing. The water level had, in fact, gone down!!

Here's the question:

If the polar ice cap melts, wouldn't we have lower water levels than we currently have?

My reasoning is based on the idea (perhaps wrongly), that the bulk of the arctic ice exists below the waterline. If all of it melted, the water level would go down. Granted, there is ice on top of the water, and on the land, but is it enough to not only make up for the reduced water level and then add to it enough to flood New York?

I'm serious. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Another question, but not as serious of a question:

Why does every single weather event these days have to be tied in to global warming? 12 feet of snow in Oswego, NY.....global warming. Hurricane Katrina....global warming. 70 degrees in March...global warming. No hurricanes this year...global warming. You get my drift.

Also, it seems to me a bit foolhardy to accept as scientific fact the 100 year temp forecast of people that can't accurately predict the 5 day forecast.

Those are just some thoughts, but I am serious about wanting answers to the water level question!!

Children's Television

2007-02-23T14:14:00.000-08:00

As Abby has recently taken a job waiting tables (raising money for school), I have had the chance to watch a lot of children's television.

Here are the shows that I really like:

1. Backyardigans (favorite)
2. Wonderpets
3. Reading Rainbow
4. Between the Lions
5. Anything with Laurie Berkner
6. Little Bill
7. Dora the Explorer
8. Blue's Clues
9. Mr. Roger's Neighborhood

I don't feel the need to explain why I like these shows. Their greatness is self evident.

Shows that I will tolerate, but don't really care for:

1. Sesame Street: It's a little bit on the indoctrinating side these days. It probably was when I was coming along as well, but they seem to be a tad more agendized then I remember. Still a classic. Kind of like the uncle that joined the survivalists. He's still family.

2. Berenstain Bears: More father getting hit in the head, and less forced politically correct messaging please.

3. Teletubbies: I just don't get it. How did anyone decide that one of them was gay? They don't make a bit of sense. They do, however, mesmerize the children for 30 minutes

4. Barney: I'm used to it. See Teletubbies

5. Arthur: This is actually a really good show. There was one episode where Arthur HIT his sister. It's almost like Degrassi for toddlers. I enjoy it, but I worry that it's not too mature at times.

By No Means Allowed in My House:

1. Caillou: I want to just strangle this child. He whines, and complains, and his sissy father just does everything he can not to accidentally raise a man for a son. On top of this, Caillou is an extremely unattractive child.

2. It's a Big Big World: It makes me want to drive an even bigger SUV, litter, and eat spotted owl.

3. Rugrats/Spongebob: Bob is allowed in the house, but not allowed access to my kids. It's hard enough to keep them from laughing at their own booger jokes without his help. The Rugrats are just garbage.

4. Superbook: Bad theology, bad animation, and rank idolotry top the list of reasons I expel this program and others like it from our house. A possible exception is Davey and Goliath...so very bad...so very good!!!

Jeremiah

2007-02-20T17:30:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned back in December, I have purchased Calvin's 5 volume commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 1 is focused on chapters 1-9, and I am currently about half way through chapter 2 (2:19 to be precise). One of the things that I like about Calvin's approach to biblical commentary is that he is consistent to his theological presuppositions. Though the works are never merely treatise on the 5 points, there is an underlying orthodoxy that he maintains (and supports) all the way through each of his commentaries. Students of theology will know this orthodoxy, perhaps, by such names as TULIP, 5 points of Calvinism, or reformed theology. The overarching theme of even these fundamentals is, however, the sovereignty of God. Perhaps this is what draws me, academically, to this theology. I would argue, of course, that I am ultimately drawn by the Holy Spirit and an irresistable grace. Here, within the framework of orthodox reformed theology, is a God who insists on being God. He refuses to be a co-pilot, buddy, or benevolent sponsor, but insists with all wrath and holiness upon being God with no rivals.

From the onset of Jeremiah we see God profess this sovereignty directly to Jeremiah. Almighty God's assertion and declaration that he has purposed not only Jeremiah's message, but also his prophetic office and even birth is the cornerstone for the assurance He will use to fortify Jeremiah's ministry in such verses as 1:6-8, and 1:19. Even in verse 18 God reminds Jeremiah that the assurance is not an option. Jeremiah's failure to remain confident and rest in God's sovereignty will bring on greater tribulation then he is destined for already. The path, office and message are all chosen, ordained and commissioned. God is essentially saying in verse 18, "I am going to protect and deliver you, Jeremiah, and you had better believe it!"

I want to address three other aspects of the work that I have noticed and find quite fascinating.

First, I'm beginning to discover some of the literary devices of ancient Jewish literature. I am referring to the chiastic structure utilized throughout much of the Old Testament. One easy example to reference is the structure of the creation story. In Jeremiah it is seen in 1:18 and followed through in 2:4-8. Though I won't lay this out in full, the essence of the device in Jeremiah is: Kings, Priests and people (1...2...3), and illuminated in 2:4-8 in reverse order (people, Priests, Kings 3...2...1). My guess is that the origins of the form trace back to the oral tradition. Such a structure would, surely, be more conducive to memorization.

Second, I can't help but notice how much Paul draws from the format of Jeremiah. Paul, like Jeremiah, is zealous throughout virtually all of his epistles to defend his office and assign authority for his message to God himself. As a scribe in the pharisee tradition Paul would be well versed in the ancients scriptures, and could not help but draw on certain aspects of their style and format. Specifically, I can't help but notice a certain similarity between Jeremiah 2:11 and Galatians 1:6-7.

Finally, I am absolutely in love with the contention God offers in 2:9-13. As He begins to lay the framework for his case of adultery against Judah, Jeremiah calls attention to a very interesting phenomenon. And thinking about it, he is exactly right. In Israel we are presented with a people that not only have the high holy privlege of having been directly chosen by God for His divine revelation, but they are a nation that has been guided (in the most intimate sense of the word), established and sustained by Him directly. It makes no sense, therefore, that they would turn to other gods. The heathen nations, though mired in superstition and all manner of blasphemy and outrage, are at least true to the gods of their fathers. Truly it is indicative of the self worshipping and idol chasing tendencies of our depraved natures that we would not only seek out, but create easier gods to worship. As self proclaimed gods of our own worlds we will inevitably strive to worship a god that we never have to disagree with. Even a casual perusal of modern non-Christian and, sadly, several Christian sects will illustrate quite readily that this trait has by no means departed from our natures. God's emphatic proclamation of his own divine will being the foremost cause of all causes and deserved recipient of any and all worship is a statement that can do nothing but offend the fallen human soul.

2:13 is certainly worthy of its own posting, so I will break for the evening.

One Historical Night in February

2007-02-05T14:39:00.000-08:00

There were periodic spells of 5 minutes or so throughout last night's Superbowl (Super Bowl? Too lazy to check) in which I would get so lost in the plays that I would forget what an historic evening it was. I believe that one spell lasted closer to eight minutes, but Jim Nantz noted that this was, "the first time two brothers have worked the same Super Bowl." It turned out that he was referring to two officials that were actually related, but it was enough to refocus my thoughts to what was really important.

The sad truth is that what would be truly historic is if we had all woken up this morning and realized that last night a black man coached the winning Super Bowl team, but no one had even thought of it before. That would be historic. I look forward to the day when I can have a chance to appreciate something on my own without being told that I really need to appreciate it.

To be honest it was a little embarrassing watching the interviews before and after the game.

"Coach Dungy, what does a pre Superbowl meal taste like to a black coach?"
"Coach Smith, if you win tonight you will be black AND successful how important is that?"

Those aren't real questions, but they are not far off.

Here's another problem that comes up on historic evenings like last night. I don't know how to react. Do I go around high fiving black people today? Do I need to make a point to mention it to black people that I know so that they know that I'm "cool?" Are we back to saying "black" now, or do I still need to say "african american?" (I'm serious about that one. I don't know, and it has given me a good bit of anxiety over the years)

Many that know me know that race has not always been my strong point. I have gone through periods of time when I was an outright racist. I'm sure that I'm still prejudiced in some ways, but I try not to be, and those ways would have to be pointed out to me. I'd be surprised, and then change the behavior out of guilt even though it's something stupid. Do you see where this is going? Now I kind of want to list all of the things about me that prove that I'm not a bigot. Do I need more black friends? Should I keep at least one Jay Z CD in my collection (probably Wu Tang because I'm old school like that....no, no, no...1 Wu Tang, and the ODB with Bitch Better Bring me my money...what ever song that was...er track...whatever track that was)

I almost got guilted into voting for Harold Ford Jr. I didn't, but it's not because he's almost black. It was issues based. No really!!! Do I have to say that I like Harold and Obama in order to get away with not voting for them?

And then I realize that if we can get Tony Dungy or Lovey Smith to join our church it will be two firsts for them in one month!!! Why don't we have any blacks in our church? Or do we? I don't know. Maybe we do and I haven't recognized it because that's not how I am!! Awesome!! Should we court black congregants? I wish a black family would come to our church just so I could watch one of the two ridiculous things that are bound to happen:

1. Every one fawning all over them to prove that we aren't racists
2. Every one avoiding them like the plague so that they think we are treating them like all of our other visitors.

I would want to introduce myself and my family and just be genuine. It seems, however, that if you are having to tell yourself to be genuine then you're not really being all that genuine.

What's wrong with me? This is how that whole historic night effects me. I'll get over it in a day or two and then go back to dealing with people like they are just people.

Trouble in Syracuse

2007-02-04T11:01:00.000-08:00

I've been debating putting this story on my blog for fear of what others might think of me. It is a story that I have already shared with my wife, so that is not an issue. When I was visiting Covenant Theological Seminary I had the privledge of attending a chapel service. I don't remember the overarching scope of the message but I remember the speaker said the following:

There are two questions that you can ask yourself that will serve to do nothing but sidetrack your ministry. Will they like me? Will they ever find out the truth about me?

These two questions are what have kept me from relaying the story. Here is what happened.

As many of you know, we visited Oswego, NY a few weeks ago to see some family and friends. Being a lover of cigars I was not going to pass up an opportunity to go to Rocky's in Syracuse (40 minutes from Oswego) and enjoy a good cigar in the company of old men that like to bemoan the fate of the NFL football Giants. Being a Titans fan and needing to gloat, I couldn't pass up the opportunity. I had essentially reserved about three hours of the afternoon for my adventure, and was very much looking forward to it.

About half a mile from Rocky's I pulled up to a red light. While I was waiting for the light to change a woman passed by my car. It would be a lie to say that I didn't notice her immediately, or that she was anything less than beautiful. I stared, and stared probably longer than I should have. I have struggled throughout my marriage to find a place in my long list of struggles for this behavior. I've tried to implement the 45 degree rule. I've tried to not look at all. I've tried to just surrender to it being just a natural part of being a man. I have ranked it high on the list of things I should deal with, and I have also ranked it low. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I err in her presence, but I feel I owe her more. Many of you, I'm sure, deal with the same issue. Picadillo or egregious sin? Clearly a manifestation of the lust we all carry in our heart, but surely not out and out adultery.

As I was looking at the woman, I happened to catch her eye. It was not intentional, but it did happen. She smiled at me in a way that was clearly flirtatious, but by no means beckoning. She walked on by and I continued to wait for the light to change. All the while my eyes were on her, and my imagination was beginning to wander. As the light turned green and the traffic began to move again, I noticed that she had entered a building. It was a strip club. Here were the facts as they stood at that exact moment:

1. I very much wanted to go into the club.
2. I had a three to four hour window of time that I did not have to account for
3. No one would ever know.

I drove on to Rocky's and purchased my cigars. My mind was racing. I bought the cigars and left with every intention of going back to the strip club. I was lying to myself that I hadn't made up my mind, but the truth is that I had. What is truly bizaar about the situation is that I was every bit as frightened as I was tempted. I knew I couldn't go into the club, but I also knew that I couldn't stay away.

