This Is Me

The Natural and Supernatural as false dichotomy

2008-09-15T15:31:00.001-04:00

The Natural and Supernatural as false dichotomy

Natural/Supernatural is a false dichotomy. What we really mean is "what I'm used to experiencing" versus "what is unusual to me." All things were created by the second person of the Trinity, or Jesus Christ the Son, and are currently being held together through Him.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (John 1:1-10)

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. .For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16&17)

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’"

(Acts 17:25-28)

Even Christians have the tendency to think of the world as a natural place, albeit created by God. We have a bit of Deism in our theology when we consider the world to have been created at some point and then left by God. Most Christians would say, "Well God still works in His world; look at this or that miracle." But this is just the view that God created something, left it, and comes back now and again to tweak it. It is still wholly apart from the intimacy of how God really interacts with His world, shown by the verses above from various books in the New Testament.

The very foundations of the world - our atoms, molecules, subatomic particles, trees, water, volcanoes - are all currently being held together by the Word, Jesus. It is important for us to know that when we speak of the natural, what we are used to, versus the supernatural, occurrences that are unusual to us, that we are not talking about two separate things. Many question miracles today, or wonder if something that happened to them is a miracle or just chance, but the reality is God is God and all things flow through Him and from Him - except sin. This does not mean that there aren't really miracles, it means that we can worship God in awe about many events and objects we considered "natural"!

Frustration with what we perceive is the "natural" way

When people get frustrated because they don't see the "supernatural" working I am either saddened or sometimes angered. God IS working! The evidence of His work is that we all still exist! We might be frustrated with God because we don't perceive that He is working in a "supernatural" way, but He is working. God's nature does not change, and He always works according to that good nature. We can keep praying for the outcome we desire, but in the end God will do what is according to His nature - whatever that is. Whether we perceive the outcome as "natural" or "supernatural" it is merely our perception, not reality. But what I see is believers constantly frustrated they have no "supernatural" occurrences in their lives, not understanding that God has merely been working in their lives in ways that seem commonplace rather than unusual to them. Maybe those ways are commonplace because that is what it best at the moment, or maybe that person is not ready for God to work in unusual ways - but we should be humble and willing for whatever ways God chooses to work in our lives, not constantly frustrated that He is not working in the way we desire!

God's unchanging (immutable) nature and Science

When we make observances about what we call the natural world, we merely mean that this is how God acts in this situation and that it is such a regular occurrence it seems commonplace. However, this is true when we talk about supernatural occurrences - it is how God acts in the specific situation; it is just unusual instead of commonplace! The reason why we don't suddenly spin off the earth, have our skin turn purple, or have our atoms cease to exist is because God is not capricious, He is unchanging, and He desperately loves us. He is not suddenly going to decide that He does not care about the individuals He created and their environment. In fact, God is so consistent that we can make some pretty dependable observations about what He does in this world and so know what He will continue to do. This system by which we understand how God works in His creation and all the information we have gleaned from these observations of His workings we call science. In the end, science is the study of how God works in His world. For the Christian, the study of science should be a joyous delight and fervent desire - for to study our world is know about God and His work more fully. Paul discusses how clearly God can be perceived, just from being in the world, not even studying it!

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19&20)[bold added]

How much more can those who know our Lord already learn from "the things that have been made"?

Mercedes Fish-Inspired Concept Car

2008-07-18T09:41:00.003-04:00

So, cars usually spend most of their energy just pushing against the air, so the more aerodynamic the car, the more miles per gallon the car can get. That is why this funky car ,that I first read about in Popular Science, gets 300 mpg. Of course, it also is an electric car, it is only being released in California for now, will actually be classified as a motorcyle, and after the battery is depleted the mpg drops to a meager 130 mpg. You could make the argument this isn't a car in the traditional sense of the word, so the 300 mpg is not that impressive...but how does 70 mpg sound to you then?

Mercedes patterned a concept car off of a box fish that gets 70mpg combined city/highway driving and 84mpg driving at a consistent 56 mph!!!

However, this car "isn't coming to your local dealership." Wait a second, you created a car that gets 70 mpg and it ISN'T being released?! Sure, it looks funky, but for 70 mpg I would drive a car that looks like an armadillo.

Global Warming

2008-07-02T15:56:00.002-04:00

This article from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion section is pretty funny. My favorite quote? "A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence."

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html

GLOBAL VIEW By BRET STEPHENS
Global Warming as Mass NeurosisJuly 1, 2008; Page A15
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

Write to : bstephens@wsj.com
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Surviving the Tornado (and the Power Outage)

2008-06-11T13:08:00.002-04:00

So, a tornado apparently hit the cooling towers of a power plant about 5 blocks from my house. I had wondered why my neighborhood looked so much worse than others. Tons of trees were down, mostly across the road, and many power lines (and cars) were taken out by the trees. On the street in from of my home a tree blocked the intersection and tangled in its branches was a patio umbrella! The whole neighborhood seemed to be walking around after the storms on Saturday and Sunday. Although Saturday's storm seemed much worse, our power did not go out until the "quickie" storm on Sunday. 15 minutes of wind and rain, (and apparently a tornado!) and our power went out. To prevent our food from spoiling, we packed our fridge with ice and then took some to Jeremiah's parents and some to my fridge at work. The storm has its 'ups' though - we've been getting to know our neighbors. Most of our neighborhood has power restored (or it never went out) but about 3-4 houses, including ours, are still without. I don't feel too bad though - the Governor only got her power back on yesterday!

The picture in this article just doesn't do the damage justice:

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008/06/severe_weather_causes_waste_dump_silences_radio_station

My Theory of Marriages (facetious)

2008-05-29T10:55:00.003-04:00

1. Love - I believe your first marriage should be for love. After all, if you are just going to have one go at it, best that it is full of love and respect. Life is too short not to have the experience of a loving, committed marriage in it. However, if your spouse dies you know you will not be able to find quite the love you had, but still companionship is important so your second marriage should be for...

2. Money - Pick someone older. MUCH older. they will be more mature and therefore your life will be more peaceful, plus there will be the added bonus of getting all their money when they pass on leading to the third marriage which is, of course, with a...

3. Boy Toy - This one is MUCH younger. 'nuff said.

:-D

Jekyll and Hyde

2008-05-29T10:47:00.000-04:00

Who am I? What is my 'self'? The answer is that I am a Jekyll and Hyde, a mixed-up kid, having both dignity, because I was created and have been re-created in the image of God, and depravity, because I still have a fallen and rebellious nature. I am both noble and ignoble, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, upright and twisted, image and child of God, and yet sometimes yielding obsequious homage to the devil from whose clutches Christ has rescued me. My true self is what I am by creation, which Christ came to redeem, and by calling. My false self is what I am by the fall, which Christ came to destroy.--From "The Cross of Christ" (John R. W. Stott)

I could not have said it better myself...

Irony - Yoko Ono should "Let It Be"

2008-05-12T15:32:00.001-04:00

If you are having problems viewing this post: Click Here to view as a web page

EXPELLED Producers to Yoko Ono: Let It Be
(Dallas, TX) - A new front has been opened in the culture wars. Ben Stein's EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed stunned detractors by opening as the nation's #10 movie last weekend. Out for less than one week, it has already become one of the top 25 documentaries of all time.
Opponents of the film have attacked everyone and everything in it. They have attacked the producers, the star, the music, and film itself. They have even attacked those who have seen it. Now they want to change the Constitution.
Yoko Ono and others have now filed lawsuits challenging the film's use and critique of John Lennon's song Imagine. One of the suits seeks to ban free speech through preliminary injunctive relief which essentially means that they are trying to expel EXPELLED as it is now being shown in theaters.
"If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. 'Imagine there's no Heaven...No hell below us...Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too...' That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion. And that's what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen," said Walt Ruloff Executive Producer and CEO of Premise Media.
Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft explained, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."
Premise did not pursue a license for the song and had no obligation to do so. Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip - consisting of a mere 10 words - was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of EXPELLED.
But the irony of this lawsuit was not lost on the film's star Ben Stein, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.'"

For more information on EXPELLED, visit www.getexpelled.com and www.expelledthemovie.com.

House Churching

2008-04-02T10:54:00.003-04:00

This is in response to a question that was posed to me about why I am part of a house church. I have enclosed remarks regarding spritual dependence upon leaders that I have previously posted on here in case anyone doesn't remember every word I've ever written here! :-)

About house-churching, I think it's correct that some, maybe many, join house churches because they've been hurt by a conventional church, but that was not why I chose to do it.

I also attend a conventional church on Sunday mornings, help out with its youth group, go to Sunday school, I have taught Sunday school there etc. I'm pretty involved in that church as well. However, what attracts me to house churches is that I believe that they more closely approach the structure God intends for His church. Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that if we set up the church the exact way it was in the New Testament that everything will be idyllic. Looking at the New Testament, one thing that is very obvious to me is that those congregations weren't IDEAL! (in terms of morality):-) But I do believe that the way the early church was set up, as shown in the New Testament, more closely resembles God's intention for His church than the model of the modern American conventional church. I was convinced of this through my own reading of scripture and by persuasive discussions with those who had come to similar conclusions to mine. I do not think conventional churches cannot be used by God, but I do believe that there is a sort of cultural bias and assumptions that are inherently made by those attending and leading conventional churches that can block God's work, or His intentions for a community of believers.

In a nutshell, I think house churches give more opportunity for:

-more community
-less consumer mentality
-more use of God-given gifts/talents
-proper authority

If you look at 1 Corinthians 14, starting at the 26th verse it says:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

When Paul sets up guidelines for orderly worship in this passage he assumes "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." This passage clearly displays a church completely opposite from the modern American church where one, or a few, pastors speak and most of the people sit "consuming" the message. The conventional church tends to give people in the congregations a "consumer", instead of participator, mentality. (the modern church model where 20% of the people do 80% of the work) Instead it is clear that ALL participate. I believe that the modern American church strips people of their God-given gifts, authority, etc and are instead set up like businesses where a few people have taken far more authority and power than God ever meant them to have and put people into the ministry slots they feel need to be filled. Now, usually this usually works okay, because most pastors aren't bent on power, yet even when they are humble and servant leaders with good intentions, they often take more upon them than was originally intended and thereby stunt the spiritual growth of the individuals in their congregations.

The term "pastor" in the New Testament is totally unrecognizable from the role we put pastors into today. John Stott (an Anglican!) puts it well when he says,

"Paul and Barnabas also *appointed elders for them in each church* (Acts 14:23). This arrangement was made from the first missionary journey onwards, and became universal. Although no fixed ministerial order is laid down in the New Testament, some form of pastoral oversight (*episkope*), doubtless adapted to local needs, is regarded as indispensable to the welfare of the church. We notice that it was both local and plural - local in that elders were chosen from within the congregation, not imposed from without, and plural in that the familiar modern pattern of 'one pastor one church' was simply unknown. Instead, there was a pastoral team, which is likely to have included (depending on the size of the church) full-time and part-time ministers, paid and voluntary workers, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses. Their qualifications Paul laid down in writing later (1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1). These were mostly matters of moral integrity, but loyalty to the apostles' teaching and a gift for teaching it were also essential (Tit. 1:9; 1 Tim.3:2). Thus the shepherds would end Christ's sheep by feeding them, in other words care for them by teaching them. Such was Paul's double - and only - human provision for these young churches: on the one hand a standard of doctrinal and ethical instruction, safeguarded by the Old Testament and the apostles' letters, and on the other pastors to teach the people out of these written resources and to care for them in the name of the Lord. Just the Scriptures and the pastorate; that as all. Yet there was a third - and divine - provision."