I was physically shaking when I pulled my car into the parking lot and found a space to park. Again, the shaking was equal parts lust and fear. For 30 minutes I sat in that car trying to figure out what to do. In retrospect it is such an easy decision, but I couldn't get past the fact that I was 100% guaranteed of getting away with it. I tell you the truth when I say that I wanted to go into that club with every fiber of my being. After a very long time I prayed. I prayed that somehow God would rescue me from this moment. At last, I put the car into reverse and drove away back to Oswego.

On the drive home I cried. I didn't cry out of relief, but out of regret. I still wanted to go back. I still wanted to sin. What had led me to not go through with it? Here are the reasons why I left:

1. God would have known
2. I would have known
3. I would have forfeited my calling
4. I would have been guilty of adultery
5. Getting away with it would have eaten me alive until the wound became a callous.
6. It would have only made the next time easier

You would think that the above reasons would be enough to render such a temptation no temptation at all. Yet, hours later I was still wandering if I shouldn't have just taken advantage of a "golden" opportunity. That is why I must write this painful post.

Even having avoided the sinful behavior, I am confronted with the very painful reality that I am lousy even at the root of my existance. I am cut to the core with the fact that the very fiber of my essence is spoiled and dead. And here, my friends, we find the miracle of grace, and the promise that can only be fulfilled on the cross of Christ. Here I find my strength. It is not in my capacity to apply WWJD to my daily life and ape the actions of a noble teacher. I am delivered from the judgement that is rightly reserved for all that is not in perfect compliance with the high holy standard of almighty God, not by doing what Jesus would have done, but rather by surrendering my life to what Jesus did.

In resisting the temptation before me I spared my Lord not one second of his torment. His pain and death was the requisite price not for what I've done, but for what I am. The tree is rotten. Its fruit is bad because it is bad. The unfruitful tree must be pulled up by the root and destroyed; for it can not stand in the presence of God. I do not need to be healed, I have to be replaced.

24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Romans 7:24-25)

I do not post this so that others might see the great strength I displayed in Syracuse, which was not strength at all. I post this so that I might illustrate (at the expense, perhaps, of my reputation) how rancid a thing it is to be fallen, and how hopeless any and all of us are outside the salvation offered freely to all who might believe in the acceptable sacrifice that God made of himself on the cross.

Truly it is not the blood of Christ and controlling your temper. It is not the blood of Christ and overcoming our lusts. We may die in the gutter strung out on any number of our private sins, but should we die in such a way all the while clinging to that blessed Savior who is Jesus Christ we will be reckoned more than conquerors. We will be numbered among those who are recognized by the King of creation as children of the living God. It is not Christ and anything at all. It is merely Christ, and him crucified. I am as astonished as Paul that I am so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one (Galatians 1: 6-7a). How, indeed shall I escape if I ignore so great a salvation.

Blessings,
Rob

Hello Old Friends

2007-01-26T13:37:00.000-08:00

Well, what a month. Both of you are probably wondering where I have been, and the answer is: all over the place. So much to tell, and so much space to tell it in. Today I will simply give an update for where I have been all month, and give a listing of some of the topics I plan on posting over the next few days.

January 5-12: I was travelling. Went to Oswego, NY to visit the in-laws, and then drove to St. Louis to visit the seminary. Both trips were great.

January 14-18: Training event at Distributech HQ in Norcross, GA. That's pretty much Atlanta. I had a much better time then expected, and met a lot of good people (not that a Calvinist like me believes in "good people," but you get the gist).

January 22-26: Very busy getting caught up at work.

Upcoming topics:

1. The Superbowl
2. The training event in Atlanta
3. The trip to Oswego
4. Visiting the seminary and upcoming preperations
5. Our attempts at selling the house
6. An incredibly humbling experience in Syracuse
7. Bible Study at the Nashville Rescue Mission
8. Chapter 1 of Galatians as taught by yours truly for the NRM Bible Study mentioned above.
9. Random thoughts on the War on Terrorism (Iraq Front)
10. Current personal Bible study -- Jeremiah
11. Book I am currently reading -- "Holiness by Grace" by Bryan Chapell (very rich)

I certainly hope to be more frequent in my postings from this point forward. I hope all that read this are well, and that you are all receiving blessing upon blessing upon blessing.

On Controversies

2007-01-02T17:16:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had purchased a copy of "Letters of John Newton" recently. As it is not the type of book that a person reads through chapter by chapter, I have been going through it and reading a letter every day or two as time permits. It has been delightful to discover that people haven't changed all that much in the last 300 years, and that the seeds of sin sprout in the man of 2007 in much the same way that they did in the late 18th Century.

Today I read a letter written by Brother Newton entitled "On Controversies." The essence of the letter was that a friend of Newton's was preparing to offer a public and written response to a person with whom a dispute existed concerning doctrine. Being a person that seeks out and enjoys such episodes, I took great comfort in the following wisdom concerning the Christian's obligation to the public persons that might observe such debate, and to his opponent.

"There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favour of those sentiments which are least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrines; but they can form a tolerable judgement of a writer's spirit. They know that meekness, humility, and love, are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the Gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The Scriptural maxim, that "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God," is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service to the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth's sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions."

And this, concerning the attitude of the Calvinist when confronting those of unsound doctrine:

"I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who, for want of clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace,who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to abase the creature, and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner ofspirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold upon our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgements. Controversies for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress this wrong dispostion; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify."

I need to memorize this, and remember it always. I wish I found victory in God's glory as easily as I find it in the accolades of my Calvinist peers.

My Favorite Albums

2007-01-01T07:23:00.001-08:00

I get excited about this time every year. By now I have received my friend Noel's 200x Compilation and have given it a few listens. This year is no exception (sans liner notes...hint hint Mr. Murray) and I am already looking forward to the 5 to 6 albums that I am going to buy as a result of the CD set. The purchases will probably account for 80% of my total music purchases for the year.

As my interests have turned to good music lately, I started the old 3 albums on a desert island conversation with a buddy of mine the other day. This got me thinking about what I thought were the Top 10 albums of all time. So, I began trying to compile that list. I quickly realized; however, that I have a lot of favorite albums, and that they aren't in any order. They are also not confined to a specific quantity. Here is a partial list.

Heartbreaker Ryan Adams
This album is solid from start to finish, and seems less intentional than Adams later stuff that I still like, but doesn't send me in the same way. I cut my Ryan Adams teeth on this record, so, for me, it predates Whiskeytown. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is just what I heard first.

Different Class Pulp
I think this album offered the best single from the 90's. It is pretty solid all the way through, and I always wished the US had found Pulp before they found Oasis. This album makes me think of the kind of person I would be if I didn't care about anything at all. So raunchy.

Youth and Young Manhood Kings of Leon
I had this delivered to Afghanistan from Amazon having only heard of the band, but never heard the music. I was so down and depressed when it arrived, and crawled into my sleeping bag to give it a listen after everyone else was out for the night (I worked graveyard shift). I couldn't believe how great it was. I giggled hysterically for hours as I heard song after song that made me feel better and better and better. Turns out I just needed to rock.

The Wild, The Innocent and the E Street Shuffle Bruce Springsteen
This guy was so far ahead of the game back then. What a work of art. I just don't understand how a guy in his early 20's pulls this off.

Exile on Mainstreet Rolling Stones
Just give it a listen.

Best of Leonard Cohen Leonard Cohen
I don't much like Leonard Cohen, but I like driving around to this CD in the winter time when there is a new snow on the ground. Probably ties back into McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

Abbey Road The Beatles
Side two of this is a masterpiece. The whole album does a good job of closing out The Beatles portfolio. Let it Be tends to make me sad for all the great things they were about to do. Abbey Road is nice, sweet, and final.

Between the Bridges Sloan
This was the first CD I bought off of Noel's compilation (1999 or 98). I loved it immediately. It got me through the first few months at DLI in Monterey when I was in the army.

Keep it Like a Secret Built to Spill
Really solid album with some great lyrics and some of the sweetest guitar work that the 90's had to offer.

The Wall Pink Floyd
I never really loved Dark Side of the Moon, and there are those that might look down their nose at The Wall and its commercial success. The success comes from it being really good. I love it from start to finish.

Bridge Over Troubled Waters Simon and Garfunkel
Very inspiring and affirming. Bookends is better when I'm down, but I don't like to be down. This one is always enjoyable. The exhausted title track is still great, and who doesn't like The Boxer? Their finest work.

The Instigator Rhett Miller
My wife really loves this album, and I like it a lot too. It has always been a good compromise album on road trips, and now it makes me think of road trips with her.

The Gambler Kenny Rogers
Got it for Christmas in whatever year it came out. I could still probably sing the whole album if I had to. Pure nostalgia.

The Bends Radiohead
So easy to enjoy. I always felt pressured into liking their post OK Computer stuff, but I really didn't. This one holds up much better for me.

Imperial Bedroom Elvis Costello
I'd be willing to bet that I like this a lot more than most people. It just hits me in the right way. I think that, lyrically speaking, this is Costello's best effort.

Desire Bob Dylan
Other Dylan albums fall in and out of vogue with me, but this one has remained at the top.

40 Acres Caedmon's Call
If you read my earlier post as to why I don't like contemporary Christian music, you might be surprised that I have this on here. Derek Webb left the band shortly after this CD, and their songwriting went downhill. The lyrics are thought provoking and theologically sound, while the music is pretty darn good too.

There are probably more than this, but that is enough for now. I would love to hear your comments, criticisms, or insults. Already I realize I have left off Dead Set, and Her Majesty. Please remember that these are not in order, so don't comment on how Kenny Rogers is "ranked" over Dylan.

Happy New Year!!!

PHOTOS OF THE KIDS

2006-12-26T16:41:00.000-08:00

We realize now that had we put Trip in this photo it would have been the Christmas card.

This is a picture of Caroline. It captures perfectly the spirit of Christmas morning at Taylor Manor.

Here we see the heir to the throne relaxing in the tub.

They have all just thrown a coin in the fountain and wished for world peace

Trip and Caroline getting their clean on.

The Spirit of Compromise

2006-12-23T13:07:00.000-08:00

I know this is two posts in one day, but I have to comment on this.

Dear leftist peoples,

OK, it is clearly more important to you than it is to us. We will change the names of Christmas and Easter break in Bakersfield, California back to winter and spring breaks. We now see how far you are willing to go to protect whatever it is you are protecting. Here are some other changes we are planning on making, and some things you can do to get us to relent.

1. Change the name of the Superbowl XLI to "The Crusades." You can avoid this by impaling yourselves on broken beer bottles outside the main entrance to this years chosen venue 10 days prior to kickoff.

2. We are going to change the national anthem from "The Star Spangled Banner" to "Just As I Am." We will change it back if you leap in groups of 10 every 10 minutes for 10 hours off of the Statue of Liberty on July 3, 2007.

3. Instead of removing God from the pledge of allegiance we are going to have school children recite the Lord's Prayer. To avoid such a horrific fate for the children of America, you must have a large number of your male comrades degrade themselves by parading through the streets of San Francisco in leather thongs and dresses acting like they want to have sex with each other. Compain if you want, but if it is as important as you say we think you will do it.

4. The writing in the Statue of Liberty's book will be changed to a chapter in Leviticus. To avoid this you must have 5 of your people do the gas can thing again.

This is a good start. I think it shows a spirit of compromise on both of our parts. We will relinquish some of our needs to Christianize your pagan children, and you will kill yourselves. I think this will make everyone happy.

TAYLOR FAMILY DECLARES WAR ON BACK SASS!!! (shock and awe highlights week long conflict)

2006-12-23T05:51:00.000-08:00

Man! Being a parent is hard. You want to raise your child to behave a certain way. You want them to approach day to day encounters with a certain attitude. Here are a few of the cornerstone principles that guide OUR parenting.

1. Do everything as unto the LORD.
2. All of our disobedience is, first and foremost, a sin against God.
3. Daddy and Mommy walk beside you as sinners.
4. Mommy and Daddy have been placed above you in authority by God.
5. Everyone, including Mommy and Daddy, must repent of their sins to God.
6. God is eager to forgive, and so are Mommy and Daddy.

Keep in mind that the reed that won't bend in the wind is doomed to break. Also, keep in mind that I understand the value of not fighting every battle. If you have any familiarity with my upbringing, you know that I know this. Abby and I are not always eager to forgive. Abby and I don't always have the best attitude about our jobs. We don't treat each other that well in front of the kids, etc... I say this because it is important to clarify that, just like everyone else who establishes standards for themselves and others, we are hypocrites. That is the beauty of number 5.

I suppose that our parenting philosophy can be summed up as love God, submit to authority, and repent as often as you can. This is a pretty good standard for living your life, let alone raising children. It is very difficult to instill in your children, however, because it is based on principles that run the most contrary to our natures. Many who would here me discuss these points in greater detail would (and have) accused us of indoctrinating our childeren. My defense for this is that we are abso-smurfin'-lutely indoctrinating our children. I have every intention of not only programming my faith, theology, and worldview into their hearts and minds, but creating in them a negative prejudice and reasonable defense against other worldviews, faiths and theologies. As they are going to carry my name into the world, this becomes my right.

Before you freak out and start worrying that I'm teaching my children to hate other people you need to do one thing, and understand another. What you need to do is worry about your own children and prepare them to defend their worldview, faith, and theology so that my kids don't make them look stupid in front of their friends. What you need to understand is that the world, with all of its various ideas, is going to contend for my children's hearts sooner or later. I am simply not interested in making it a fair fight. Of this you can be assured, if you sit idly by and allow your children to create, ex nihilo, their own world view, they will. You will, more than likely, be disappointed with the result.

The point in all of this is that I can't believe how one stupid video can create such a train wreck in our house. We let Catherine check out some video about Barbie from the library. Barbie was a princess and she had her own Pegasus (sounds like something I hallucinated back in college). Many parents wouldn't let their little girls play with Barbie due to self-esteem concerns, and how it might create an abnormal fixation on beauty and appearance. They are concerned that Barbie presents a view of women that is destructive. We don't feel that way. Perhaps we would if our children were ugly, but they aren't so we don't have that concern (joke). Prior to saving the kingdom from the villain, Barbie spends a great deal of the show yelling at her parents, directly disobeying her parents, sassing her parents, and sneaking around behind her parents' backs. Top this off with the fact that the parents are the King and Queen of an entire kingdom and you have presented a view of parenting (and authority in general) that is far more hazardous to the psyche of our children than Barbie's wonderfully disproportionate chest and hips.

Catherine did not fail to pick up on every bit of this nonsense, and so the last few days have been a constant battle. Not only have we had the tantrums over her not being allowed to watch the Barbie DVD, but we have had a steady stream of backtalk and defiance that we have had to deal with. I don't want to deal with it. I don't want it to be there. I don't want it taken off of the shelf. I just want it to have not been in my child's life. Because of the misguided notion that the sassy mouthed wisdom of children is cute, and that adults can learn from the charming and precocious innocence of defiant children, I have had to spend the last three days correcting my child, putting my child in time out, and spanking my child. Correction, it is because we didn't prescreen the video and do our due diligence that I am having to do all of these things. Just the same, I don't want some committee, government or not, doing my due diligence for me. What I want is for the stupid pharisees over at the SBC to boycott this kind of crap (they're into that kind of thing) instead of boycotting decent cartoons made by production companies that also produce adult situation comedies in which adult viewers see adult characters make adult decisions about their adult sleeping arrangements (please forgive the liberal application of the word "adult" in the last three uses). What I DO want is to see characters like Barbie and that Home Alone kid get their mouth smacked really hard by a parent that simply will not tolerate such talk from a damn child. That would be a refreshing change of pace.

Note: We don't smack the mouths of our children. We spank bottoms. It's a tragedy that I feel I have to clarify that.

The Devil and Daniel Johnston

2006-12-22T06:44:00.000-08:00

Abby and I watched a documentary last night called "The Devil and Daniel Johnston." I must make a comment before opining on this documentary about a certain blessing that I have. One of the best friends I have in all of the world is a guy named Noel Murray. Now, this friendship has been a blessing in ways too numerable to mention, but one very real way has been free access to music and movies that I would otherwise never be able to discover. One thing that I have never needed Noel for is the realization that the mainstream isn't always going to offer the best there is to see or hear. Naturally there is an arrogance that comes from this understanding that has softened for me over the years. Unlike Noel, I don't get paid to examine the underbelly of every movie I see or song that I hear. No one feels shortchanged if I overlook certain obvious flaws in a work, and I get to admit that the reason a thing has mass appeal is that it appeals to the masses of which I am a part. Time catches up to a fellow, however, and where I once had the inclination and ability to seek out the children of a lesser production company, I now have to watch Bob the Builder and read Frog and Toad (neither one all that bad).

This is the blessing of Noel. He has superior taste in both movies and music. He has the ability to hear the quality of something (or its potential) on the first listen, whereas it would often take me three or four to realize that a work was special. I, quite frankly, don't have that kind of time. So I rely on my friend. He comes through again and again, and not just for me, but for my circle as well. It is not a little flattering that I get e-mails three or four times a year from distant friends asking what they should buy at the record store (record store? how old I am!!). I simply pull four or five albums from the 2 CD best of 200X that Noel sends me at the beginning of 200x + 1 and there you are. I remain the go to guy, and at the very worst get to avoid plagerising my musical taste by doing a bit of shameless name dropping. Such easy access to all that is pop culture treasure could only be made easier by marrying this guy; an idea I thought of, alas, too late.

All of this to say that I would never have watched last night's movie or have such an exciting Netflix queue were it not for my friend Noel. Thanks buddy, and Merry Christmas.

On to the movie:

Sad is the word that I would use. I would also use the word hopeful. It is the story of a man that suffers with manic depression and is also an artist (or perhaps it is the other way around). Which one causes or informs the other, I don't know. Does his parents faith and his religious upbringing cause or enable his disease? Are the hopes of an alt.rock/art community rightfully placed at the obviously gifted artist's feet, or selfishly heaped on the over burdened shoulders of a desperately sick man? The film does a good job of sucking you into this very quandry. I sit there in total appreciation of what the members of Sonic Youth went through in New York. I want this guy to keep turning out brilliant art and lyrics. I want to be there on the brink of a truly original and creative moment. I am just hoping the disease holds off just long enough for that final brush stroke. Yet, I know full well that the time is up. We've got to get this guy some help.

The point is best summed up in the words of the editor of the Austin Chronicle (name?). It is easy for us to villify those that committed Van Gogh to the asylum and deify a man that suffered so for his art. What is not so easy is to have to live in and around that guy and know that we bear some level of moral accountability for his self destructive behavior. As worthwhile as our need for art is, is that need of greater overall import than our need to care for the mentally ill? It is an easy question to answer provided we are not a few days away from beholding the next greatest song ever heard. What price are you willing to pay for your own art is one question. What price are you willing to extract from others for theirs is quite another. Good movie.

Merry Christmas to Me!!!

2006-12-18T14:38:00.000-08:00

Having completed my Christmas shopping for others, and most of you are getting the same thing that I got for you last year, I decided it was time for me to begin my Christmas shopping for myself. Now, you might say to yourself that this seems like a very selfish act that is decidedly NOT in keeping with the spirit of the season. And yet, you would be (as always) wrong. The spirit of the season is rank commercialism and gimme gimme. Buying myself a bunch of books and cigars that I have wanted or coveted for the last few minutes is quite in keeping with the spirit of the season. Granted, it is not in keeping with the spirit of my faith, but once you see what I bought for myself, it is, in a sense, keeping with the spirit of my faith.

So what did I get? Oh it is very exciting, and based on what little reading I have done thus far, it is very profitable. Here is the list:

1. J. Gresham Machen, A Collection of Short Writings.....STRONG!! JGM was awesome. He took all comers, and, from where I'm sitting, won. The reformed faith needs people like Machen. They have the ability of getting you to call yourself a dumba** without having to do it themselves. We could also use a few people like Arthur Pink and Marty Luther who will just come out and call you a dumba**. I would love to consider myself one of these two types, but I always come up with my really good responses about 20 minutes after I hang up the phone so I just get to be a self loathing idiot.

2. Letters of John Newton.....again....STRONG!! Letters of John Newton how sweet the sound, etc...

3. 5 volume Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations by our beloved brother John Calvin. I would call him JC, but how confusing would that be? I have read Calvin's commentaries on Joel, Malachi, and Zechariah, and was floored. Again....floored. For instance, a lot of Zechariah is symbology, and I just can't do a thing with it. Calvin just makes it obvious. It's like the first time you read a good a-mill or post-mill commentary on Revelations and you realize how freaking stupid the pre-mill guys are. It's like that.

4. Cigars. Good enough for Charles Spurgeon. Good enough for me.

Tomorrow night we are watching the Da Vinci Code on DVD. I hope it's entertaining. I fear come Wednesday I may have no need for my biblical commentaries. Cursed Gnostics!!! Damn you Clement and your troubling library!! Blast The Gospel of Thomas and its Pink Floyd lyrics that foiled my faith!! Where is my secret knowledge?!?!?! I don't want to be a smarty pants anymore....I need to be a pretentious pants and experience a heightened awareness!! I'm so jealous!!! Matter bad!!! Gnosis good!! Wretched physicality!! How we would have no need for these "gospels" at all if they weren't so helpful in helping us escape that which we so desparately need to escape.

OK, that's quite enough.

The 1st Annual Taylor Coloring Contest

2006-12-13T16:22:00.000-08:00

Before I get to the issue for tonight, I think it is important that I address some confusion that has taken place in my marriage. As we experience no temptation but that which is common to all men, my hope is that in conveying this simple wisdom I might assist wives around the world from causing the types of issues that can easily be avoided when we understand some basic economic principles. I will illustrate with a question that is going to appear tricky, but if you think it through, you will probably find the answer.

Which example below provides an actual, tangible and altogether real savings?

a. Elephants are normally priced at $10,000 each, but today they are on sale for $500 each. You decide to purchase two elephants and have thus saved the family $9,000.

b. Elephants are normally priced at $10,000 each, but today they are on sale for $500 each. You don't need any elephants, and have not budgeted for them so you opt not to purchase any elephants at all.

You think that it is going to be (a), but it isn't. As tough as it is to understand, if you don't buy something, you have saved ALL of the money. It's weird, but try to think on it for a while. It's kind of like limited atonement. It will seem evil and cold the first time someone tries to explain it to you, but once it clicks you will realize how silly it is to think any other way.

AND NOW THE CONTEST!!!

Last night my daughter (Catherine, almost 4) asked me if I would like to color with her. I told her that I would do her one better than that. I told her that we would have a coloring contest, and the winner would get to go to Dairy Queen. She was so excited. I explained the rules as follows:

1. There is a thirty minute time limit, and mom can not help.
2. Realistic color choices must be made with realistic being defined as acceptable to a reasonable person.
3. As neither contestant has established a history of solid artistic fundamentals no one is allowed to claim that they were paying abstract, cubist, or impressionist tribute.
4. Staying in the lines counts.
5. Victory will be awarded to the person whose coloring effort conforms the most to rules 1-4.

I now present the entries with a commentary on each one.