In fact, if you look at the New Testament try to find a church set up with the model we think of, usually one pastor, (unless it is a mega-church), you just can't find it. There was oversight, but it was by a group, not one person. More importantly, there wasn't just one person speaking, there were many. "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" People were allowed to speak as they got revelation, and the others weighed what was said. This is completely different from a conventional church. Imagine giving the microphone to any who have revelation of a message from God (or a word or a hymn), even to the extent that the pastor wouldn't get a chance to talk because there have already been 2 or 3 who have spoken! The people in the early church had more responsibility, more "authority". They had to listen carefully to see if God had given them revelation and then speak if He had, and they also had to weigh what was said to see if it aligned with what they knew as truth and what the Holy Spirit was telling them about its truthfulness! But because of this, the elders had less authority and responsibility in a way. They weren't the only ones sharing during a service, they weren't the only ones speaking. They didn't control the course of worship, the Holy Spirit did.

I think often people put their pastors on pedestals and expect them to be morally perfect (or at least almost perfect), or they look to their pastor and his teachings as they would to a father leading them by the hand. I think these types of thoughts stunt spiritual growth and I think that the modern American church is set up in a way that makes these thoughts commonplace.

I have written on spiritual dependence on leaders before and will include a discussion at the end of this email (which is way more than you bargained for I'm sure!) The discussion is with some friends of mine who are very "high church" :-)

There is so much more, but it would take a veeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time to talk it out:-) However, I suggest you read the New Testament trying to see how the church was set up and see if you think a conventional church today would fit that mould. Now, because many of the people setting up house churches have been scorched, often by domineering pastors, I would agree that most aren't set up like the early church. Instead, they've gone the other way with no leadership whatsoever. I remember reading in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis where he said that Satan works in opposites.

"I feel a strong desire to tell you-and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me-which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs-pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them."

I'm not a person who believes that having a church building is wrong, or that having leadership is wrong. I believe there should be leadership, but that it should be a large team of non-professional elders, some who "pastor" people. It seems that elders who spoke well were paid, (1 Tim 5:17&18) but it also seems that they were not professional leaders like we have in the church today. There weren't a few, or one, person at the top who did all the "pastoring", all the speaking, all the visiting the sick, etc. I think this makes really lop-sided Christians, both leaders and all within the community of church-goers. I think we're seeing more and more that Christians will go to church and consume, but not really participate in community and community is one of the most important things the church is for! My vision is for many house churches within a city, with a "council of elders" as leadership over the city. Each church would have its own leadership, but for more serious issues the council of elders (elders from each house church) could be convened. House churches could work together to help the poor, evangelize, etc, and have larger meetings too, but the kernel would be a smaller group of people, closely linked in community. To me, this seems most closely to what scripture says. This also seems to be a type of church that would hold up better under persecution that may occur in the future. Obviously, in places like China, the only opportunity Christians really have for church is house churches.

Thoughts on False Independence

"The Pharisees loved to be given deferential titles. It flattered them. It gave them a sense of superiority over other people. In contrast to them, Jesus said that there were three titles his disciples were not to assume or be given, 'Rabbi' (that is, teacher), 'father' and 'master'. What did Jesus mean by it?

Well, the father exercises authority over his children by reason of the fact that they depend on him. I suggest that what Jesus is saying is that we are never to adopt towards a fellow man in the church the attitude of dependence which a child has towards his father, nor are we to require others to be or become spiritually dependent upon us. [bold added] That this is what Jesus intended is confirmed by the reason he gives, namely 'for you have one Father, who is in heaven'". - John R.W. Stott

I would add to that since Christ is the head of the church, we should not have any other head over us. We are the body, and there is supposed to be leadership in the elders, but there should be no "spiritual dependance" upon another man.

I think the crux of the matter is that I believe respect, guidance, and even obedience are all very different from spiritual dependence.

Mr. Gugg says, “It is interesting to me to note that, as my wife pointed out, Christ does not, throughout this entire diatribe against the Pharisees, attack their authority to teach, but rather their abuse of that authority. The problem is not the existence of spiritual authority within the Church, but rather the usurpation of that authority for self-aggrandizement rather than service.”

I agree with this. The problem as I see it is that very frequently this usurpation of authority DOES happen and that most Christians go along with it and become spiritually dependent upon a person in instances where they should be spiritually dependent upon Christ instead. What is even worse is that often these very people usurping authority think that they ARE serving God and do not even realize that they are doing many a disservice in taking more spiritual authority than God gave them and in making the very people they think they are serving so spiritually dependent upon them that they are stunting their spiritual growth. Another outcome of this is that they begin (or started out) viewing themselves as higher than they ought. Christ remarks:“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-25)

I think something very natural has happened in the church, which is, that we think about leadership the same way the world does. Unfortunately, what is natural is not good and the philosophy of the world in this case is absolutely devastating.I also somehow doubt that John Stott does not agree with respecting people, going to them for guidance, or maybe even obeying church leaders (although that one is more controversial, so I am not certain.) For one, nothing he has written that I have ever read would suggest that and two, he is Anglican, so I think he probably pretty firmly believes in church leadership. I do think you (Tealizzy) are very lucky to have rarely seen Christians spiritually dependent on their pastors, priests, or other church leaders. I have noticed too much how many people unhealthily depend on their pastors and other church leaders to the extent that Christ as their head is replaced by their pastor as their head. This goes varies from extreme to being very subtle, but both are sick. I do not think I am imagining either, because I have held several conversations with others who have noticed this as well.I do know Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father (I don’t remember to which church), but I believe that statement cannot be interpreted apart from Christ himself saying (just a few verses after saying to obey those who sit in the seat of Moses) [paraphrased] "Call no one Rabbi [except Christ] and call no one Father except God." (Matt 23:7-10). I do not remember the specifics of why Paul was calling a church his spiritual children, but I cannot think that it was their spiritual dependency upon him, because it seems pretty clear that Christ alone is our rabbi (teacher) and God the father alone is our father (our head that we are spiritually dependent upon). God gives some to be shepherds (or pastors) of the body, and elders (leaders who make decisions for the body), but I don’t think anyone is supposed to be our head but Christ, or our spiritual father, except God the father. I think it is more likely that Paul was discussing a sort of spiritual “generational transfer” of the gospel. He believed and passed it onto them and they believed, acting as their father in that he was the messenger through which the gospel came, and also because he was then their shepherd, gently (or not so much, knowing Paul):-) showing them the path to being true “followers of the Way.” However, since I cannot find that darn passage, I cannot remark on it overmuch. Only that I am not going to take it to mean something that I see as contradicting what Jesus himself has said.

Again, I would also say that obedience and dependence are two entirely separate things. Paul and Peter both say to be obedient to our government and to the specific people who hold power in our government, but I very much doubt either would say to be dependent (spiritually or otherwise) upon our government. Also, I very much doubt either of us are currently obedient to those who "sit in the seat of Moses", as we do not obey Pharisees and scribes today. I think you might be hard-pressed to tie the seat of Moses to any contemporary church leader. And even then, later in that same passage he says not to call them “rabbi” or “father”, illustrating that obedience to one in authority is quite different from giving him the respect or authority due God alone.In addition to the scripture in Hebrews mentioned by Mr. Gugg, I think either Paul or Peter did write a passage that is about obeying those in authority over you that can be interpreted to mean church as well as government leaders, but I do not think that means that any church leader today sits in the seat of Moses. If you know of another verse that discusses this though, let me know. This does not mean I necessarily believe that we should all be disobedient to our church leaders; I think, depending on the circumstance, that that action would be the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. God put those people over us for a reason after all. (The circumstances I can think of if it went against my conscience. Of course, my question is this, “Who IS in spiritual authority over me?” rather than “Should I obey those in spiritual authority over me?”)The verse in Hebrews does talk about obedience and even submission, but all Christians are called to submit to one another (1 Peter 5:5) anyway. I do agree we are supposed to obey those in authority, but again I think this is very different from spiritual dependence.I believe as well as Mr. Gugg that leadership is a position of sacrifice and that only when leadership goes wrong is it bad, but I think it frequently does.Um, I think I answered the questions, but let me know if I did not.

Miracles

2008-03-18T10:42:00.001-04:00

"Is not the most helpful way to approach the gospel miracles to place them within the familiar and inescapable tension between the already and the not yet, kingdom come and kingdom coming, the new age inaugurated and the new age consummated? To the skeptical (who doubt all miracles), I want to say "but already we have tasted the powers of the age to come." To the creduloud (who think that healing miracles are everyday occurrence), I want to say "but not yet have we been given resurrection bodies free from disease, pain, infirmity, handicap, and death." - John R.W. Stott

"God does not sell Himself into the hands of religious magicians. I do not believe in that kind of miracles. I believe in the kind of miracles that God gives to His people who live so close to Him that answers to prayer are common and these miracles are not uncommon." -A.W. Tozer

Life

2008-03-07T13:45:00.003-05:00

Hello all, I know I haven't blogged in a while. It's been a crazy, crazy world. Jeremiah and I were sick off and on, usually on, from just before Christmas to now. In the midst of this I'm dealing with the creeping fear of being unemployed in less than a year due to my boss being term-limited. Throw in a leak in our house's roof (hidden by the prior owners by sponges. SPONGES!), a car accident Jeremiah was in, and then my car suddenly deciding that accerating really wasn't its thing and it all led to a little mental breakdown on Saturday.

However, it turns out that the roof might be covered by the home warranty on our house, the car accident was on the car that DID have collison (only paid the $1000 deductible), my car only needed new spark plugs, and both Jeremiah and I are healthy AT THE SAME TIME! Life is good. I am still worried about the unemployment in December, but I've updated my resume and I am starting to search. It seems that there are some jobs out there, which is heartening. Working in politics, all I hear about are the businesses leaving...

I have been reading Terry Prachett, which means my wacky sense of humor is slowing creeping up on me again....

The Van Gogh Code

2007-11-02T15:42:00.000-04:00

mysterious, adventurous music *dum dum dum dum dum dum dum*

[movie screen shows exotic locations, attractive woman and man looking sexy and adventurous in exotic locations. ]

Deep masculine voice queries:

"What did the cut off ear in Van Gogh's self-portrait really mean?"

"What was Van Gogh trying to tell us in his famous self-portrait?"

"Was Van Gogh part of an ancient conspiracy that began early in human history until it finally centered around the person of Alexander the Great?"

"A sect so ancient that its roots show masochistic tendencies"

"Was it that history was been mutilated and important parts of it cut out while other parts of it were added?"

"What if you found out that Alexander the Great NEVER REALLY EXISTED and that all the cities named after him were part of a vast conspiracy that has spanned centuries and continents?"

Put it a romance with a dash of sex, trashing of some famous religous and/or historical data while claiming it's all true, cheesy lines, and no character development and voila(!) I've go myself a best seller.

Thought it up myself, aren't I clever? ;-)

Stephen Colbert for President

2007-10-25T10:27:00.000-04:00

With its snack-food sponsorship, Democratic and Republican affiliations, and Sen. Larry Craig as a possible running mate, Stephen Colbert's run for the presidency is hardly serious business. But the joke could be on Colbert if federal election officials decide his candidacy is for real. If his campaign plays out the way he's indicated that it will, Comedy Central and Colbert's sponsor, Doritos, could be violating federal laws that bar corporations from backing political campaigns, election law experts say. "How serious can you get about running as a joke?" said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finances. "The Federal Election Commission doesn't have a great sense of humor." (Read the article here.)

Yeah, I would say in general the government doesn't have a sense of humor. :-)

Global Warming - in response to my Al Gore posting

2007-10-17T14:30:00.001-04:00

Want to know how much you really know about global warming? Here is a test that was sent from a scientist I know. Also, as a bonus, it explains the causes behind global warming clearly.

In addition, here's an article on global warming by S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. This article will shed more light on the issue.

Yet another article. This one is from the Washington Times. Best quote from it:

"[Al Gore's] great accomplishment is to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the thousands of scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change while contradicting their scientific findings."

Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize (of course?)

2007-10-12T10:41:00.001-04:00

So, apparently Al Gore is now a Nobel Peace Prize winner (jointly). Even if you believe that his film was completely factual, I'm not sure how anyone can think that speaking out against global warming has anything to do with peace. Goes to show that standards are really falling. I, for one, would have been behind giving him the Nobel Peace Prize for something truly important he's done like inventing the internet.