Clearly the artist of this picture has taken some time to not only consider the rules of the contest, but also an active interest in applying them to his work. I believe that brownish red was a bold choice for the kindly officer's hair. Perhaps some points might be deducted for the two tone blue on the officer's uniform, but we also must take into account that a two year old was grabbing the blue every time it was placed on the floor and running away with it. The time limit made this an almost insurmountable obstacle. The children are precious, and real. This entry will truly be difficult to surpass in terms of coloring choice, staying within the lines, and level of completion within the specified time frame.

The bar set by the first entry was clearly difficult to surpass, and I think that is important to note before commenting on the above entry. Just the same, it is important that we be fair, and that we strive to be frank without being hurtful. Perhaps it will be helpful to revisit the rules established prior to the contest. Rules, I might add, that this participant agreed to and seemed to understand. Having said this, I think this entry's willingness to stay within the lines is so absent that one almost feels obliged to question the contestant's ability to grasp the concept. There is not a single instance within the framework of this effort that leads me to believe that the colorer even cares. Sloppy.

The color choice leaves something to be desired as well. A grey faced angel? Seriously. It is as repulsive as it is blasphemous. The fire red halo almost holds the attention long enough to miss the pink star that practically bleeds into the pink hand and shirt of this, so called, angel. The purple wing completes the list of unfortunate color choices.

This entry is horrible in the most sickening sense of the word. The only merit in it is that it makes the job of the judges easy. Entry number 1 is the clear winner. Entry number 2 should probably be disqualified.

I thought that this would be an excellent opportunity to teach my child the spirit of competition and how to lose with dignity (I would have lost with dignity had I lost; which I didn't). But alas, once again I am the a-hole. I have made her cry. How? By going to Dairy Queen to partake in the spoils of my victory. All I heard as her and I sat there alone in the quiet DQ dining area was, "Why can't I have any? Please, please, please!! But WHY?!?!" I tried to explain that it was because she lost, and I won. I told her that she should use this as motivation for next week's contest and learn from all the reasons that denied her victory. For some reason she couldn't understand this. Maybe it she couldn't hear me through her crying. Maybe it was hard to understand because my mouth was full of Dilly Bar. Regardless, don't let anyone tell you that being a father is easy.

It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year

2006-12-12T18:17:00.000-08:00

Sunday night we had our Christmas concert at church. It was so wonderful and pleasing. I noted how it fit so comfortably in with the season we are in, and how it is such a compliment to the approaching winter and the upcoming new year, and yet, I realize that Christmas really has very little to do with any of that. We are at a very unfortunate point in the life of the church. I say this, but want to be careful to mention that I am not excusing this period or any other in the life of the church from the realm of God's sovereignty. Even the darkest days in the life of our Savior's bride are ordained by His will, and will tend to His glory. It just seems that the church visible has pitched her battle tents in a field upon which we have no claim. Traditions are wonderful and important to the individual congregant's experience within the Christian life, but they are also dispensable in the sense that they can be replaced, commenced, or done away with altogether. Such is the annual tradition we call the Christmas season. I wonder if perhaps we shouldn't move the celebration of Christ's birth to a different date on the liturgical calendar. Why not let the well meaning people within our culture have this time. It isn't as if we couldn't participate. I like christmas trees and presents. I enjoy "White Christmas" and "It's a Wonderful Life."

My point is, that Christmas is not a scripturally mandated event. We aren't even commanded to celebrate Easter. We are given only two sacraments that we must observe (Baptism and Holy Communion), and we are commanded to not forsake the assembly of believers. Everything outside of these is tradition. Granted, they are beloved and special traditions and they have tremendous meaning to us. They do not, I say, have any meaning to God. To Him they are of no merit whatsoever.

So why does Scrooge hate Christmas so much? I don't. I just wonder if I couldn't love it just as much in July as I do in December. No, I don't wonder at all. I am certain that I could. I am certain because Christmas in its pure sense is something that requires no cultural influence at all. It, like all aspects of true religion, is incorruptible, undefiled, and fadeth not away. It is this simple fact. God did condescend to become one of us.

What the secular world can never have, that we can not live without, is a King. We get excited, or should at least, because on that day in the City of David a savior was born who is Christ the Lord. That is an incredible and earth changing event. The world will not have a king. She will do what she has always done when the seed of the woman shows signs of life. She will throw up false religions gilded with the fool's gold of human kindness in an effort to steal the spotlight from Him. She will kill Able. The heathen nations will rage, and people will folly mind. Kings of earth in plots will engage, and rulers will combine in leagues to sway against the Lamb of God. They will lose. They will be dashed in pieces small. And the believer need only wait. This God, the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ does not need us to defend him. His arm is not too short to save, nor to avenge.

Let the world have their days. Those days are numbered, and though they may stretch on for another 10,000 years, they will end. Our days will have just begun, and they will never end. They do well to listen, and we need but silently proclaim that message which brings life to some hearts and turn others to stone. It is a fitting proclamation for any day of the week or season of the year.

The King of Kings lay thus in lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our friend.
He knows our need, to our weakness is no stranger,
Behold your King! Before Him lowly bend!
Behold your King, Behold your King.

Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth
and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!

Random Musings

2006-12-09T14:13:00.000-08:00

I gave my wife the day off to have what we call an "I just need to get away and regroup because the kids are driving me crazy, and why don't you understand what it's like to be surrounded by children every second of your crappy life? Day" True to form, I have enforced a very strict napping policy that has eaten up (so far) about 3 hours of my babysitting duties. Of course, I wonder if it isn't a negative comment on how I view fatherhood that I refer to these times as "babysitting duties."

NEXT:

I had an interesting experience last week at the Titans game. There was a drunken (or so I assume) Colts fan that was heckling the locals with insulting comments about Nashville and the Titans. Nothing he said was all that offense initially, but then he started on this rant about the Titans having a "project quarterback." What was interesting is that most of the people in the stands (or so it seemed), tended to wanted to accept this as his indicating that Vince Young is a work in progress. I mean, we all KNEW that's not what he meant, but I, at least, found it easier to believe he meant something inocuous that he couldn't possibly have meant. Eventually, the beer and the lack of acceptable crowd response, forced the heckler to fine tune his commentary and begin referring to Vince Young's inability to read, the fact that he grew up in the Houston projects, and several other comments that were just out and out racist. What was interesting was that the black people in the stands didn't seem to really care. I know the blacks in the stands in front of me heard him, but I think it made me more uncomfortable then they were. It was as if the idiot's comments were more of a comment on me and the rest of the white south, and had no real application to them.

All of this got me to thinking that maybe race relations in this country have taken an interesting turn all the way around. For instance, the grotesque statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest that sits on the side of I-65 outside of Brentwood has gone from being a ballsy reciprocation of the free speech argument, to a controversial symbol that represents heritage to some and grossly offensive racism to others, to a genuine source of embarrassment to the southern white community. I say all of this, but I wonder if the thing that has really changed is me.

NEXT:

I wathed NBCSports coverage of the Iron Man competition today. I have decided that I am not going to ever do that. It is probably a lot harder than it looks, and it looks really hard. I don't know if NBC still calls it "Sportsworld" or not, but they should. It should also kick off with the playing of "Fire on High" by ELO like it did back in the day. I think a good argument can be made that just about everything would be better off it started with "Fire on High" by ELO.

If you are reading this (and you are), I'd be interested to hear what you think is the best "intro" song for events. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's the song that is playing in your head as you are pondering that moment when you make the transition from merely participating in a moment to officially kicking everybody's collective posterior.

NEXT:

I found out last night that there is a site known as the "wayback machine" that chronicles every web page that has ever existed. This is cool and scary.

Are you there God? It's me, House.

2006-12-06T07:35:00.000-08:00

I watched House last night. It was a rerun, but it was also a rerun of one of the greatest pieces of Television writing I've seen in the last few years. If I remember correctly the episode was the second to last episode of Season 1. I won't provide an in depth recount the episode, but suffice to say that you should watch it if you get the chance. It is the one where House has to teach a Medical Diagnostics class and through his lecture reveals the history of how he got his limp and his addiction to painkillers.

One of the things that amazes me about this show is that it is, essentially, the same show every week. There is a major case that involves serious ethical and medical crisis, and a minor plot that is usually humorous or loosely tied into the overarching theme of the episode. Throughout the show the interoffice drama that occupies the season is carried forward in some way that leaves it unresolved. Some one will receive an emergency tracheotomy and some one will crap blood. It is a real testament to the superior writing and character studies that this show offers that such a blatantly formulized show is going to survive with high ratings into a fourth season (at least I assume that it has high ratings and will survive into a fourth season). On the other hand maybe its a comment on how easily I am entertained.

Toward the end of last night's episode House waxes theological on the existance (or non-existance) of God.

Cameron: So you take comfort in believing that this is all that there is?
House: I take comfort in believing that this is not all just a test.

It speaks volumes of the mainstream view of religion in general that belief in God can so often boil down to one of these two choices. This is a gross generalization from both perspectives, but I think that it loosely (and very loosely) covers popular perception at least regarding popular perceptions of Christian myth vs. humanist thought. The unstated conclusion of House's comment was that if life IS a test, it is a test that none of us can hope to pass. This concept is actually the conclusion we are supposed to draw from the Sermon on the Mount. I would go as far as to say that it is the exact conclusion that God would have us all draw from our encounters with the Sinaitic Covenant. I would say that House is right on in his despair. Such an understanding of one's own poverty of spirit is the cornerstone of all genuine Christian conversion.

The question is this:

Is the professed atheism of House a genuine conclusion drawn forth from scientific evidence, or a natural reaction to the realization that we are all without hope when confronted with the imminent and altogether righteous wrath of a God that is wholly justified in his anger? In short, does he believe what he is saying or is he merely fleeing deeper into Eden to hide from a Holy God that is approaching all too rapidly?

NEXT:

If you have a few weeks of your life to chuck into the wastepaper basket go to this site:

www.weffriddles.com

There are tons of sites like this one, and boy are they fun!!!

NEXT:

I feel obliged to state that the "bible verse" I quoted in my posting entitled "Tough Love," is not a Bible verse at all. I made it up. I make this correction so that 1500 years from now when someone discovers my blog they don't try to attribute it to some "hidden" book of the Bible. Maybe they would call it "Fleshalonians," or "Myopinions." Nevertheless, just for the record, it is not a real bible verse.

Coram Deo,
Rob

Tough Love

2006-12-04T08:56:00.000-08:00

I recently talked to a friend of mine who is going through a bit of a rocky patch. Aside from his many faults he is a pretty dependable person. Unfortunately he has absolutely NO NO NO credit. How does this happen? I don't know, but it is the case. This has come back to bite him in the rear lately as he needs to purchase a car, and can not get financing. He asked his father to co-sign with him, but the father refused.

I was raised with just this type of love. We call it "tough love." For those of you who aren't familar with the term or how it works, you might be familiar with the word that it goes by in non-Christian circles, "being an a-hole." It really just makes me so mad that I can't think straight, and even typing it makes me want to scream. Here comes the screaming.

JUST FREAKING HELP PEOPLE!!!!!!
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TEACH SOMEONE A LESSON EVERYTIME THEY NEED YOUR HELP!!!
TOUGH LOVE IS ONLY NECESARY WHEN THEY ARE SO STRUNG OUT ON CRYSTAL METH THAT CUTTING THEM OFF IS THE LAST POSSIBLE HOPE.
IF YOU CAN HELP SOMEONE JUST DO IT!!!

Seriously, it's like the disciples asking Jesus how many times they had to forgive their neighbor, or exactly who their neighbor was in the first place. Tough love enables people to not have to be kind to the people they are supposed to love, and to pretend that they are really doing what is best for the person in need anyway. It is such freaking garbage I can't stand it!!!!! Uh-oh, more screaming:

AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

A message to parents that believe in "tough love." This approach, especially from fathers, will warp your child's view of God. He will go through life afraid to ask God for things for not wanting to have to learn some sick and twisted lesson when all he wanted was some help paying the rent. As important as the real life lesson about how we must stand on our own two feet is, I just wonder if standing by while someone you are "tough loving" is being evicted from their apartment, or has no power, or loses a job due to inability to get to work for lack of a car is the best way to teach that lesson.

Remeber what the Bible says:

"Be careful that the people thou art helping don't get the idea that thou art living thine life to bankroll them, because then they will start trying to take advantage of you. In the interest of self-preservation ye must never allow others the opportunity to mistake thine kindness for weakness."

Rob

The Economics of Salvation

2006-11-30T10:53:00.000-08:00

I think that at the center of most debates concerning Christianity there is a disagreement concerning the dual nature of Christ. The orthodox belief is that Christ had a dual nature. He was fully God and fully man. He maintained all of the components of a mere mortal, and had a completely separate and divine nature. In terms of salvation this view is essential to the life of Christianity, and, if discarded, renders the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth to be of little more value than the incredibly helpful but ultimately secular advice of Dr. Phil.

What we recognize in Jesus is primarily his human nature. Although it was a sinless and unfallen nature he carried with him all of the things that are common among all people throughout time. I have a human body. He has a human body. I have emotions and desires, he has emotions and desires. I have a soul. He has a soul. All of these things are illustrative of the human experience.

The divine nature is tougher to get a grasp on in that it is something for which fallen man has no frame of reference. It would be as if I was sent to the bear community with a dual nature. I was fully man, and fully bear. The bears would easily relate to my fish slapping, picnic basket stealing, park ranger foiling antics, but would have no frame of reference for the aspects of my nature that were human. Why the hat and tie? What's with the weird utterances? Who is Boo Boo?They might know that there was something strange, but wouldn't have any way of relating to it. It would be something wholly other; sacred in the truest sense of the word. Such is the case with Jesus. His divine nature controls the wind and the waves, heals the sick, raises the dead (including himself), and walks on water. There is very little we can do with that. We can dismiss it as the superstition of the age. We can try to reason it away. We can believe it.

Why is this essential to the Christian myth, and not a quaint but dispensible belief? Economics.

Here is the simple math that logically follows from Jesus' mere humanity:

1. He is accountable for a perfect, righteous, and holy life.
2. He does not need atonement as he was without sin.
3. As he is a finite human being, he is capable of providing atonement for one and only one person outside of himself.
4. As he is accountable for perfect righteousness he must keep that for himself, and is unable to impart any righteousness to anyone else.
5. The one person for whom his death does atone for is covered from judgement, but still without the requisite perfect righteousness needed to stand before God. This is somewhat of a pickle for that person.

Needless to say, a perfect and holy finite human being does me very little good at all. In fact, even if I were to follow his example, I would have to learn about it first and by that time I would have already sinned and only be available for the atonement. I will have already forfieted my chance at the perfect and holy righteousness.

Now we have to consider eternity and the role that this concept plays in the mix. John Piper has done a good job of defining eternity as man's concept of a quantity so vast that its reduction by any finite amount (regardless of size) will not diminish it in the least little bit. Such is the divine essence of Jesus Christ. Such an essence is capable of atoning for innumerable sins committed amongst innumerable people. Such a righteousness is capable to impart itself to innumerable people. Such a wrath is capable of destroying eternally the treason of the finite. Such a God is worthy of worship.

Finally, if Jesus was just a man, a look at his teachings (specifically his Kingdom Parables) quickly reveals that he thinks he is God. A look at his interaction with the Pharisees indicates that he believes himself to carry a Holy authority. A close look at the Sermon on the Mount reveals a man whose understanding of holiness makes pre-reformation Luther look like a Christmas Catholic.

There is no clever summation of this. It has been on my mind for the last couple of days, and I thought it best that I make a draft of them for posterity's sake.

Coram Deo,
Rob

A Summer Day Trip to Rock Island State Park

2006-11-28T10:29:00.000-08:00

This is just precious!!

Catherine after beer number 3 (what a light weight)
Caroline
Caroline pondering the upcoming repel

Caroline, Me, and Catherine

Weird Dream

2006-11-28T08:56:00.000-08:00

This is the dream that I had last night, and why it was so disturbing:

In my dream I was in a heated conversation with my wife, and I popped her in the mouth (not hard) with the front of my fingers. Every time she talked I repeated the action. This happened probably 4 or 5 times in the dream, and in my dream it seemed like this was a pretty common occurance. I seemed to remember that it was how I usually responded to her challenges. Oddly, she didn't seem to mind. Later on in the dream we were watching TV and a "The More You Know" TV spot came on with Eric LaSalle from ER. He was encouraging women not to tolerate spousal abuse, and was making the obvious point that it was completely unacceptable. He went on and on about it for much longer than the standard 15 seconds usually afforded to such announcements. He was very serious, and extremely zealous to get his point across.

My wife and I realized at about the same time that what I was doing (hand to the mouth) was clearly an act of physical abuse. She got really mad and said that now that she realized that I was abusing her she was going to leave me. I remember being frustrated that my primary line of defense against such outbursts (hitting her) was not going to work, and that I wasn't creative enough to come up with any other approach. I tried to point out that because neither one of us knew that it was abuse prior to the commercial, we should just agree that I wouldn't do it again, and go on about our married life. She was completely irrational, however, and just felt like there was no way that things could work out. My marriage was going to end and I wasn't even going to be given the chance to reform.

Now, the notion that I would hit my wife is disturbing enough on its own, so the dream was very upsetting. What bothers me the most is that the way I first realized it was a dream upon waking up was that Eric Lasalle hasn't been a mainstay on NBC for the better part of a decade, and the commercial spot was far too long to have been real. Therefore, it had to be a dream. For some reason the fact that I was physically abusing my bride was not, on its own, evidence enough that it was all just a bad dream.

I find it disturbing that the subtle and understated parts of my dreams are the initial reassurance I get over and above the fact that I was behaving in a completely unacceptable manner. I know that I wasn't wearing a Nazi uniform to my parents dinner party because Norman Rockwell doesn't paint covers for the Tennessean. I know that I wasn't cheating on my wife because I was a Kappa Sigma at Memphis State and not at Brentwood High School. Very disappointing to say the least (meaning my reaction, although it would be cool for the Tennessean to feature Rockwell covers). What is wrong with me?

Self Defense

2006-11-27T14:58:00.000-08:00

Last night in Nashville, Tennessee two men walked into a discount tobacco store and attempted an armed robbery. The clerk was able to somehow get the gun away from one of the men, and kill him. The other robber was taken to a hospital where he was not expected to live according to reports that I heard. For those of you from this area, that store (The Smoke Depot) is located just off of the intersection of Stewart's Ferry and I-40. They have a humidor there, and I go there about twice a week to get my cigars.

I have spoken to the clerk that was involved in the incident at length on several occasions. He is a nice man from Egypt. He says that even if he knew how the Pyramids were built he wouldn't tell me. He and his buddy (also Egyptian) sit and watch TBN and sell rolling papers and beer all day, every day. I often take my daughter with me when I go to that store. She likes to go because I buy her Tic-Tacs and she likes to hand the man the money. There is a "House of Gyros" next door which I have always wanted to try. It appears to be run by authentic Mediterranean types. There is a biker bar called Lucky's on the other side of The Smoke Depot that I have never been tempted to frequent. It appears to be run by authentic biker types.

I went by there today to see how my friend was doing, and he just looked like he was in a daze. I was surprised to see that he was at work, but I guess if you're going to sit around and watch TBN, you might as well sell some rolling papers while you are at it. Everyone was walking up to him and saying things like "way to go", and "you did the right thing." I don't deny that he did the right thing, and that he had very little choice. I'm not sure that he was as happy as everyone thought that he was.

I remember a peculiar and frightening moment that happened to me when I was in Afghanistan. I was flying by chinook from Orgun-E firebase to Kandahar. It isn't uncommon for prisoners to be transported on these flights as most of the action takes place at or around the firebases, but the main prison is located in Kandahar. On this particular day I was going to be taking one such prisoner back with me.

He was filthy. Not filthy in the same way that all of them were filthy. Poverty and living in a dirt pile are not conducive to a general sense of cleanliness. He was filthy from having spent the last week or so in a very small cell in the middle of the desert. He was filthy. He was also scared out of his freaking mind. Apparently the last group to romp across Afghanistan, the Soviets, had not been the champions of the working class poor that they were advertised to be. No, they were ruthless and evil, and used in flight helicopter exits as a way of making statements to villagers that had trouble figuring out who had planted the landmine in the middle of the road. Hey, at least they are progressive, right? Needless to say this poor guy was scared to death as I lifted him from his knees and led him onto the whirly bird. Keep in mind that this guy is not only filthy and tired, but also blindfolded, handtied, and only able to move his feet as far apart as the rope will allow. Did I mention scared?

I remember thinking that if he were to try anything, I was going to have to kill him. Now you think to yourself, why would you have to kill him? His hands are tied, and he is no immediate threat. Well, you've never been over there so just don't worry about it. Anyway, I didn't kill him. He was sat down about arm's length from me on the helicopter, and was just shivering in the 105 degree heat. About 5 minutes after take off he threw up and messed himself pretty bad. Talk about a stench. These are not the most fragrant of people to begin with, and it is really tough to explain.

When he first started putting his hands near his face I got scared because I thought that he was trying to remove his blindfold. He was, in fact, just wiping his tears. Just the same, you can't have some prisoner messing with his blindfold and trying to peek at the insides of Army equipment. I tried to push his hands down with my hands, but they were covered in puke so I had to use my weapon (M-16A2). This probably scared him really bad, but rules are rules. I did feel bad for the guy. About 30 minutes into the ride he was still crying. I reached out and patted him on the back and rubbed his back a little bit. He leaned over and put the side of his face on the side of my leg like I suppose a whipped dog would do. For the next two hours I just patted his back and tried to tell him it would be ok. It made him feel better.

I'm glad I didn't have to kill anybody over there. I would have done it if I had been forced to do it, but I am really glad I didn't. I suppose my friend at the Smoke Depot will accept the heroic accolades he receives over the next week or so. I would imagine, however, that there is an inexplicable guilt that will still be there long after the atta boys have stopped. If you don't know at least in your deepest heart that life is precious then you have to be killed. Sadly, you have to be killed by someone who understands in their deepest heart that life is precious.

Go Bears!!!

2006-11-26T09:50:00.000-08:00

I have trouble keeping good neighbors here at Blogger. Every once in a while I will click on the "next blog" icon at the top of the screen, and see who my next door neighbor is. Yesterday it was an Italian pornographer. Before that guy there were a series of Spanish speaking people, and a Patriot fan/poker enthusiast. If you are wondering (and I'm sure that you are) the Italian word for Lolita is "Lolita." Being a naturally paranoid person, I wonder if they are moving out because of my blog. I thought about flagging the porn guy, but decided instead to post a comment. No, I didn't, but I should have. Today my newest neighbor is a video game historian. I hope he doesn't move out, because I haven't had a chance to ask him about the advent of the track ball and paddle control.

NEXT:

God revealed in very specific ways yesterday that he prefers rank paganism/hedonism to the heretical superstition of the Romish hordes. Although, there is a certain irony in Rome being founded by Trojan refugees. I regret this loss in as much as I, as stated in a previous post, have come to cheer for the reduntantly but accurately named "Fightin' Irish." I wonder if they ever thought about the name "Drunk Ass Irish." Musberger commented at the conclusion of last nights game that, "the road to the championship is paved with Trojans." This can be said of so many different types of championships.

NEXT:

We bought the mattress and bed and dresser. Thanks for your help.