Think you're poor? Look at the world

2007-08-14T16:02:00.000-04:00

Want to know how rich you really are? It'll probably surprise you.

check out this site.

Interesting developments on the war in Iraq

2007-08-03T11:29:00.001-04:00

About a month or two ago I read a book called Epicenter, authored by Joel Rosenberg. In this book, Mr. Rosenberg states that Iraq is going to stabilize and emerge within the next 10 years as a cultural and economic center. Not just of the Middle East, but of the world. For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Rosenberg, he usually writes fictional books. However, after many of his fictional plots happened after he had written the book world leaders, including our own government, started asking his advice on what is going to happen next in the Middle East (and Russia). His ideas in this book were stimulating, to say the least. Even if you think he's full of hogwash, you may find these recent headlines that suggest he may be correct interesting :

A War We Might Just Win (an article by analyists from a left-of-center thinktank that have been vocally opposed to President Bush's handling of the Iraq War)

The Dems Get Surprised On Iraq

What if we win?

You might not agree with Mr. Rosenberg's analysis of Iraq, but you should at least update yourself on what is happening right now over in Iraq. Because if his predictions come true, you will want to read his book to see how he came to his conclusions. You may even read it to see what will happen next and what it means. If he's right, don't you want to be the person who says, "see it's just as I told you?"

Another side of these developments is that you may also want to consider is how certain Democrats (not necessarily all) have been fighting the Iraq war and saying we can never win even when faced with evidence and expert testimony to the contrary. I realize that some of these politicians probably honestly think that the testimony and evidence they are seeing is false or hyped because of their personal beliefs (or possibly political investment leading to self-denial), but start watching how some are talking about the war as if they hope we'll lose - just so they will do better politically, or so their party can do better. (and how they are scared that it might be going well now)

Now I'm not saying Republican politicians would never do something like that on some other issue(or this issue), but pay close attention in this situation to which politicians honestly believe what they say - and will change their minds when faced with evidence (even before popular opinion has turned). Since they are in leadership, they will probably hear testimony before the common person. If the evidence they see first suggests the war is going well, they should change their opinions on it before the polls say they should, not after. Also, pay attention to any who may try to subvert the war, merely for political gain. Even if you don't believe Mr. Rosenberg, or don't trust these articles, know at least that now there's some question as to the outcome of this war and pay attention to what's going on and what's being said and by whom - because these events might just be very significant for the future, and if Mr. Rosenberg is right you will want to have paid attention now.

Only one point of view is unbiased

2007-07-30T11:52:00.000-04:00

Apparently, Moveon.org is trying to shut down Fox News because "MoveOn.org is campaigning against FOX because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman."

read the full story here.

Hello? What news network is not biased? Should CNN, NBC etc shut down because they say they are fair, yet are biased in a liberal direction? Mr. Green is apparently under the assumption that a conservative viewpoint trying to be fair is biased and a liberal one is unbiased (because it is true of course).

This is hypocrisy at its worst. Of course Fox News is biased (and CNN and NBC and CBS and the Washington Post and on and on). Do you know why? Because people are biased. If you ever find a person without a viewpoint, a person who is completely and perfectly fair, you have found a dead person. All living humans have biases. It is impossible not to have a bias. Some are better than others at trying to be fair, but we all have the lens of a worldview through which we analyze the data that comes into our world.

Perhaps Mr. Green is honest in that he is too un-selfanalytical enough to realize that he himself is biased and too self-absorbed to realize all the people around him are - or perhaps he has an agenda to get rid of one of the only news outlets that has a conservative viewpoint so that only those news outlets that plug his liberal bias into their reporting can inform the public (thereby becoming propaganda machines because there is no counterweight).

Mr. Green, you have two choices: Are you stupid or fascist?

Also, as a side note, does anyone else find it humorous and more than a little silly that an article on Fox News reports "Representatives for FOX News Channel did not immediately return calls for comment." ? I mean, I know it was the Associated Press that did the article, and not Fox News, but still. It jiggles my funny bone.

It's not that I like sarcasm, it's that some targets are so easy...

2007-07-30T10:12:00.000-04:00

No wait, I do like sarcasm.

Disclaimer: I love having discussion about differing cultures/worldviews/religions/beliefs, but this writer just makes herself an easy target. Plus, she has an obvious agenda she's trying to hide.

Today I clicked on a link with the snappy title 'Dating Someone Who Challenges Your Faith' to read a romantic advice article on msn. Never a good idea if you actually want advice, but usually good for a hoot or a soapbox.

For instance, I once read an article on whether a woman having sex on the first date would cause a man to not to commit to her. The guys were mainly saying "no, I'd still consider it." All the guys were still single at relatively old ages or divorced. Yeah, great advice from a bunch of men who can't commit or stay commited. Also, I don't think that their answers were self-interested at all. "Hey baby, you wanna have sex on our first date? SURE I'll still think about committing." *snicker* [Yeah maybe if by commit he means to a second date where he'd get some too.]

But getting back to today's delightful romance advice designed to prepare us for romantic bliss....After reading the following paragraph, I had a few questions:

"If you are going to try to talk about your differing viewpoints, try to put your feelings aside for a second and have the talk, says Kathryn Alice, a religious science practitioner at the Agape Spiritual Center in Culver City, CA. "Putting another first is a basic tenet of every major religion, and by setting aside your own agenda for your date's, you are engaging in a highly spiritual practice. A spirit of ecumenism is something that most faiths honor, and you can exhibit your ecumenical side in this way."

First, what the heck is a 'religious science practitioner' and where can I go to the school for making-up-fake-credentials-to-get-paid-and-quoted-on-msn.com? However, I should probably give Ms. Alice the benefit of the doubt and look into it on that old mainstay of scholastic studies: yahoo.com. Interestingly enough, what I discovered is that while the main website I found stressed that they are licensed (licensing means "professional expert" of course!) 'licensed' apparently means not by any entity one would normally trust to license an individual like say the state, or the federal government, or a professional association, but by the 'United Church of Religious Science.' Yup, just what I thought: made-up credentials, masquerading as licensing! (I wonder if you can sue for that?)

So, this brings a new question: how can a person who is proclaimed 'licensed' by an entity without any legal jurisdiction to license individuals, from a religion that most people have probably never even heard of, get to be an 'expert' on world religions and what they would consider appropriate? Did the msn freelance reporter actually think she was doing good research into the topic? I mean, I got suspicious as soon as they mentioned her source's title.

Then come the next questionable area of this article: apparently dating is a great way to "exhibit your ecumenical side"? Did this actually get into what is purporting to be a serious article?

First, the writer gives a story from her own personal life:

"I woke up one morning in college to find a priest at my dorm room door. He'd driven two-and-a-half hours to ask me to stop trying to lure away a member of his flock. I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say, my friend Dave (the sheep in question) and I had spent many evenings discussing his Catholicism. As I respectfully challenged his views, he began questioning his faith. No wonder his priest was worried."

However, you will remember from the earlier quote that one of her sources suggests "Putting another first is a basic tenet of every major religion, and by setting aside your own agenda for your date's"

This is an interesting angle when the very reason the freelance writer wrote this article was not because she was challenged to confront her own views, but she confronted her date's about HIS. And the actual name of her article? "Love and Losing Your Religion" I think it becomes clear that she's not really interested in individuals without religious views to put their dates first and be challenged in their own concepts; no, apparently it only goes the other way. And to show how correct she is to religious people who might be reading this article? She quotes a 'religious expert' who encases all this in terms of 'putting others first' and 'ecumenism.' Remember - if you are religious (any religion) - you are supposed to date people who have different (non-religious) beliefs and then let them challenge your faith - but it isn't supposed to go the other way. In the end this article is not about respecting others' beliefs, which is what it is trying to masquerage as, it's about what the title said - getting you to 'lose your religion.' And her handy tool? Dating and the influence of a person you are attracted to (apparently without using your brain to pre-determine whether this individual is compatible with you or would be a good person for you to date.)

We know what you are up to msn freelance writer, but please, at least be honest about it.

Maybe some of my business ideas would work...

2007-07-19T15:45:00.000-04:00

Bling H2O

Wedding Website

2007-04-27T13:34:00.000-04:00

wedding website password: love

History

2007-03-08T13:17:00.001-05:00

"The most accurate chart of the meaning of history is the set of tracks made by a drunken fly with feet wet with ink, staggering across a piece of white paper. They lead nowhere and reflect no pattern of meaning" - someone

NPR made me late for work

2007-02-16T09:29:00.000-05:00

So, apparently B flat is a note that has many interesting qualities.

Read about it here and listen to the song:-)

Also, apparently radiation is everywhere and we need to keep risks in perspective. We get radiation from the potassium in bananas, we get radiation from our own bodies, we get radiation from whoever we sleep in bed next to, and the stones that make up the Washington DC Capitol Building have radiation too.

I love NPR:-)

You asked for it!

2007-02-12T10:51:00.000-05:00

Well, for all of you who are disgusted by my sighing over Jeremiah - you asked for it! Or, at least, the people who commented did. This is representative democracy at work here: if you didn't vote, don't complain. ;-)

So last week was a crummy emotional week. I could say it was just me having a bad attitude, or I can blame it on the fact that I just went off the estrogen my doctor gave me a prescribed. (no worries - all my medical problems are cleared up now, that's why I went off it) I figure - estogen's a hormone, so not getting it anymore can really screw up my system...woo hoo! Pointing fingers is a part of the American Way

So, many things happened last week that pummeled me and I totally crumpled emotionally. Jeremiah's response? He brought me flowers at work on Thursday. (flowers!) :-) It was great because it made my week, which was already turning for the better, to cement into goodness. (Yes, I know my week being good doesn't have to do with what happens, but in how I confront it, but flowers sure help - as does feeling loved by a wonderful fiance who realizes flowers make me feel better!)

By Saturday I was back to normal. I had my bellydancing class in the morning, which always gets those endorphins running and a nap and prettied myself up for the Valentine's Extravaganza. The Valentine's Extravaganza is a fundraiser put on by the senior class of the school that my church runs so they can go on a missions trip before they graduate. So, many people from my church go to support it and many of the teens I interact with at youth group attend.

Jeremiah's cousin is a senior this year, so I wanted to make sure we supported her. After the dinner (during which Jeremiah bought me a rose) :-) we went into the sanctuary for the program they put on. It was, as always, a hodge-podge of skits and musical entertainment. They had a jazz band playing music that performed 2 songs before the program got underway. During those songs they welcomed anyone to dance, but no one did. As they closed out the program, the lead saxophone player pleaded with the audience to dance. All of a sudden Jeremiah nudged me and led me to the front of the sanctuary, where there was room for dancing. Oh yes, did I say no one else was dancing? Not only was no one else dancing, but no one else STARTED dancing after the first couple (us) led the floor (which is what usually happens) So there are Jeremiah and I - slow dancing in front of my church, my youth group, the senior pastor and his wife for all of 'Misty'...it was great:-D hee hee. And Jeremiah didn't care we were the only couple. He did it because he thought I would find it romantic - which I did. It just happened to be amusing too, because we ended up being the only couple dancing. But how many people get to boast that they've slow-danced in a church? Not many I bet:-)

Even more amusing was when he was talking to a friend of his the next day before church who he hasn't seen because the guy has been doing missions for the past 6 months and my pastor's wife went up to him and told him how romantic it was...he didn't care about being the only couple dancing in front of a couple hundred people, but someone making a deal about it afterwords in front of even one person - that embarrassed him.

Bold, extravagant love is part of Jeremiah's personality. He never does it the way I might expect, but catches me off-guard. Like dancing to the live piano music in a crowded downtown Chicago mall just before Christmas, or in front my church...it's great. I feel very lucky.

Because What Jen Says Goes ;-)

2007-01-29T09:48:00.000-05:00

I had a request to discuss my wedding plans here on the blog from *ahem* Jen and I hadn't so far because I didn't want to inflict people:-)

I am getting married at a small park in the Lansing area and the reception is at an old Opera House (that when I look at it's history, I'm not sure if it was ever an ACTUAL opera house, but they call it that now...):-)

I don't have any colors:-) I'm not big on picking stuff like that; I like ALL colors! So, my bridesmaids are in mint, pink, and periwinkle and once I ask my flower girls I'm hoping they'll be in blue and yellow. All flower colors to go with the garden/park I'm getting married in. We're planting wildflowers for the bouquets and have already planted lily bulbs. Lilies are my favorite flowers!

I'm not sure how I'm decorating the reception hall yet - I'm thinking something that will symbolize that I'm an island girl at heart:-) Everything will probably be eclectic - like me.

My wedding dress is GORGEOUS. It was given to me by Jeremiah's cousin's wife, which is a real blessing. I have to lose a few pounds, but the other dress - given to me by Alivia - was quite small and after trying to lose significant weight just was not working and I was given this other dress I decided on it. Although my roomate teases me that I'm going to wake up and decide that day which dress I'd like to wear :-) hee hee.

My bachelorette party will be the Tuesday before the wedding and is being planned by Ariana (maid of honor) and Sally. My other bridesmaid is Rachel, Jeremiah's sister.

Now, if anyone wants to hear me sighing over Jeremiah, let me know. I've tried to make sure not to inflict that upon you either;-)

Let me know what details y'all are interested in:-)

The Church Universal

2007-01-11T09:51:00.000-05:00

I am putting in the entire section at the end for reference, background, further depth, but I want to take out a certain part of it and talk

"The Greek word for ‘church’ is *ekklesia*, which means ‘an assembly’. In those days it was used in a variety of contexts, religious and secular. As Chrysostom wrote, ‘there were many assemblies, both Jewish and Grecian’. What, then, was distinctive about the *ekklesia* to which Paul is writing? It is this. It is ‘in’ the Father and the Son." - John Stott

This made me consider in my mind about our language and its limits and its sometimes deceptive capacity. A "church" is an ASSEMBLY. Now, since we've called the location that Christians meet a "church", that even when we talk about "the church of God" or the "holy, catholic, and apostolic church" or what-not that we think in terms of a finite group of people and usually a finite group of people who worship with us at the place and time that we worship. Whereas, an 'assembly' anyone can just come up and join and are then a part of it. And you can't have people from outside the 'church' visit, because all who enter are part of the assembly.

Now, as Christians (or Followers of the Way) we are the assembly that is 'in' the Father and the Son. All those who follow Christ are part of this assembly. There are no divisions, no denominations. We are the assembly that is " ‘living in’, ‘rooted in’ or ‘drawing its life from’" Jesus Christ and God the Father. The Church Universal makes so much more sense this way - the Church through the world, the church in all times - present, past, and future. We are the assembly of people living in, rooted in, and drawing our life from God. When we talk about the church in a specific location "the church at Corinth" or "the church in Hillsdale" we are saying "the assembled followers of Jesus who reside at that location" This way of looking at the "church", the assembly is more unifying. You can't exclude anyone who would follow Jesus from your church. They are automatically a part of the assembled Body of Christ in that location. "This is my church and that is your church" make no sense other than that those were the people who happen to be assembled at a certain place and time. The words "our church family" starts to lose a little of its sense. How can we have "our church"? The assembly in Christ in a city is every Christian in that city. Maybe because of logistics we meet separately, but our "church family"? That would be everyone in Christ! We are all assembled together in Christ. The church at a certain location is all Christians there, not merely all Christians who usually gather at that certain time, in that certain location, pay for the building at that location, and sign something saying that they agree with everyone else who meets in that building's views of God.

"Going to church" becomes more than going to a certain place at a certain time. Church becomes any time Christians are assembled. Perhaps that's why scriptures say "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 18:20) A gathering, an assembly, Christians have merely to meet in His name and it's church. There may be a difference between "church" and a more specific "assembly gathered to worship God" we have rules for orderly worship in 1 Cor (14 I think). But all you need for worship is whoever happens to be there at the time. I think we should start to think of "our church" as the Church Universal and we are merely the few (or many) gathered in one place at one time, but welcoming all who come and considering all who come who are in Christ and the Father as a part of our assembly meeting to worship God. Anyone who comes is a part of the assembly as long as they are "in Christ"! "Who is in your church"? loses its meaning. I think I can joyfully say "All who are in Christ are a part of our church! Some of them just don't come to the gathering a such a place and such a time!"

THE MESSAGE OF 1 THESSALONIANS.>>A Commentary by John Stott.>>1 Thessalonians: 1:1b. a). The church is a community which lives in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.>> We notice in passing the unselfconscious way in which Paul brackets ‘God the Father’ and ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’, as being together the source of the church’s life. Later (in verse 10) he will call Jesus the ‘Son’ of God. Already within twenty years of the death and resurrection of Jesus the coupling of the Father and the Son as equal is the universal faith of the church. This simple fact is enough to undermine the teaching of those who claim that the New Testament nowhere attributes deity to Jesus.> The Greek word for ‘church’ is *ekklesia*, which means ‘an assembly’. In those days it was used in a variety of contexts, religious and secular. As Chrysostom wrote, ‘there were many assemblies, both Jewish and Grecian’. What, then, was distinctive about the *ekklesia* to which Paul is writing? It is this. It is ‘in’ the Father and the Son. What kind of relationship has he in mind by the preposition ‘in’? It is certainly not spatial, as if the church were somehow ‘inside’ God. Nor does it seem to mean that the church is ‘founded on’ God (JBP) or that its members ‘belong to’ God (REB) or simply that they ‘have God as Father and Jesus Christ as Lord’, true as all these statements are. Nor does it seem natural to take ‘in’ as instrumental and translate the phrase ‘brought into being by’ God.> If the phrase had been only ‘in the Lord Jesus Christ’, without reference to the Father, commentators would probably agree about its meaning because to be ‘in Christ’ is a familiar and favourite expression of Paul’s, and because in 2:14 the churches of Judea are described as being ‘in Christ Jesus’. Two New Testament metaphors explain this usage, the first developed by Jesus and the second by Paul. Jesus spoke of his disciples being ‘in’ him as branches are ‘in’ the vine (Jn. 15), while Paul sees us as being ‘in Christ’ as limbs are ‘in’ the body. (1 Cor.12). In both cases the relationship in mind is a vital, organic union which makes possible the sharing of a common life. The fact that Paul here adds ‘in God the Father’ seems no reason why the ‘in relationship should mean something different. Elsewhere Paul describes our new life as ‘hidden with Christ in God’ (Col.3:3); is this not almost the same as saying that the church is *in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ*? Perhaps, then, we should paraphrase the preposition ‘in’ as meaning ‘living in’, ‘rooted in’ or ‘drawing its life from’> In later letters Paul’s description of the church would be the other way round, namely ‘the church of God in Corinth’ (1 Cor.1:2; 2 Cor.1:1). He might therefore have written to ‘the church of God in Thessalonica’, since he referred to ‘God’s churches’ in Judea (1 Thess.2:14) and in other places (2 Thess.1:4). Instead, he wrote to *the church of the Thessalonians in God*(see 2 Thess.1:1 too). Both accounts of the church are true. For God’s church was living in Thessalonica, and the Thessalonians’ church was living in God. To be sure, the preposition ‘in’ has a different nuance in these statements, since the church is ‘in’ God as the source from which its life comes, whereas it is ‘in’ the world only as the sphere in which it lives. Nevertheless, it is still correct to say that every church has two homes, two environments, two habitats. It lives in God and it lives in the world (C.f. ‘in Christ at Philippi’, Phil.1:1, and ‘in Christ at Colosse’, Col.1:2).> Why then did Paul choose to describe the Thessalonian church in the way he did? Since he does not tell us, we can only guess. But it is at least plausible to suggest that, because he knew the insecurity felt by a young and persecuted church, he wanted to remind them that in the midst of their trials their security was in God. It is from him, from the Father and the Son (‘through the Spirit’, we might wish to add), that every church derives its life, strength and stability.> To this church Paul now sends his greeting *Grace and peace*. It seems to be a combination of the Jewish greeting *shalom* (‘Peace’) and the Greek greeting *chairein* (‘Rejoice!’ or ‘Hail!’) (*Chairein* is used as the greeting at the beginning of two letters in the Acts (15:23; 23:26) and of the Letter of James 1:1), now Christianized as *charis*, ‘grace’. It is as if Paul is saying ‘We send you the new greeting with the old’. Still today we can desire for the church no greater blessings than grace and peace. God’s ‘peace’ is not just the absence of conflict, but the fullness of health and harmony through reconciliation with him and with each other. ‘The entire gospel is involved in this word’, writes Ernest Best. And God’s ‘grace’ is his free, undeserved favour through Christ which confers this peace and sustains it.>------------------------------------------------------------------>>Tomorrow: Thessalonians 1:1:3). b). The church is a community which is distinguished by faith, hope and love.>>>

excerpts from John Stott's commentary on the book of Romans

2007-01-03T14:38:00.000-05:00

Excerpts from John Stott's commentary on the book Romans:

It was well said by Thomas Erskine of Linlathen that "in the New Testament religion is grace, and ethics is gratitude". It is not by accident that in Greek one and the same noun (*charis*) does duty for both "grace" and "gratitude".' God's grace far from encouraging and condoning sin, is the spring and foundation of righteous conduct.

The traditional evangelical invitation is that we give our 'hearts' to God, not our 'bodies'... But Paul is clear that the presentation of our *bodies* is our spiritual* act of worship....He represents us as a priestly people, who, in responsive gratitude for God's mercy, *offer* or present our bodies as living sacrifices.

Darfur

2006-12-13T11:06:00.000-05:00

I don't know much about African politics. I learn what I know off of reading a few newspapers (mainly Michigan ones to get Michigan politics with a few tidbits from the world scene thrown in) and NPR. Interestingly enough, the very fact I've heard little to nothing about Darfur on NPR supports this article. Read this article about what's going on in the Sudan and how the world is so uncaring and hypocritical.

Blog Update - at Jen's request!:-)

2006-12-12T10:58:00.000-05:00

Well, my big project is done! I am so relieved and excited. It went off really well. I was super stressed about it last night. Stressed about social situations translates into me actually dressing up and putting on make-up. This caused me to rush to JCPenney's and do a whirlwind shopping trip (because I had no time!) last night. God was really blessing me because I found a pair of slacks that I really like, but no jacket to go with them. I freaked out a little, but decided I'd just wear my old brown suit I've been wearing since the Michigan Prayer Breakfast (see the trend...?) BUT it perfectly matched the black coat I had at home that I had had trouble before finding slacks to match (and then the closest ones split....At least they split BEFORE I got to work and not WHILE I was there!) It's a silly little thing, but God cares about small things too right?

It was a pretty exciting morning. I shook the Governor and her husband's hands and the hand of Ambassador Tony Hall. Pretty exciting stuff. We got lots of Senators and Representatives there and everyone seemed to enjoy the event a lot. I really glad, because when things go smoothly my boss looks good and that makes me happy He's a great person and deserves all the honor he gets as far as I'm concerned. Everything went so smoothly. It was a lot of hard work, but it really did pay off. I had to do a little uncomfortable small talk with the Ambassador and a friend of his afterwards, but that's fine. I just always want to talk about deeper stuff, but I'm not sure how to get past the uncomfortable small talk to get to it, especially with people who are so successful. Ah well, I'll have lots of stories for when I have children ("Guess who Mommy got to meet?") and for annoying namedropping among my peers.

Political Update

2006-11-08T13:54:00.000-05:00

WARNING: I know several of my readers disagree with me politically and probably as far as my personal views on God. I hope I don't offend anyone, but these are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

The US Senate is still up in the air. It looks like the GOP retained control of the Michigan state Senate, but there will probably be recounts. In South Dakota, voters knocked down their abortion ban.