NEXT:

I think it is bullcrap that Florida, should they win out, isn't going to get a shot at Ohio State. USC is good, and they probably deserve a shot as well, but here is my case against them:

1. They got beat by Oregon State.
2. They struggled with a Cal team that got KILLED by Tennessee in Knoxville.
3. They did defeat Notre Dame, but this is a good ND team that has only played two ranked opponents and lost to them by a combined 40+ points.
4. This argument is as tired as a southern euphemism, but they would have more than one loss had they played an SEC schedule.

NEXT:

I hope the Titans win today. I think that if God is going to be truly consistent this sports weekend, he has to allow a team named for Greek Myth to defeat the Giants. Who will he cheer for in the Saints vs. Falcons? You would think the Saints, but clearly He has no heart for the Catholics this weekend. How can he not be moved by the tremendous season they are having in the wake of last years tragic events? On the other hand, Atlanta is the classic phoenix rising from the ashes historically. Who can pretend to know the mind of God? His ways are not my ways.

Another game of biblical note might be the Bears vs Patriots match up. Lovey Smith is bald. I think that might say it all.

I hesitate to comment on the above passage, but seriously, those kids were NOT expecting that AT ALL. I search for the most charitable way of communicating the notion that those snot nosed punks got served. Words escape me. They made fun of the prophet's haircut. God sent not one, but (count 'em) TWO she-bears to eat them. TWO!! The bears "tore" 42 of the boys. That implies a lot of chasing and a lot of catching. Chasing down and catching and then ravaging 42 people takes no short amount of time. One would surmise that at least 40 of the boys had time in which to bask in the self secure notion that they got away. Clearly they were mistaken. She-bears. You just don't see that one coming, do you?

Rob

No payments, no interest...not interested.

2006-11-25T05:46:00.000-08:00

Over the course of the last 2 months my wife has complained about our mattress. She said that the mattress was sagging, and she felt like she was sleeping in a hole. My side of the mattress was fine, so I did what any good husband would do. I told her that it was fine. In my defense I am dealing with a person for whom 72 degrees can be too hot and too cold. I am dealing with a person that, after 6 years of marriage thinks I care about shades of beige. Worse, she thinks that if I did care about shades of beige I would be able to see a difference. Finally, if I jump on top of her and begin acting like an ape she is not turned on. She claims that it turns her off. HOW?!?!?!

All of this to say that I was not being a jerk by not sampling her side of the bed. The other day, however, when I was putting on my shoes I sat on her side of the bed and noted that it was a little more than "a sag." It turns out that the boxspring is broken and she has essentially been sleeping in a hole for the last month. Of course, having realized my mistake, I did what any good husband would do. I took the bed apart and had us sleep on the the floor on just the mattress. In my defense I thought it would be like camping, or like being in an asian hotel. Mrs. Killjoy thought that it sucked, so we have to go mattress shopping. Not long after I gave in and agreed to go and "look" at boxsprings (the classified section has a lot of good deals), she revealed that she hated our mattress, and hated our bed as well, and suggested that we use this as an opportunity to go ahead and replace everything.

I am going out today and will probably end up with a new bed, dresser, mattress and boxsprings. I am looking for "no interest, no payments, until the return of Our Lord." One store has "no interest, no payment, until May 2008," and my wife says that for all I know Jesus could return tomorrow so we might as well take advantage of this wonderful offer. I'm hoping one of our friends and relatives takes advantage of the wonderful offer and gives us their old stuff instead. I feel that "no interest, no payments on old crap we don't want anymore," is the better of the two deals.

If you are reading this please help me. Please give me the crap you don't want anymore. Please explain to my wife that by purchasing new things we are denying our brothers and sisters in Christ a very meaningful service opportunity. Won't you please help?

NEXT:

I'm pulling for the Papists today over the Pagans of Troy. I've become a big fan of my statue worshipping brothers since Charlie Weis took over as head coach. I want to believe that God will forgive the Council of Trent and the Gunpowder Plot at least for a day. GO IRISH!!

NEXT:

I was watching football with Catherine (almost 4) yesterday, when the announcer began talking about USC quarterback John David Booty. She thought that was very funny. He said "booty" about 15 times in the space of 1 minute. She laughed and laughed and laughed. I mention this so that you will know that it's not just me!!

Like a 40 Something Mother of Two

2006-11-24T05:52:00.000-08:00

I was flipping through the channels a couple of nights ago and saw that the Madonna concert was starting. I decided, what the hell, I'll check this out for a minute. Two hours later I realized that I had just sat through a Madonna concert. It was good. My wife and I both agreed that if she came to town we would go see her if possible.

Here's what I liked:

1. The entire event was visually stunning and very well choreographed. Everything was moving and spinning and bouncing (lots of bouncing) and flying around. There were cool video images and flasing lights. Great costumes.

2. Madonna doesn't do much outside of walk around in the midst of the action. I didn't notice this until I realized that she was never out of breath. Everything moving around her makes you think that she's dancing too, but she isn't.

3. Madonna is really really talented when it comes to marketing and presentation. Her voice is pretty good, and the music, though it has never been that groundbreaking, gives you a pretty decent picture of what the pop trend of the day has been.

4. For a woman in her 40's that has had 2 babies Madonna is still pretty hot. She isn't bearing a lot of mid-section these days, but I think she is prettier now than she has ever been.

5. There were a couple of times when I heard songs and said, "Oh, that's Madonna? I didn't know that was Madonna." They were songs I'd heard a lot before.

6. I was reminded that, for all of my conservative leanings and moral superiority, pop culture is popular because it has mass appeal. Pop culture is just damn entertaining.

7. Finally, I liked the crucifix section. I liked it because what she was trying to say was accurate and profound. It seems silly coming from Madonna, but she was right on. Wearing a crown of thorns in front of a disco cross while images of African children flash on the screen behind her and a counter counts to a really big number in the millions sends a very clear message. Sometimes Christians need to be told to put their money where there mouth is. I would be willing to bet, however, that Christian organizations and contributions account for the lions share of charitable giving in this country. Just the same, I could be wrong, it's a message we can't hear too much. It isn't wrong just because Madonna said it.

What I didn't like:

I sat through a Madonna Concert/Network TV event.

NEXT:

Jay Cutler should get to play next week for Denver. YEAH!!!!

NEXT:
I have to make a retraction concerning my Mom being cool with the beer thing. She was the complete opposite of cool. Incool. Anti-cool. Acool. non-cool. UNCOOL.

Oh well. It wasn't the first time that this evangelical has said, "pass the Kool-Aid."

NEXT:

I'm committed this year to keeping the true reason for the season in mind. I will give tribute to the winter solstice by hoping I get lots of stuff. Here are some things you might consider getting for me:

1. Amazon gift cards.
2. Affordable health coverage
3. Cable television
4. Cigars (CAO, or Punch) By the way, Rocky's is a very cool mini-market in downtown Syracuse, NY. I used to go down there on Saturday morning and watch the news with a bunch of old guys. Cool place.
5. Newcastle
6. Harnack's 7 volume History of Dogma
7. An oak paneled office with a nice deep leather chair with tons of books on bookshelves in which to smoke, drink, and read John Owen.

Coram Deo,
Rob

Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T06:27:00.000-08:00

The singer is right. It's the most wonderful time of the year. It is the best time for sports. It is the best time for food. It is the best time for stuff. It is a really good time to remember the advent of God's Annointed and to give thanks to and for the "fount of every blessing."

I am giving thanks today for the two Punch cigars and three Newcastle Ales that I am going to enjoy. While I'm at it I might as well give thanks that my parents have softened enough to let me bring my pal Newcastle into their house.

My oldest daughter Catherine was married yesterday to Prince Charmin'. We celebrated with a picnic. She cooked the entire meal by herself. The menu included plastic corn, potato, fake box of Cream of Wheat, and empty cups of Kool-Aid. It was fake delicious. I was called out for digging in w/out having said a blessing. Prince Charmin' was notoriously absent from the event.

I am most thankful, however, for the priceless and inexpressable love, mercy and grace that God has so graciously bestowed upon me. He daily opens my eyes to the blessings within the blessings within the blessings that make up my life. I cling to this Jesus and give thanks along with Job for the peace that comes with knowing that "my redeemer lives."

Athena and a Muzzle of Bees

2006-11-21T16:26:00.000-08:00

Things are dead enough around work right now that I can pretty much drive around town and listen to music. I had a chance today to go to the Parthenon and see the Athena statue. It's big. I wish there was more that I could say about it, but it's just a statue. The real story is the story of the 1897 Centennial Exposition. Looking at the photos from that time is like being carried away to another time. There is something promising and marvelous about that time in American history. Everything was so modern and charging forward. I think that were we to go back in time we would be prone to forget the reality of what we know is coming in the 20th century and get lost in the promise that was the end of the 19th. I was fascinated by what seemed like a compulsory spirit of inclusion that seemed to rival our own. I was impressed by the grandeur and prominence of the Negro Building. There were several Negro Days set aside throughout the course of the affair. Unlike similar attempts in our own time it doesn't carry an obligatory quality, but rather seems part of the spirit of the age. The pictures and accounts coupled with the style and size of the Negro Building don't jive with the images of "strange fruit" and riot squads that I tend to associate with the American South prior to 1970 (or BRT). What happened? Or did nothing happen? Nothing in the sense that I wonder if White America hasn't always had a notion of political correctness, and knew which face to put in front of the camera. So strange.

NEXT:
I have figured out, at least in part, why Christian music sucks so bad. I figured it out today while driving around and listening to Wilco's A Ghost is Born. What struck me first was that Hell is Chrome through Handshake Drugs is about as close to perfect as rock has been in a while. Then I got to Theologians. I like that song a lot. A) It makes reference to one of my favorite passages in the Gospel of John and B) it's really groovy. As a novice theologian I take exception to the fact that I don't know nothing about Jeff Tweedy's soul, but that is another post (or maybe his use of the double negative is ironic and he is secretly conceeding that I DO know SOMETHING). One thing that I did think of, however, was that for all his unorthodox uses of scripture, I wasn't offended. Why? It's because as immature an understanding as it is, it is genuine and sincere and real. I'll take that anyday. It resonates in that Tweedy is thumbing his nose at God. Tweedy is thumbing his nose at organized religion. Tweedy is thumbing his nose at all of the things outside of him and his music that he is not a god over. YEAH!!!!!!! I love it.

Christian music, on the other hand, sucks. Why? Because they are not sincere. They are not genuine. Because they don't thumb their nose at God and scream why, and throw temper tantrums about the world not going the way it should. They orchestrate sweet goop over 7-11 praise lyrics that ignore any deep reaching philosophical or theological issues. Even when they are singing scripture they ignore the bone and focus on the blubber. Take, for instance, Psalm 95. Anyone that has ever been to Sunday night youth meetings has sung verse 6-7c. I have never sung verses 8-10. I have never held hands with my fellow Christians and sung Psalm 73. Christians of our day and time don't know what to do with Psalm 109. We have nothing to offer but utopian notions of how happy happy happy we all are. It's garbage. Why isn't their one Christian song about sleeping with a girl you aren't married to and the pain of the repentance? Why not about the pain of sin? Why not lamenting the substratum of racism that runs through the heart of the SBC? If Tweedy left his wife for another woman and became the darling of the Nashville celebrity golf community I guarantee you we'd get at least one song out of it. Vince and Amy are you listening?

Until the modern church can find the angry and supplicating heart of the Psalmist, I'll take Wilco. I might not know anything about their souls, but I know what rocks.

Rob

Session Meeting

2006-11-20T12:05:00.000-08:00

A quick note before I start in on what I really want to talk about:

My comparison between the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and Eve in the garden was not one that I came up with on my own. I first heard R.C. Sproul make the comparison, but I wouldn't imagine that he came up with it himself. I wonder how hard it is going to be as I begin writing more on doctrine, and begin to try and build arguments from scripture in defense of doctrine to remember which ideas are mine, and what I heard in some sermon three years ago. Not long ago I watched a movie from the Eighties and heard a character say a line that I had forgotten came from that movie. I have used the line so much in the last 20 years that I thought that perhaps I had made it up. I am very concerned about this for reasons that the contents of today's posting will reveal. And now without further delay.....