Most alarming in Michigan is the reason why Dems gained control of our state house. It is probably because of the funding of pro-stem cell research Jon Stryker, a billionaire looking to buy the Legislature. (Detroit News words, not my own) No one knows what the rest of his agenda is, because few people know him, yet he's donated millions...? Read the article it's good and has some well thought out predictions we should keep in mind now that Governor Granholm has been re-elected and Democrats now have the majority in the state house.

It will be interesting to see where our state and country go in the next 2-4 years. It is possible that after President Bush is gone and people forget their hatred of him that the playing field evens out again. (I think that was the reason why we saw so many Democrat victories on the state and national level) People wanted change and they'll want it again I don't think the Democrats will stay so powerfully in control for very long unless they start even more putting forth values-based Democrat candidates. In which case, that is fine. I mean, it'll really hurt our economy, but what's important will be retained. (pro-life values) If you my readers don't know that I'm very pro-life by now, here's your big tip-off.

Of course, what could happen is that more and more Christians look different from the rest of America. In which case, we need to focus more than ever upon looking for God's approval and not man's. I don't think it's outside the realm of reason that Christians will be attacked more than ever soon. However, what an opportunity to show love to people. If we can successfully love our attackers and enemies (like the Amish have so recently exemplified) I think people will be attracted to God and we may very well see the spiritual revival we've wanted. However, I think if we look towards retaliation and rely upon politics to "get our way", I think we may be sunk. I think it's important that we think now about what it means to live a "quiet and tranquil life" (1 Titus 2:1&2) and also focus on first loving others and praying that God will turn hearts towards Him, rather than primarily trying to get our own way legislatively without changing hearts. My focus these next years will not be to "regain political control" I do not think. My focus will be God and then the other individual lives mine touches. I wish to radically change the world, but not through politics. I wish to change it because I do what God wants me to do - love others, be righteous, deny myself and through that God touches people's hearts and HE changes them. If that means political change for the better - great. If it means that the individual lives mine touches are changed for the better, but politically nothing changes - fine. God is still on His throne and He has not fallen with the political change. So, yeah, my working in politics has me concerned about how my job will be changing and sad for my boss that he's no longer a part of the majority and so may no longer be in a position to do some of the good things he would otherwise, but personally? My hope is in God and He is ALWAYS good.

Anyway, those are my thoughts heading out of the 2006 general mid-term elections.

My Celebrity Lookalikes Take 2

2006-10-26T14:30:00.000-04:00

I like this one better. No men!:-)

My Celebrity Look-alikes

2006-10-26T11:23:00.000-04:00

I'm kind of insulted that #2 is a man.

"peer" pressure

2006-09-28T14:31:00.000-04:00

I recently wrote about peer pressure on a message board for the youth group I help out with. I know I didn't elaborate on some things I could have, but it was sort of off-the-cuff. Here it is if you are interested:

I think "peer" pressure is hard, not when people are trying to convince you to do something, that's the easiest "peer" pressure to not give in to, but when it is an in-grained lifestyle to everyone else around, so in-grained that they have no glimmer that anyone could consider it wrong and so they just expect you to do whatever it is. Usually, it's not even that they'll make fun of you, it's that they'll think about you and look at you in the same way they would someone who said they live in an upside-down house - you're just sort of...strange. And then you're never quite one of them and you know it and they don't really KNOW it, they just never invite you to the things they do everyone else or hang out with you etc. And usually it's not one thing like "I don't get drunk" or "I don't have pre-marital sex" it's that all those things that you are just make you a completely different person. "peer" pressure is hard when you're young, but the pressure itself doesn't change when you get older, although you begin to understand more what kind of person you are. I think it gets harder. As hard as it sounds, you CAN walk away from the friends who are pressuring you - at least put some distance in there if they are influencing you to do things you feel you shouldn't - but what happens when you have goen through college, gotten a great career, know you're lucky to have the job you do, and you get "peer" pressure there? And it's worse when it's from a boss who can decide whether or not you or someone else gets a promotion or raise. Do you think it will be the person they feel distant from or the person who they go out and get drunk with and are good buddies with? Or maybe to be "one of the team" it's not even that you have to do something against your morals, you just don't put first what you should. Maybe you have to go to play on the company team instead of spending time with your family that you should for example.

Also, how many of you have ever felt frustrated with someone (probably it will be your mother) who always has to make sure that appearances are good (the house is super clean, you never fight in public etc) You will start (or continue) to feel pressure to at least LOOK perfect from the outside. And this tends to get worse at church. Not only do you have to look perfect - you've got to look "spiritual" too. I think sometimes adults try to believe that "peer" pressure is only something teenagers go through or it's only when a group of people are trying to convince you to get drunk or high or have sex outside of wedlock. This is not true, and I think we're trying to convince ourselves so hard about this so that we can conform without feeling guilty. Making sure appearances are always good are another part of "peer" pressure. And I conform to this every Monday night before women come over to my house when I clean like a mad woman so people won't know that usually my socks are thrown in the corner and my dishes are dirty. Thsi can be simply not wanting your guests to feel uncomfortable amongst your mess, but I think we have all seen when this has been an unholy passion to make others think better about you because you "have it together."

Your entire life people are going to try to convince you to conform - in ways that are sinful and in ways that don't seem to be sinful at all but just aren't - you. Sometimes you will feel you have to do this or that so people don't think you're...strange. Sometimes you'll automatically do things without thinking because everyone around you is and you don't want to get that "so-you're-living-in-an-upside-down-house" look. But "peer" pressure is maybe so powerful because it's based on something....GOOD. God meant to place people together in communities. These communities were meant to be supportive. This means, you're supported and encouraged to live as God would want you to. Community was meant to be...powerful. After all, the church all together, the community of believers is the BRIDE OF CHRIST. When people did things contrary to what believers should do and continued to do them despite warnings and the community trying to exert "positive" peer pressure they were supposed to be let loose from the community of believers (1 Cor 5) If that's not peer pressure, let me know what is! However, while we as Christians are supposed to have a powerful counter-culture, one that would help keep us from the pressures of the world (as we support and encourage one another to live as Christ wants us to), instead we are still caught in the fear of man. That's all "peer" pressure is - the fear of man. In one form or another. Whether it's your friends, co-workers, teachers, or even people who are supposed to be or should be positive in your life like your boss or your pastor, if you are doing anything out of a fear of man, you are sinning. We as Christians are supposed to fear God only (opening up a bag of worms I know - this "fear of God" can be much debated itself). We are not even supposed to fear death. Often what happens with this fear of man is that we feel we have to hide what we really are, who we really are and be like everyone else. My mentor once told me "As we grow closer to God we do not become more similar to each other, we become more different from each other." This is because in the world we conform - in God we become the unique people He wanted us to be. We have freedom! Unfortunately often even in the church people are chastised, whether verbally or not, for being "different."

I guess I would encourage you today to look beyond "peer" pressure. Don't think only about how people are trying to convince you to do sinful things, think also about ways in which you are conforming your personality or any other facet of yourself (even your spiritual gifts) to what other people expect of you. This does not mean going out and being the caustic and sarcastic person you knwo you are because being nice just isn't "you", but this does mean careful analysis of who you are and in what ways you may be conforming out of fear that others will look at you like you live in an upside-down house.

oh yeah - and go eat eggplant because everyone else is doing it. You know you want to.

a picture of us

2006-09-21T09:28:00.000-04:00

Meredith Update

2006-09-14T16:40:00.000-04:00

PRAISE GOD!!!!!!!!!!

For all those who've been praying for Meredith, the test results from her scan yesterday came back with good news! There is only a tiny spot on her spine and another tiny spot left on her lower back. The huge tumor that was in her hip is completely gone! PTL! Dr. Milder wants her to continue out her chemotherapy treatments (so she has 3 more after today) and then the radiation treatment. Remember we had heard only 25%-50% chance of recovery and now it looks pretty certain.

God is so good!

In response to Tealizzy and Mr. Gugg on Spiritual Dependence REMIX

2006-09-13T13:29:00.000-04:00

I think the crux of the matter is that I believe respect, guidance, and even obedience are all very different from spiritual dependence.

Mr. Gugg says, “It is interesting to me to note that, as my wife pointed out, Christ does not, throughout this entire diatribe against the Pharisees, attack their authority to teach, but rather their abuse of that authority. The problem is not the existence of spiritual authority within the Church, but rather the usurpation of that authority for self-aggrandizement rather than service.”

I agree with this. The problem as I see it is that very frequently this usurpation of authority DOES happen and that most Christians go along with it and become spiritually dependent upon a person in instances where they should be spiritually dependent upon Christ instead. What is even worse is that often these very people usurping authority think that they ARE serving God and do not even realize that they are doing many a disservice in taking more spiritual authority than God gave them and in making the very people they think they are serving so spiritually dependent upon them that they are stunting their spiritual growth. Another outcome of this is that they begin (or started out) viewing themselves as higher than they ought. Christ remarks:

“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-25)

I think something very natural has happened in the church, which is, that we think about leadership the same way the world does. Unfortunately, what is natural is not good and the philosophy of the world in this case is absolutely devastating.I also somehow doubt that John Stott does not agree with respecting people, going to them for guidance, or maybe even obeying church leaders (although that one is more controversial, so I am not certain.) For one, nothing he has written that I have ever read would suggest that and two, he is Anglican, so I think he probably pretty firmly believes in church leadership.

I do think you (Tealizzy) are very lucky to have rarely seen Christians spiritually dependent on their pastors, priests, or other church leaders. I have noticed too much how many people unhealthily depend on their pastors and other church leaders to the extent that Christ as their head is replaced by their pastor as their head. This goes varies from extreme to being very subtle, but both are sick. I do not think I am imagining either, because I have held several conversations with others who have noticed this as well.I do know Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father (I don’t remember to which church), but I believe that statement cannot be interpreted apart from Christ himself saying (just a few verses after saying to obey those who sit in the seat of Moses) [paraphrased] "Call no one Rabbi [except Christ] and call no one Father except God." (Matt 23:7-10). I do not remember the specifics of why Paul was calling a church his spiritual children, but I cannot think that it was their spiritual dependency upon him, because it seems pretty clear that Christ alone is our rabbi (teacher) and God the father alone is our father (our head that we are spiritually dependent upon). God gives some to be shepherds (or pastors) of the body, and elders (leaders who make decisions for the body), but I don’t think anyone is supposed to be our head but Christ, or our spiritual father, except God the father. I think it is more likely that Paul was discussing a sort of spiritual “generational transfer” of the gospel. He believed and passed it onto them and they believed, acting as their father in that he was the messenger through which the gospel came, and also because he was then their shepherd, gently (or not so much, knowing Paul):-) showing them the path to being true “followers of the Way.” However, since I cannot find that darn passage, I cannot remark on it overmuch. Only that I am not going to take it to mean something that I see as contradicting what Jesus himself has said.

Again, I would also say that obedience and dependence are two entirely separate things. Paul and Peter both say to be obedient to our government and to the specific people who hold power in our government, but I very much doubt either would say to be dependent (spiritually or otherwise) upon our government. Also, I very much doubt either of us are currently obedient to those who "sit in the seat of Moses", as we do not obey Pharisees and scribes today. I think you might be hard-pressed to tie the seat of Moses to any contemporary church leader. And even then, later in that same passage he says not to call them “rabbi” or “father”, illustrating that obedience to one in authority is quite different from giving him the respect or authority due God alone.

In addition to the scripture in Hebrews mentioned by Mr. Gugg, I think either Paul or Peter did write a passage that is about obeying those in authority over you that can be interpreted to mean church as well as government leaders, but I do not think that means that any church leader today sits in the seat of Moses. If you know of another verse that discusses this though, let me know. This does not mean I necessarily believe that we should all be disobedient to our church leaders; I think, depending on the circumstance, that that action would be the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. God put those people over us for a reason after all. (The circumstances I can think of if it went against my conscience. Of course, my question is this, “Who IS in spiritual authority over me?” rather than “Should I obey those in spiritual authority over me?”)

The verse in Hebrews does talk about obedience and even submission, but all Christians are called to submit to one another (1 Peter 5:5) anyway. I do agree we are supposed to obey those in authority, but again I think this is very different from spiritual dependence.

I believe as well as Mr. Gugg that leadership is a position of sacrifice and that only when leadership goes wrong is it bad, but I think it frequently does.

Um, I think I answered the questions, but let me know if I did not.

More pictures of my favorite man

2006-09-12T16:55:00.000-04:00

Pictures of my fiance

2006-09-12T16:05:00.000-04:00

People have been requesting pictures of Jeremiah. These are all from last summer when Sally was around with her digital camera and Jeremiah was still trying to woo me (although I didn't know) so he didn't flip her off (mostly) when she tried to take pictures of him:-)

Manliness and Jane Austen

2006-09-08T09:13:00.000-04:00

This is my friend Somerville's amusing soliliquay on how manly men like Jane Austen and still retain use of the remote control during football season. Go Somerville! JA is manly if you look through at it with certain eyes.

False Independence by John R.W. Stott

2006-09-06T09:00:00.000-04:00

The Pharisees loved to be given deferential titles. It flattered them. It gave them a sense of superiority over other people. In contrast to them, Jesus said that there were three titles his disciples were not to assume or be given, 'Rabbi' (that is, teacher), 'father' and 'master'. What did Jesus mean by it?

Well, the father exercises authority over his children by reason of the fact that they depend on him. I suggest that what Jesus is saying is that we are never to adopt towards a fellow man in the church the attitude of dependence which a child has towards his father, nor are we to require others to be or become spiritually dependent upon us. [bold added] That this is what Jesus intended is confirmed by the reason he gives, namely 'for you have one Father, who is in heaven'. - John R.W. Stott

I would add to that since Christ is the head of the church, we should not have any other head over us. We are the body, and there is supposed to be leadership in the elders, but there should be no "spiritual dependance" upon another man.

Want to see who links to my blog? Or your blog?

2006-08-28T16:55:00.000-04:00

click here.

Pluto

2006-08-25T10:29:00.000-04:00

Pluto just lost its planet status. According to NPR, astrologists are still using it for their charting. Hmm. I wonder if they'll use Ceres (called a planet in the 1800s) and Xena too? They were both considered possible planets, on the scale with Pluto, and now are not. Maybe astrology really IS a bunk science! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

House Church Theologian

2006-07-12T15:44:00.000-04:00

My friend Ross, who is a part of the house church I attend has started posting on his blog House Church Theologian. Go read it and comment! I'm very excited that he is finally putting all his thoughts into writing! Plus, you all can see what sorts my friends are:-)

loneliness

2006-06-28T09:11:00.000-04:00

This article is about loneliness in today's culture and how the church sometimes exacerbates it.

In the world, but not of the world

2006-06-22T12:23:00.000-04:00

What does this mean to us as Christians? To many it just means to not "smoke, chew, or hang with those who do." I think this is contrary to what Jesus taught. The following question was posed to me as a part of a curriculum we are doing at youth group. I know that what I was saying about it was misunderstood then, but I'll do my best to be clear now. If people have questions or comments, please tell me or I can't address them!

The question was: "How can a Christian realistically have balance between hating worldly things and loving the people of the world?" I believe this question in inherently deceitful. It makes Christians think that somewhere there has to be some perfect balance where you have some percentage of "loving people in the world" and some percentage of "hating worldly things." This is a very dangerous concept. We then go onto loving people 50% and hating worldly things 50% (or whatever mix we feel most comfortable at) instead of doing as we should, and as Jesus taught, which is to love people 100% and hate worldly things 100%. Our love of people in the world will cause us to hate worldly things. Why? Because the things of this world, the enemy's values, are poison to people in the world and to ourselves.

If we truly love people, we will then hate what is killing them, poisoning them. If you love a drug-addict, you will hate with unquenchable loathing the drug they are addicted to that is poisoning them. This does not cause you to love them less, but more, because you are not loving what is hurting them. The more we truly love people, the more we will hate what is the enemy’s values, because it is killing those people we love and sometimes poisons us as well.

This is not to say that we should put ourselves into situations where we are pretty sure to be tempted and sin. Instead, we are to "flee temptation". And, in all actuality, we cannot love others if we do not first love ourselves, the way we ought. When Jesus tells us to "love our neighbors as we do ourselves" he is assuming that we do love ourselves. Not a self-righteous love, or a love that puts ourselves above God and/or others, but a realization that we are His creation and if He did die for us, we must then have worth to our Creator. And worth from our Creator is what counts. If we loath ourselves, we are going to hate others. As Brennan Manning said in The Relentless Tenderness of Jesus “Before I am asked to show compassion towards my brothers and my sisters in their suffering, He asks me to accept His compassion in my own life, to be transformed by it, to become caring and compassionate toward myself in my own suffering and sinfulness, in my own hurt, failure and need. The degree of our compassion for others depends upon our capacity for self-acceptance. When I am most unhappy with myself, I am most critical of others. When I am most into self-condemnation, I am most judgmental of others.”This does not mean that we think of ourselves more highly than we ought, or more highly than we do of others, or more highly than we do of God. It means that when God accepts us and gives us grace for the repenting we have done for our sins, we forgive ourselves and accept ourselves. Now, we don’t accept our sin, but we don’t feel unwavering, constant shame for it. We must accept that God has forgiven us; we have to show compassion towards ourselves, or we will never be able to show it towards another person.

Now going onto the false opposites that if “I love the people in the world I must needs put myself in tempting situations that they are participating in.” It is not a love of ourselves that puts us into a place where we can be poisoned by sin, and it is not loving to the friend that we are in that situation for. Our poisoning does not help that friend, or cause us to love them more. However, I think this is where a false view of love has come in. To love a person, we do not have to participate in all that they ask us to do, including those sinful actions. That is not love. Does God participate in our sin with us when we sin? No, but we know that He loves us with love relentless and tender and unconditional. Although we are not supposed to let ourselves into situation where we are tempted to sin, this doesn’t mean we can only hang out with sinners when they are holding to the same squeaky-clean values we do. We see that Jesus went to parties of sinners, where I’m pretty sure what they were drinking wasn’t just grape juice and that their actions weren’t all praise songs and playing board games. It was the Pharisees who wouldn’t go hang out with sinners, not Jesus.

We don’t have to change our sinning friend into a non-sinning friend, before he or she ever has a relationship with Jesus! Sinners sin. If they do not have a relationship with Jesus, we have no call to judge them for the sin that they do. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul says:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I {did} not at all {mean} with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within {the church?}

We should not put ourselves into a situation where we are tempted to sin, but we should be loving our non-believing friends, not judging them!

John Stott says in Authentic Christianity when he talks about a paradox of Christian living: “It is one of the great paradoxes of Christian living that the whole church is called (and every member of it) as much to involvement in the world as to separation from it, as much to 'worldliness' as to 'holiness'. Not to a worldliness which is unholy, nor to a holiness which is unworldly, but to holy worldliness', a true separation to God which is lived out in the world -- the world which he made and sent his Son to redeem.”

So what about that sin that lives in us and makes us selfish? Paul speaks directly to this struggle in Romans 7 in what my youth pastor calls the “do-a-ditty” passage:

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I {would} like to {do,} but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want {to do,} I agree with the Law, {confessing} that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good {is} not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

God sanctifies us to make us look more nearly like His son, and the power of sin over us is broken. Does this mean we no longer sin? No, but it doesn’t mean we’re consigned to always being selfish. God DOES change us. He gives us the power to not sin. We’ll still do it, but we don’t HAVE to.

Now I’ll bring up another reason why the question "How can a Christian realistically have balance between hating worldly things and loving the people of the world?" bothers me. I think it makes people start thinking legalistically. I think that Christians start thinking that when it comes down to balancing “hating worldly things” and “loving the people of the world” it is a bunch of rules we have to follow, not a relationship with Christ that brings with it obedience and righteousness because we love Him. Again Brennan Manning says, “Though the Scriptures speak insistently of the divine initiative in the work of salvation, that by grace we are saved, that the Tremendous Lover has taken to the chase, American spirituality still seems to start with self, not with God. Personal responsibility replaces personal response. We seem engrossed in our own efforts to grow in holiness. We talk about acquiring virtue as if it were some kind of skill that can be acquired through personal effort, like good handwriting or a well-grooved golf swing. In seasons of penance, we focus on getting rid of our hang-ups and sweating through various spiritual experiences, as if they were a religious muscle-building program designed to produce that Christian Charles Atlas. The emphasis is always on what I do rather than on what God is doing in my life. In this macho approach God is reduced to a benign old spectator on the sidelines. The American mystique orients us to attribute any growth in the spiritual life to our own sturdy efforts and vigorous resolutions. We become convinced that we can do a pretty good job of following Jesus if we just, once and for all, make up our minds and really buckle down and do it.”

This is my concern: I think we’re so concerned about people being of the world that we are telling Christians to not get drunk, not have pre-marital sex, to help out a little more, to do this and not do that, that we’re doing everything except saying plunge into the tender heart of Jesus! Don’t walk, run! He loves you more than you will ever know; He loves the entire world more than you will ever know! We’re fostering do “follow these rules if you love Jesus”, not “have a relationship with Jesus if you love Jesus.” If they have that relationship, they WILL be righteous, they will do all the right do’s and don’t all the right don’ts. Now, we do need to discuss exactly what God wants us to do to be obedient to Him, but I feel like we’re saying it so much, and in ways that obscure the person of Jesus Christ. We need to see how we can help people to see Jesus, not just help them follow a bunch of rules that make them squeaky-clean.

Now, we need to be in the world but not of the world, but what is the world? It is the enemy’s values. But what do we mean when we say that? Well, I don’t just mean, not getting drunk etc (as previously discussed), I think there are 2 “worlds”, 2 places where the enemy’s values are rampant. The world that we Christians point to as sinful and the legalistic world which we think of as righteous, when in reality it is based on works and not our relationship with Jesus. The scary part is, we can be accepted by the world (the enemy’s values) when we’re mocked by those we self-righteously consider sinners (and so we think we’re not being of the world) because we’re being accepted by and loving the world that is the legalistic world. But this world, although it looks good, is still not God’s heart towards the world He created. This legalistic world is the worst one of all and it is the one I see hurting many Christians who have decided to turn their backs on it.

It hurts the worst when you decide to follow God and other Christians mock you for the love you now feel toward your fellow man. Legalists get pretty mad at Christians who have lost their self-hatred because they love God so much that they see everyone through His eyes, including themselves. This radical love that causes you to forgive others for sin and yourself as well is at odds with how legalists view the world. We need radical, Godly love. We need to love people 100%, love God 100%, and hate worldly things 100%. This isn’t 300%,(and so in reality each one gets 33.3%) it is all the same thing in the end. For loving God and loving people in the world IS hating the world and vice versa. Let’s pursue radical love.

When Federal and State Laws Collide

2006-06-20T14:01:00.000-04:00

This article outlines how it could be potentially tragic now that the US Supreme Court said that judges can't throw evidence out of court in the instance of a police officer with a warrant not announcing himself and knocking ont he door before entering. Now, police officers have no incentive to announce themselves and knock for fear their case may be thrown out of court by a judge.

Also, the Michigan House and Senate have just passed a package of bills that would essentially make it so people could defend themselves first and ask questions later (strengthening private property and self-defense rights). Here is their analysis.

The reporter thinks this could be potentially tragic. i.e. police officer hopes to get "perp" and busts into house without announcing himself in the hopes of catching the, in his mind, guilty person (remember no court case yet, so under law this person is SUPPOSED to be considered innocent) before he has time to get rid of evidence, accidentally gets the wrong address and busts into the wrong house and gets shot for his efforts. Or, exchanges gunfire and shoots a completely unsuspecting person. Think Ruby Ridge for the police.