TODAY'S BLOG POST!!!!!!

I go before the session of my church this evening in the first step of coming under presytery care for seminary. I am very nervous as I feel like this is truly my calling. Having gone down many career paths that I saw others having success on, I am finally alone at the head of my own path. It is a scary, lonely, and very affirming place to be. Throughout my adult life I have had such admiration (and jealousy) for how most of my friends had been given a true sense of calling. As I have seemed to drift through life without an anchor, most of my friends had a direction for their life. I have tried a few of their paths, and they have not been for me. I am not a salesman, or a banker. I am not a doctor or a soldier. I am not journalist. All of those vocations are such marvelous callings!! It is a pity that none of them are mine. Though any vocation can be significant, there is something to be said for feeling a sense of significance within your vocation.

The ministry, in whatever form it takes, is my calling. I don't know how I feel about being a pastor. If that is what the Lord has for me, so be it. I am certainly not interested in Smalltown, USA. I think Berlin or Paris would be nice. God might very well land me in Botswana for all I know. This, too, is fine. If God in His infinite wisdom decides that he needs me to wear tweed, smoke cigars and teach Owen, Edwards, or Typology at WTS Philadelphia then we are agreed on at least one thing aside from the calling itself. I would imagine, however, that I have a few miles to go before I get to sit in Scotland sipping a pint with my fellows on the session.

So why be nervous about tonight? Simply put, I believe in the authority of the church, and I believe in the testimony of two witnesses. As John's Gospel serves as a testimony to the Synoptics and vice versa, and as the sign gives testimony to the revelation, so too, I believe, that the inner call must be confirmed by the outer call. I wonder what I will do if my call is not confirmed. There are those that would say I should go to seminary anyway. I would disagree with that. Why seek the endorsement of the session if I am going to discard any answer they give me that is not what I want to hear? We pray because we believe that God is wiser than we are, and that He understands the unsearchable mysteries of his eternality greater than we understand the finite and petty tribulations of our here and now. Why pray if His answer is not really going to matter?

If the sessions denies my call I will only have one course of action that I feel can hold up scripturally. I will leave my church and start a new YET Non-Denominational church where people can know that they are..................just kidding. Seriously, I will be left to play the part of the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15, or the persistent widow of Luke 18. What choice do I have? Here I stand.

Most every weekday morning for me starts with a 5:30 walk in the company of God, my own personal demons, and a good cigar. God and the cigar work hard over a 2.5 mile stretch to exercise the demons (buh dump bump...tsssch!). I've played out tonight's meeting on that walk several hundred times, and created the big speech that will have theater audiences cheering across the country.

Character played by either Robert Shaw or James Mason: "We don't think you have what it takes!! Why should we send someone like YOU to seminary?!?!?"

Me as played by Paul Scofield: "When in the course of human events...I'm out of order! You're out of order! This whole damn trials out of order!!!"

But it won't go like that. It never does. I'll go in about 6:30, and come out around 6:40 having given my testimony and having told them why I feel called. They will approve it, and ultimately Botswana will be the better for it.

NEXT:
UT beat Vandy this weekend. It is nice of God to finally return the world to its natural order. It has been a very awkward year, and I'm glad that it is over.

Also, though I believe that God is sovereign over even the toss of a coin, I don't think he has a personal stake in who wins football games. He might use the outcome of a game to bring about other events which will lead to his glory, but I don't think that he has ever said, "Hook 'em Horns!!" All of this to say that I belive both sides of the political aisle can embrace the notion that if God doesn't hate Michigan he probably should. Not being prone to lukewarm inclinations the fact that Tom Hayden and Ann Coulter both went there has to mean something to him. Besides, if He does like Michigan he's cheering for a loser. GO BUCKS (yes, i'm on the bandwagon)!!!

I don't think that Michigan should get a second chance in a non-playoff environment. I don't want two teams from the same conference playing for the national championship. Florida pays their players just as much as Michigan does, and they deserve a shot if they win out.

Fun with Links!!

2006-11-17T16:42:00.000-08:00

I've really fallen in love with links. I like the idea that I can mention anything in the world, and link you to a site that either a) tells you what I am talking about, and/or b)shows you a picture of what I am talking about. Heck, you can even be taken to a site where you are able to BUY what I am talking about.

Most people are funny in that they want to have something on display in their home that can tell people about all of the cool things they are interested in. In college it was posters, and now, at least for me, it is my bookshelf. At one point I think it was my record collection, but now it is books. If I go over to someone's house that my wife decided that we need to spend time with, I head straight for the bookshelf. I feel like looking at the bookshelf will give me a good idea as to what kind of man I am being forced to break bread (pretty cool, huh) with, and maybe some points of conversation I might have with this man.

I think links might be the new bookshelf. I have this need to go out and find really cool web sites that I can link to within my blog. People will see it (at least the four people that actually read my blog will see it), and think (hopefully), "Hey, this guy knows about that!!! He must be really cool. Oh yeah, the whole Christian thing puts me off and everything, but that link!!! He's not so bad."

Then I think that maybe blogs themselves are the new bookshelves. My post (weird isn't it) is like the conversation you get to have with me while your checking out my site list, and you can even meet some of my friends by going to their blogs. It's like having the neighbors over. Of course, you have to be careful about who you put on your "Blogs I Dig" section, because sometimes you want to try to keep these friends separate from those friends. But screw 'em right? Who has to apologize for having this friend or that friend? Yeah!! Screw 'em!! Did you know that you don't have to have just one blog? You can be thirty different people and have completely different sets of friends. Technology is enabling us to become the hypocrites we always new we could be, and the superhighway has so many lanes that no one will ever know!!

NEXT:

I've been trying to find a way to make a good joke about the Coor's Lite commercials, and the Bill Walsh illness press conference, but theirs no way to do it without being really tasteless. So everyone just imagine the joke and wait for "The Onion" (nope, I zagged there) to catch up with my sense of humor.

NEXT:

I'm going to develop a role playing game for Christians. There will be all sorts of challenges and you can create your own character. If you want your character to be a street evangelists, then charisma would obviously be an important trait. You would need like a 16 or higher on Charisma. You could have characters that don't get along and those that do. For instance the Pentecostal character has spells of prophecy and incoherent babbling (wooda bota hoon dye butta bota kia). The Congregationalist and Scottish Pres guys have pyrokinetic abilities that are very effective on witches. The Southern Baptist can stay under water for up to 3 minutes for maximum self righteousness. If you don't use a +5 paddle of spanking on your children they have to do a saving throw against turning gay, or dating black people. The winner is the one that has gotten as many "dark siders" (democrats) to sign committment cards. Rededications only get 1/2 credit, or potentially no credit if the person is a habitual backslider. Look for it in Lifeway Book Store (could you believe it was volume 2?!?!?!?!) next to the Beverly Hillbillies Bible Study Series.

Rob

Free to Serve

2006-11-16T20:10:00.000-08:00

I think that some of the most important moments in the ministry of Jesus were the times that he was called out for eating with sinners and tax collectors. He seemed to get a real kick out of bringing the "righteous" of his day into contact with the undesirables. In Luke 19: 1-10 he picks, of all the citizens of Jericho, a tax collector as his dinner companion, and a successful one at that. Another time while eating dinner in the house of a pharisee, a "woman of the city" comes crawling to him and wipes his feet with her tears after anointing him with oil (Luke 7:36-50). He is constantly among the sick and the demon-possessed. The outcasts seem to be the ones that are drawn to him.

I see in this a divine illustration of the first oracle of the Beatitudes. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)." Now clearly all of us that are descended from Adam can acknowledge our sin, but for the unbeliever it is merely the prelude to, "nobody's perfect." The believer can look back on the day when he first crawled to his Savior and wet His feet with his tears. The poor in spirit need a savior. Those who are painfully aware of their sin will own the Kingdom, because they will weep, and become meek, and on down the golden chain they go until their hunger and thirst for righteousness is filled by the only one that can fill it, Christ the Lord.

How, you might ask, is this tied in to how we deal with sinners? It is in the filling of our thirst for righteousness that I find the answer.

A friend of mine made mention in one of her recent blog posts to "both/and" theology. Her reference was in regard to Christ's having taught an either/or when it comes to the objects of our worship. I have meditated on that quite a bit, and find that it applies even more strikingly to our salvation. We are not saved by Christ and our ability to conquer this or that sin. We are save by Christ and Christ alone. What do we offer that might atone for our sin? To put it in terms of the old hymn, "nothing but the blood of Jesus." What righteousness do we have apart from the righteousness of Christ that is ours by imputation? None at all, but rather we are the enemies of God. That is how our thirst is quenched. Christ provides his perfect righteous life and fills those that will thirst. Why do they thirst? Because they have been convicted of their need. The healthy will not seek a physician.

Paul asks the Galatians a question in his letter to their church that is particularly well suited to this notion: "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (3:2-3) It is so hard to believe how gracious grace can be.

How free we are now to truly love and minister to others just as our Lord did in His earthly ministry. Jesus did not sin with the sinners, he LIVED with the sinners. We can not live with any sinner unless we meet them where they live and do what we can to be a part of their lives. This does not mean we can't be bold in our belief. Heaven forbid we not proclaim the majesty of Christ, but we can proclaim it respectfully and with love, and couple it with the healing mercy that always flowed from the heart of precious Jesus.

Never forget that He met you where you lived (Romans 5:6-10).

That's plenty. I want to write something lighter tomorrow.

You should read this little book if you haven't already. It'll blow your flippin' mind.

Rob

Did God really say?

2006-11-14T03:33:00.000-08:00

Last night I watched Studio 60, and was a little put off by it. I imagine that most Christians that saw it thought that it gave the Christian point of view a pretty even shake, and felt pleased that somehow their views were fairly stated on a prime time network show. They were not. What I saw was a "Christian" character that really had no foundation for her beliefs outside of what seemed right to her. As far as the issue of homosexuality goes, I thought that the Matthew Perry character made the better points and won the debate. It was no victory for Christianity that the female character conceded the post-modern "who can really know" position.

The good thing about the show was that it led me to reevaluate my own position on sexuality and sexual sin, and to meditate on why I believe what I believe concerning sin. I thought that I would present my ideas over the next few postings, and hope for some level of input. I pray that I am enabled to present them fairly and coherently, but, as with all written attempts of this nature, it is difficult to type facial expressions or tone of voice. I will try to avoid sarcasm, and to be a simple as possible.

First of all I have to concede Matthew Perry's point concerning there being no outward or perceivable differences between the marriage of two men versus traditional marriage. I don't know that I can provide proof that my love for my wife is any different than one man's intimacy with another. What I can say, is that there are several types of sin in my life. Among them are past sins that I regret, and past sins that I should, but do not regret. I am speaking here, specifically of sexual sins. There are women that I was with in life that I took advantage of and hurt. This was not done in an aggressive sense, but with an awareness that I could get what I wanted without reciprocating what she needed (emotionally and spiritually). I have definite regrets about those experiences, and, even though once is enough, I repent of that behavior again and again.

I am forced to admit, however, that there are escapades in my life that I look back on with pleasure. When I look back on the more "fun" encounters of my past, at least in the sexual realm, I have trouble seeing a need to repent. No one got hurt (presumably), and everyone walked away happy, though I would challenge even that claim. I am told by Scripture, however, that these acts are sinful. Now, if I am going to rely on Scripture as a barometer for the merit of my behavior, how much of my own feelings in the issue have to be taken into account? The answer is: none.