However, if the reporter thinks that a police officer would now have no incentive to announce himself (or herself) because he does not have to fear getting his case thrown out, shouldn't the reporter be glad with the new package of bills? After all, I would think that getting shot for not announcing himself and not knocking would be a far greater incentive to follow the rules of knocking and announcing himself than just the fear that his case will be thrown out by a judge. Or at least it would cause said police officer to be more careful to actually break into the house he has a warrant for.

Well, judge for yourselves and post your comments.

another update on Meredith

2006-06-05T09:37:00.000-04:00

I copied this from an email my mom sent out. YAY!!!

"Hurrah! Praise Our Lord! It is B-cell lymphoma, which is better than the doctors feared!!
After the pathology was sent to [to a lab], I heard that it was believed to be a rare form of malignancy, but when [the doctor]called Meredith today, he said that did not prove to be true. "B-cell lymphoma has an 80% cure-rate with chemotherapy" - and since websites are not updated often, that could be improved nowadays."

Basically, they thought it was fatal, but no it turns out to be very treatable. Praise God! Thank you for all who prayed/are still praying. I truly believe God changed it, I mean: how can the docotors not recognize the most common type of cancer? And even better, apparently it's the type where the best place to treat it is in the same state as Meredith and in the city where she has many close friends. I don't know why God didn't completely heal Meredith from the cancer, but I'm very thankful that He did change it from fatal to treatable. Keep praying guys and thank you for your prayers so far. The overflowing of love from everyone has truly touched my deeply.

More on my friend Meredith

2006-05-31T09:43:00.000-04:00

The doctors found multiple tumors around Meredith's pelvis (sounds like involving bone, around her spinal column, etc.). In a nightmarish series of tests, they kept finding more tumors with each test. The biopsy results came back yesterday looking malignant, but the sample was sent to a different lab for further evaluation; they think it is a rare form of cancer, and are supposed to know more by Friday.

I found out that by God's providence, on Friday when the first of the tests were being done, (they thought that worst case scenario it was a slipped disc, so while they were unprepared for support, God supplied it) Meredith was not alone throughout her day of testing (first her best friend happened to be passing through the city her hospital is in and was able to be contacted so she could stay with Meredith for the day; then my sister was able to pick her up at the hospital and get her to her husband.)

My home church, of which Meredith and her husband are a part, and the whole island from which we are from are gearing up with financial support, practical support, and prayer, but I would greatly appreciate more prayer. My house church is also considering ways we can do fundraisers to raise some more financial support. I don't think Meredith and Bryan have very extensive, if any, medical insurance. If anyone's willing to help out with a fundraiser, or has an idea for one, please let me know.

Too Late For Prince Charming?

2006-05-30T16:23:00.000-04:00

The following is a quote from this article in Newsweek which has the most outrageous quotes (and the worst spell-checking I have ever seen). I'm not sure whether to laugh at some of the people quoted or be insulted by them. I may have to settle for both. It has man and married-woman haters quoted as well as men whining about picky women who don't like nice guys. And it goes on. I chose the most outrageous comment to sarcastically pick apart.

"The study's main message—that delaying marriage may [statistically] ultimately mean forgoing it—clearly came as a slap in the face to this generation's best and brightest women. "When you look at men who don't marry, you're often looking at the bottom of the barrel," says Berkeley sociologist Nancy Chodorow. "When you look at the women who don't marry, you're looking at the cream of the crop." "

Can you think of any group other than single women who don't want to ever marry that this comment DOESN'T insult? (I say this as a unmarried career woman who is STILL insulted. Although, admittedly, I am planning on getting married next year.) Apparently career-driven, busy women are the cream of the crop and pity the poor woman who marries - she is clearly sub-par. Oh yes, but single men? They're all losers. Of course, the cream of the crop men were stupid enough to marry sub-par women, so poor men - they don't realize they got the low-quality women.

I wonder if Nancy Chodorow is bitter about her prospects and trying to make herself feel better?

But the sadness comes in when most that is to be seen in this article is bitterness, from both men and women, and an emptiness they are looking to fill. Being single doesn't have to be synonymous with being bitter does it?

That's probably why this second article was written - well that and the backlash and publicitiy they got back in 1986 from the original article. This second one is a little more cheery. And for you readers of the book Captivating, notice how women can find joy and fulfillment in giving birth to movements, not just children. Interesting yes?

prayer for my friend

2006-05-30T09:35:00.000-04:00

My friend Meredith, who is maybe a year older than I am and got married 2 years ago (her husband I have known since I was about 8 and I introduced them - they are both close friends of mine and the rest of my family. Meredith was a co-worker of mine originally and her husband, Brian, works with my dad and is my brother-in-law's best friend and has always been a brother to me. I sang at their wedding.) has had regular pain from her hip and back since the middle of her pregnancy with their daughter Meriel, so about a year now. Finally she got an MRI [finances for the youngsters being what they are], and they found a tumor on/in the bone. She is now at a hospital and awaits a more thorough CAT or MRI and a biopsy later today.

They are both believers, but this is still a hard time for us all. They are both a part of my family in my heart and I would appreciate it if you all would pray for peace for Brian and Meredith and all of their family and church family and friends and that the tumor would be benign and that there would be complete healing so that she doesn't have to live with horrible back pain for the rest of her life. I pray that this would be God's will.

Thank you.

House Churches and Homeschooling

2006-05-22T15:25:00.000-04:00

Yesterday someone was trying to convince me that housechurches are a bad idea. They then compared the bad decision to go to a housechurch to the bad decision to homeschool your kids. This person knew I was homeschooled K-12. I mean, why try to convince me something that I do evidences a lack of faith in God and then use as an example the way that my parents brought me up was poorly decided? I had to try really hard not to laugh. I mean, I know people get all nervous when I bring up that I go to a house church, but the comparing it to homeschooling was rich. (Especially when the person brought up how poorly socialized homeschooled kids are - knowing what a social butterfly I am) I mean, it didn't really make his point - because obviously I'm not going to go "It evidences a lack of faith in God just like homeschooling? Well, I should stop going!" being as I completely agree that my parents homeschooling me was a good choice. Rather than being a convincing argument, it's just going to piss me off (I wasn't pissed off, I was amused, but that was more my reaction than the way the argument was set forth.)

In the end, the point he made was mine - public schooling is a government construct - not set up by God for the Enlightenment and Education of our youth. Also, it's a fairly new government construct. For most of history, public schooling was unknown; it's not a sign of a lack of faith in God to homeschool your children instead of sending them to public school, it's the traditional way to educate them. God has not given public schools the corner on educating children and told parents that even though they birthed the children they may not educate them unless they do not trust Him and are not Good Followers of Him. That argument is, frankly, ridiculous.

Now take house churches. House churches are the way the original New Testament church did things. This one pastor/one church mentality is new and a construct - not the way the New Testament church did things, not the way the Bible explains things "ought" to be. I don't necessarily have a problem with a 'normal' church, but to say that God has given the corner to 'normal' churches the way he has given the education corner to public schools is....well, not taking anything in the Bible in context. Is there further revelation? For sure, God is constantly revealing Himself - it didn't just stop when the copyright was put on the Bible the first time (thank you John Stott for putting this into concrete thought for me). However, saying that "God only supports public schooling" or "God only supports our modern notion of a church" (as opposed to the notion set forth in scripture) makes no sense to me. It doesn't seem to be a case of revelation after the Bible - it seems to be a cultural idea. A church being set up one pastor (or a even just a few/one church isn't even just a modern notion. After all, in China they still have house churches (and the Chinese church is thriving so much more than the American one. Interesting.) It's a modern, Western notion. All my advisor really said in his argument was "God supports these modern, Western cultural ways of setting things up over what was done all throughout history, or in the Bible, that actually have no basis in scripture, but still it is so." and then used one argument for a cultural construct to support the other. This is about as convincing an argument as "God only supports Republicans."

Furthermore: What sort of person uses an argument that will insult you (and your parents and many of your friends and their parents) to sway you into taking his or her advise? This is almost as convincing as when a someone on a sidewalk tried to convince me to donate to a charity and give them my credit card number without letting me check up on their organization first and as they were trying to convince me verbally bashed me, Jeremiah, and all who adhere to Christianity (after finding out that I am a Christian).

What are people thinking?

Romance

2006-04-21T09:53:00.000-04:00

For those of you who like humor and hate cheap romance novels. (or like them, but have a sense of humor)

William Tyndale's take on Romans

2006-04-17T16:20:00.000-04:00

"Now go to, reader...Remember that Christ made not this atonement, that thou shouldest anger God again; neither died he for thy sins, that thou shouldest live still in them; neither cleansed he thee, that thou shouldest return (as a swine) unto thine old puddle again; but that thou shouldest be a new creature and live a new life after the will of God and not of the flesh."

- William Tyndale, *Prologue on...Romans* (1536)

NCAA Tournament!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-04-07T09:18:00.000-04:00

I won the NCAA Tournament for the youth group I help out with!!! Well, I was the leader that won. But I think I had the highest overall score as well. I won a free CD!!! WHOOO-HOO! I was a couple hundred points better than the next highest leader too:-) *pats self on back, get crick in shoulder* I guess my 'pick states I have friends or relatives in' strategy worked this year. Last year I think I was last....kinda makes me wish I'd bet money. heh heh heh. Now for a little jumping up and down with excitement....

I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!! I WON!!!

:-)

Battle Cry

2006-03-30T12:08:00.000-05:00

Read this article about what happened at the Battle Cry in San Francisco.

Someone who disagrees with Christians' woldviews without being irrational and/or reverting to ad hominem attacks. I do love a tolerant (truly) person to disagree with me who realizes the illogic of demanding tolerance from me, or else. How refreshing.

I like it when people understand I am not a fascist

NCAA Tournament

2006-03-28T16:04:00.000-05:00

know nothing about sports. Okay, next to nothing. However, I did enter in my youth groups bracket tournament challenge. Mainly because it cost my nothing and I might be able to win a candy bar (or respect). To fill out my brackets I did my usual: I picked teams to win if I had friends or relatives living in the state, liked the name of the college, if it did well last year etc. My 'strategy' worked this year. I am a frontrunner. Yes, that's right I'm one of apparently 10 people in the country (only a slight exaggeration) who picked a team that actually ended up in the Final Four. That team? Florida. Why? I have several relatives who live there. When I found out that not only am I running second in the youth group's brackets, but if I had entered a pool at work I would have beat out all the guys I work with I started feeling a little smug and self-satisfied. Here is a following conversation:

Me: Hey, Ralph (name changed to protect the guilty), guess how I did on my brackets?

Ralph: I don't even want to know

Me: I picked someone in the Final Four! Florida!

Ralph: Well, you shouldn't have picked them (sourly)

Me: But they made it! And guess how I did it?

Ralph: Don't tell me!

Me: I have relatives who live there

Ralph: I don't *#)$#(% want to hear how people *)#$*#)($* win because they picked their $(%)$()(@# teams based on how they like the #*)$%(#$) animal the mascot is or how cute the*($)%(#$) team uniforms are. )#($%)(#$%...

At this point I walked out the door, only to walk back in armed with helpful advice from another co-worker on how to handle Ralph.

Me: You know Ralph, if you want, I can always help you pick out your teams next year...

I am such a snot.

No one said to be famous you must be smart (or logical)

2006-03-27T09:28:00.000-05:00

This is an article well worth reading about different conspiracy theories actors buy into and/or how out of touch with reality they are.

I think my favorite quote is, "....Tom Cruise, who famously dismisses psychiatry as a big conspiracy. Which is a little like a dehydrated man claiming water is a conspiracy."

Get him on anti-psychotics immediately.