There is a very important lesson that God gives humanity right off the bat in the Genesis account of man's fall. In Genesis 3:6 we see Eve facing the same dilemma that we face today. Obvious differences being that she was unfallen at the time, had daily and intimate time with God in a very real and physical sense, and was in a lush paradise free of want or need. The fruit was food, and we need food. The fruit was going to make her wise, and wisdom is to be desired. The fruit was attractive, and if something is by nature attractive we are going to be attracted to it. So what was the big deal? What separated this fruit from any other? The difference is that God had said that she was not to eat it.

There is a striking parallel to this in the Gospel account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4: 1-11). The temptations of Jesus are essentially the same as the temptations of Eve. Satan tempts our Savior with food, power, and riches. What we can harken back to here, however, is the last words given the tempted by God prior to the assault of Satan. In Eve's case we hear God say that if she eats she will die. In the case of Jesus, God had proclaimed the fact that Jesus was his Son. That is what Satan attacks. In both cases the accuser comes with a simple question: Did God really say? Our Savior, tempted in conditions hardly conducive to resistance, believes God. The mother of men, Eve, reckons God a liar.

This is, from where I sit, the cornerstone foundation for the argument that, "the Bible says." It does say, and I have but to echo the Psalmist and confess that "the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether (Psalm 19:9)." I speak here of my own sin, and why I have to repent of two sins both at the same time. I have to repent for those sins that I am not sorry for, and repent of the fact that I am not sorry.

This is, of course, not the end of the matter, but it is enough for now. The natural response is to question the authority of the Bible. I want to deal with that response, but I want to deal with it last. What is MORE important, and what I want to deal with next, is how Christians are to respond to the sin of the non-believer. Regardless of which sin it is, and homosexuality is only the example we are using here, there is a proper way to respond and a sinful way to respond. Also, it is essential that at some point I get around to addressing the favorite verse of the reprobate: Matthew 7:1-2.

Coram Deo,

Rob

Odds and Ends

2006-11-13T19:19:00.000-08:00

Here is a really cool speech given by J. Gresham Machen before Congress concerning the merits of establishing the Department of Education.

Here is a really cool book about the assassination of James Garfield.

Here's one of the greatest sermons ever preached.

One more book that is worth reading. This one.

Rob

Sola Gratia

2006-11-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

So Ted Haggard is gay. Man, I guess this means that there is no resurrection of the dead. All of my life I have been putting my trust in princes and depending on men for bread only to find out that this can only leave me wanting. Or wait!! Did I misread the Psalm?

As long as Gary and Amy's marriage never ends I suppose that my faith is verified. Wait!! Vince who?!?!?!?

Enough with the jokes already. Events of the past few weeks have really served to remind me of the tremendous opportunity that the NAE let slip away when Bill Clinton got caught cheating on his wife. Keep in mind that I am not addressing the fact that he actively conspired to rob a fellow citizen of her fair day in court, but only the adultery which I believe would disqualify him from being an elder in the PCA, but places him in some very good company at most Washington parties. Why couldn't we find one member of one church to utter the following phrase, "There but for the grace of God go I."

The behavior of Ted Haggard is so repulsive. It is so disgusting. IT IS SINFUL!!! THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I!!!

But he engaged in homosexual behavior!! You don't think that you would.....THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I!!!!

He purchased Meth and has probably used it before!! You don't think that you would....THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I!!!

Remember this:
The progress of mankind is not a product of man's indomitable spirit and self determination. It does not speak a whisper about our determination to create a better life for each other, or our great ability to grasp morality and apply it to the here and now of our day to day lives. It is only the result of God instilling his grace into our lives. That grace is the only reason we don't exhibit the savage imulses and rank hedonism that defines our true natures. I pray that God does not withdraw his grace from my life. I don't want to be lifted up like Pharoah (Romans 9:17).

If you want to know what kind of people we become when God withdraws his grace entirely, I invite you to read the accounts of the famine that swept Jerusalem leading up to 70AD, and the tales from her seige that occured in that year. It is no wonder that our Savior wept over her (Matthew 23:37-39). Wes Craven on his best day has not concocted a tale so horrifying.

THE GOOD NEWS:

Ted Haggard will be washed clean of his sins in the precious blood of the lamb if he repents. He has, sadly, disqualified himself from leading the faithful, but not from the eternal privledge of worshipping at the feet of our sweet savior. How powerful is this blood? It saved Paul who held the coats at Stephen's stoning. It saved a wretch like me.

THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I!!

REDEEMED, HOW I LOVE TO PROCLAIM IT!!!

Rob

...same as the old heresy

2006-11-11T10:05:00.000-08:00

I have taken to reading up on early church history. It is a fascinating study to say the least. It is something I have intended to do for a long time, but have always put it off in favor of biblical commentaries and puritan sermons. The release of "The DaVinci Code" last year prompted a pretty basic survey of early church history just to help me confirm what I suspected. That being that none of the crazy/out of this world claims of Brown's book are new or really all of that crazy. One thing that I think has been very helpful about all of the recent talk about "Q," "The Jesus Seminar," "The Gospel of Judas," and others is that it has finally helped me to put a fine point on exactly what I don't like about so much the modern American church.

As you drive down I-40 leaving Nashville en route to Memphis there is a billboard for a church in Bellevue that boasts a "non-religious" road to God. This is an extremely good example of the "seeker-friendly" movement that is sweeping the US in our day. I know people that go to this church (and churches like it) and they are fond of saying things such as, "We don't do doctrine, we just love Jesus." or referring to "dead orthodoxy." Their services are very entertaining. They are also designed to evoke an emotional response from those that attend them. There is a tremendous amount of psychological pressure placed on people in attendance to produce some visible and verifiable fruit of the holy spirit in the form of tongues, prophetic utterance, weeping, hysterical laughter, coming forward, etc...I want to be careful not to diminish the importance of personal experience in the life of the Christian. Personal experience and our emotional responses to the same are a sure fire way, however, to make shipwreck of our faith if we use them as a barometer for what is truth and what is not. The Christian has such a barometer and it is the Canon of Scripture (the actual canon, not the FF Bruce classic). We can learn something from God's message to the Israelites in Numbers 15:37-39. Our hearts will make whores of us in a hurry.

Back to the point, there is one tremendous good that comes from the advent of heresy into the Christian community. It forces the leadership to reevaluate what it believes and put a finer point on its doctrine. It isn't as if the church had never understood the concept of the Trinity, but it was heresy (and forgive my ignorance of when, who, or what) that led the church to estabish the formal doctrine of the trinity and present it in the Nicene Creed. And yes, it might not be the most emotionally moving aspect of a worship service to stand and recite a creed, but it is of immeasurable importance. These doctrinal truths must be written on the hearts. Repitition breeds familiarity, and familiarity is of great value in defending the faith. It is the believer's knowledge that Christ descended into hell as taught in the Apostle's Creed that causes the red flag to go up when someone says that He did not. It is the expository preaching of scripture that illumines the mind of the believer and gives him the tools to counter the heretical claims of the non-believer or brother whichever the case may be.

So you don't "do doctrine." Fine. Don't be surprised when you wake up one day and people are denying the divinity of Christ, or the exclusivity of the cross, or any number of cornerstone beliefs that separate the sheep from the goats.

In the spirit of the physician healing himself, however, I end this post and begin to plow through "History of the Church" by Eusebius.

Rob

Goodbye Republicans

2006-11-10T18:31:00.000-08:00

Tuesday was a disappointment. I am, in fact, a conservative, and I despise, to the man, the left. There, I said it and it's out there. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. There, I said it three more times and it is REALLY out there.

I would like to take issue for a moment with the Christian right. I am a Christian. I sit on the far right end of the spectrum politically. I vote my conscience. My life and my vote are guided by the moral and theological principles contained in scripture. Ask me why I think abortion is wrong, and I'll tell you that it is murder. What makes murder wrong? It is an attack on the image of God that is imprinted on every man, woman, and child descended from Adam. How do I know? Please!?!?!? But you get the point. Why do I say all of this? Because before I take issue with the mainstream christian right I want to make it clear that I am, by mainstream definition, one of them. I feel that they don't get a fair shake in the national press, and I don't think they are stupid the way the national press and mainline critics tend to think that they are stupid.

But they are wrong.

Right Wing list of Christian Dos:
1. Vote
2. Attend church
3. Be good stewards of your funds and tithe to the church of your choice
4. Submit to the authority of your church just like you said you would in your membership vows.
5. Get involved in your community and example the love of Christ to people that are being enabled by the Democratic party.
6. Give credit while you do good works to the God that saved you, but try to keep it a secret if possible.
7. Love your spouse as Christ loved the church if you are a man, and submit to your husband as the church would to her groom if you are a woman.
8. Breed (the democrats don't do it much, and won't be here in 3 or 4 generations)
9. Encourage your church to forego the solid gold shopping mall sized auditorium and to invest in helping the widows and orphans. (Many holes in this, but I am willing to discuss)
10. Pray.

Right Wing list of Christian Don'ts:

DON'T ATTAIN TO THE NATIONAL MICROPHONE AND WASTE TIME ESPOUSING RANK BEHAVIORALISM LIKE THE PHARISEES THAT YOU ARE SO DETERMINED TO BECOME!!!

I'll put this as simply as I possibly can. If we as Christians succeeded in physically stopping every abortion, removing every drug problem, and preventing every rest stop tryst off exit 273 south of Brokeback Mountain, we will have done a great work for property values, but will not have accomplished one single thing for the Kingdom of God. We will have a safe and happy community full of safe happy people that are going to smile their way into perdition without the atoning blood of Jesus Christ to stand as their substitute.

The Christian that has gained the ear of a people should have only one message: Repent and believe. We have nought to preach but the Lordship of God's Annointed. How will they ever repent if they aren't convicted of their sins? How will any of us escape if we ignore so great a salvation? We preach Christ, and Him crucified. Until the effectual and regenerative seed of faith is planted in the hearts of our nation, their will only be behavioralism. When that seed is sown, election day will take care of itself.

If the conservatives want control of the government returned to them in 2008, they should run as conservatives, and not as Christians. Conservative values will always pull the Christian vote. Conservative ideology will ALWAYS win national elections in America.

Now go visit him in prison!!

Rob

Here I go...

2006-01-01T12:25:00.000-08:00

Church was good today. I think the tone for the service was set by my wife during the drive. I mentioned that we as Christians seemed so ill equipped to give suitable answers to simple questions. I remember asking my father why I had to go to church when I was about 13. He responded with something like, "As long as you live in my house..."

That's a fine answer. It's a valid answer. He shouldn't have to be questioned by punk teens about the government he has established in his house. It is not an answer, however, to the question asked. This is the question that my father answered:

"Can I live in your house and not be under your authority?"

This (for those reading this on a PDA) was the question that I asked:

"Why do we have to go to church?"

I have been professing Christianity for most of my life, and a regenerate believer for the last five years. I know that church is important. I know why. I will be a monkey's uncle if I would know how to explain it to my daughter. She's almost 3 so it's not really an issue this year, but that day is coming.

I asked my wife (this is where she made the day great) and she said that she would tell her to quit whining and get in the car, or pass her off to me to help get her feet dressed.

At once I realized that I had failed to communicate to Abby that the Catherine that was giving us the backtalk was a 10 year forward jump through the space/time continuum. I clarified, and she said:

"I would tell her that her heart was in the wrong place, and that Christians should want to go to church out of obedience and joy. Psalm 122 says 'I was glad when they said let us go to the house of the LORD.' The idea of going to worship God, repenting and being restored to God, singing and learning about God and standing with other believers should make us joyful. If we aren't joyful we should want to go all the more so that we can pray that God will give joy back to us."

I realized that I needed to write this down so I just said "oh" and kept driving. Today, for the first time in a while, I was glad when they said "Let's go to church."