Madea's Family Reunion

2006-03-20T14:52:00.000-05:00

I went to one of the best movies I have ever seen Saturday night. The movie was Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion. It is definately high up on my favorite movies list and the only movie I can think of that I MUST HAVE that I don't already own. It was hilarious, besides being, for me, one of the most moving movies I have ever seen. I think the only other movie I cried at more was The Passion of the Christ, for rather obvious reasons. Watching Madea's Family Reunion I cried once or twice because the subject matter was so hard and then once or twice because I was so glad that such truth was being spoken. Go here for a great review by my favorite author, Orson Scott Card. It's a great movie and there should be more like it. So, go see it and throw your money at an amazing movie with a great story, hilarious humor, and interesting characters. Because if we want more good movies to be made, we'd better put our money where our mouths are, instead of just going to see the latest, rather predictable, blockbuster. If you hate it, so what. At least you will have helped me out

I've been memed! (whatever THAT means!)

2006-03-03T09:17:00.000-05:00

I've made some changes from my myspace one, if any of you read both of my fine blogs:-)

Seven things to do before I die:

1. Travel all over the world. Europe, Thailand, India etc.
2. Get long-term ministries started for the unloved in our culture including, but not limited to, telemarketers and girls who work at strip clubs.
3. Mission work in a foreign country or the inner city
4. Be in a commune
5. Marry the man I love:-)
6. Hike up Mt. Kilimanjaro
7. Be instrumental in starting a revival in the Western church

Seven things I cannot do:

1. Make my friends love God
2. Run fast or far (boy, I hope none of you are stalking me.)
3. not tell puns
4. choose to be alone for long periods of time.
5. not keep myself so busy I'm always running hither and thither
6. Say "No" (see # 5)
7. eat Brussels sprouts without gagging

Seven things that attract me to my other half: (in no particular order)

1. His relationship with God
2. His fire and passion for God's purposes for his life
3. His integrity and character
4. How he makes me laugh
5. How Sexamatastic he is (My regards to Wazoo for this descriptive way of saying 'hot');-)
6. His desire to serve others
7. his mischievous looks

Seven things I say:

1. Like
2. Anyway…
3. tweaky
4. sweetness
5. schmeh!
6. crumb
7. crumpet

Seven books I love:

1. The K-House Mystery
2. Link by Walt Becker
3. The Dark is Rising (the whole series) by Susan Cooper
4. The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer
5. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
6. The Westing Game by Ellen Haskin
7. The Attributes of God, Volumes 1 & 2 by A.W. Tozer

Seven movies I like pretty well:

1. Undercover Blues
2. Jurassic Park
3. Pride and Prejudice (BBC)
4. Sneakers
5. Serenity
6. The Chipmunk Adventure
7. Billy Rose's Jumbo

Seven people to meme:

1. Ariana
2. Lisa
3. Jared
4. Jen
5. Does anyone else read this blog who hasn't already done this??? Then do it!!!:-)
6. Rumpelstiltskin
7. Captain America

Communist America

2006-02-15T10:47:00.000-05:00

Apparently, now the government can tell stores what they have to stock. That's right, Illinois and now Massachusetts are requiring Walmart carry the morning-after pill. It is illegal to not carry it. This sort of high-handedness on the part of the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy and the Illinois government should infuriate everyone. Why? Because telling a store that they have to carry a good is one of the most intrusive things I have ever heard of a government doing. And for the people who started the lawsuit? Apparently all pretense of "pro-choice" is out the window. We aren't allowed to have a choice anymore. In their eyes, it's pro-abortion OR ELSE. Either that or they are too lazy to go get their morning-after pill at CVS or another pharmacy, it has to be at Wal-Mart. They want to be free to make their choices without us being free to make ours. This childishness smacks of the attitude some adopt as teenagers when they try to pressure their peers to make the same bad decisions they are making so they won't have to feel so guilty about making them themselves. I doubt it will happen, but I hope Walmart (and every single person interested in freedom) fights back.

My Funny Valentine...

2006-02-15T09:56:00.000-05:00

I cannot believe how lucky I am and I just can't contain it, so I'm going to tell all of you:-) My Valentine (yes, Jeremiah!) is amazing. Now to be perfectly honest he is NOT a fan of Valentine's Day. So when he asked me how I wanted to spend our Valentine's Day together I almost fell out of my chair. We still haven't really celebrated it because we had church last night, but Friday we're going out to the Ethiopian restaurant I've been wanting to try! (maybe Cold Stone Creamery for dessert?);-) Since we had plans for Friday, I did not expect anything yesterday. However, my darling Valentine proved me more naive to how much he loves me yet again. I am on the phone with a constituent when Jeremiah walks in: tall, dark, handsome, and carrying a miniature rose plant. It was the perfect Valentine's Day gift. In my humble opinion, better than a dozen roses, because it will last longer. (Hopefully. I'm not too great with the plants sometimes):-) I was smiling the rest of the day. And you might think it would end there. But no...I am walking to my car and notice that written right next to where my car is parked is "I heart Alex" awwwwwwwwww. Apparently I missed more of his sidewalk art on the way to my car. This morning I found the other 2. One at the entrance to my parking lot and one at the entrance to my building. I am so glad it didn't rain or snow yesterday! I feel like a princess who's been given a 'grand gesture' of romance by her love. He is such an amazing man. I feel so cherished. And our 6 month anniversary is only 8 days away...

The Law and Judgement

2006-02-10T09:59:00.000-05:00

The purpose of law
The Sermon on the Mount as a kind of 'new law', like the
old law, has two divine purposes ... First, it shows the
non-Christian that he cannot please God by himself (because
he cannot obey the law) and so directs him to Christ to be
justified. Secondly, it shows the Christian who has been
to Christ for justification how to live so as to please
God. More simply, as both the Reformers and the Puritans
used to summarize it, the law sends us to Christ to be
justified, and Christ sends us back to the law to be
sanctified...

Paul's attitude to the law
From Romans 7 we may summarize three possible attitudes to
the law, the first two of which Paul rejects, and the third
of which he commends. We might call them 'legalism',
'antinomianism' and 'law-fulfilling freedom'. *Legalists*
are 'under the law' and in bondage to it. They imagine
that their relationship to God depends on their obedience
to the law, and they are seeking to be both justified and
sanctified by it. But they are crushed by the law's
inability to save them. *Antimonians* (or libertines) go
to the opposite extreme. Blaming the law for their
problems, they reject it altogether, and claim to be rid of
all obligation to its demands. They have turned liberty
into licence. *Law-fulfilling free people* preserve the
balance. They rejoice both in their freedom from the law
for justification and sanctification, and in their freedom
to fulfil it. They delight in the law as the revelation of
God's will (verse 22), but recognize that the power to
fulfil it in not in the law but in the Spirit. Thus
legalists fear the law and are in bondage to it.
Antimonians hate the law and repudiate it. Law-abiding
free people love the law and fulfil it.

--From "The Message of Romans" (The Bible Speaks Today
series: Leicester: IVP, 1994), p. 191.

----------------------------------------------------
--Excerpted from "Authentic Christianity", p. 185, by
permission of InterVarsity Press.

Update on Will & Grace Episode

2006-02-08T14:05:00.000-05:00

My mom emailed this to me. I'm assuming it's correct, but who knows? Anyway, here's the update:

Action by AFA Online supporters has cause NBC to pull the offensive segment scheduled for the April 6th episode of Will and Grace. In an attempt to confuse the public, the network issued an intentionally misleading statement which left the impression that AFA had lied to our supporters. Here is the statement NBC sent to their affiliates for the affiliate to use in responding to emails and calls: Some erroneous information was mistakenly included in a press release describing an upcoming episode of "Will & Grace" which, in fact, has yet to be written. The reference to "Cruci-fxins" will not be in the show and the storyline will not contain a Christian characterization at all. NBC did not say that they (NBC) had issued the "erroneous information" but left the reader with the impression that AFA had issued the "erroneous information." When NBC said that the script "has yet to be written," what they didn't tell you is that the "story board" had been completed and the offensive material was scheduled to be a part of the episode. The story board contains the outline of the program. That is the reason for the detailed description of the episode issued by NBC in their initial press release. For a better understanding of this deception by NBC written by a third party, click here.

My Memoirs as a Political Stalker, Part 2

2006-02-06T12:03:00.000-05:00

I always open the mail at work, and today was no different. However, today there was a piece of mail addressed to me. This is a strange occurance, and I'm looking at the 9 x 12 envelope wondering what it is when a flash of realization hits me as I look at the signature on the corner. "Mike Pence" ! Without opening it, I rush over to my co-worker and show him. His response? "You really ARE a stalker now, Xana." Now, my boss mentioned to me that he gave Congressman Mike Pence's friends HIS card, but since my name was spelled correctly (this NEVER happens!) I suspect he wrote my name down or something. (I wonder what he SAID?!?!?!?)

Continuing with this morning's excitement, I opened up the envelope to find a large, signed photograph of Mike Pence with the following inscription, "To Xana Ender - Thanks for the kind words! Best, Mike Pence"

I feel all fluttery now.

Memoirs as a Political Stalker

2006-02-02T10:50:00.000-05:00

That's right. Me. A political stalker. To make a short story long: It all starts out so innocently...

My friend Esther is one of the biggest political animals I know in that she loves politics, knows all about politics, has great insight into politics. I work in politics, but she breathes it. Her blog Future Legislator of America discusses national politics etc etc. She is the person who first told me about Congressman Mike Pence. Apparently, she found a couple of guys in Indiana (Pence is an Indiana Congressman) that have formed a movement to Draft Mike Pence into running for President in 2008. I rather doubt Mr. Pence himself even knows of these people, but the reasons they support him are, in my humble opinion, pretty good. I read an article or two about him and thought he sounded honorable and for small government (yay!) and in a conversation with my boss, asked him if he'd ever heard of him. He hadn't, so I gave him an article to read and it may have just ended there if this week hadn't happened *da-DUM da-DUM spooky music starts*

My boss was headed to WA D.C. for a conference and I jokingly said, "Hey, say hi for me to Mike Pence if you see him." Yes, he had remembered that Mike Pence was the guy I showed him an article about. So, he calls in today and I start joking again, "Say hi to Mike Pence for me?" and my boss, with laughter in his voice, states, "Well, no. But I did meet some friends of his that he invited to the conference. I gave them my card and told them that you're a big fan of his."
hee hee. I am now a political stalker. Now I actually have to familarize myself with him and his history and political philosophy and views so, if he on the off-chance calls my boss and I answer the phone, I don't sound like a blubbering idiot.

If interested here are some articles, from very conservative sources, forwarded to Esther by Congressman Mike Pence's other fans.

American Union Conservative Foundation
NewsMax

Britney Spears to play conservative Christian?

2006-02-01T16:21:00.000-05:00

Keeping you over-informed and completely disgusted, get this: it is ridiculous.

"[Britney Spears] will appear as a Christian conservative sidekick to Sean Hayes' character, Jack."
Who better to portray a conservative Christian than a sex icon huh? Apparently, she will play a Christian tv chef with a show called "Cruci-fixin's". Now, usually when Christians get insulted about stuff (don't say Merry Christmas etc etc) I am a little more laid back than most, but this seems to me to be pretty blatant mocking of Christianity. It's like they had a checklist for infuriating Christians:

- pick a sex icon to play a conservative Christian (not even mainstream, no, conservative) (check)

-have her be on a fictitious show that mocks one of the things we hold most holy and awesome, the crucifixion. (check)

-have her be a sidekick to the most crude character on the show (check)

-put her on a very controversial show in the conservative Christian world, one that glorifies homosexuality. (check)

Now, for the most part, I really have never minded Will & Grace. The things about it that bother most conservative Christians don't really bother me. The views held by the show are no more offensive than those held by many of my friends and acquiantences and the humor is no more vulgar than what I often hear from some of the people in my life. You've got to pick your fights and not just blast everything that is even a little offensive. But in this instant whoever makes that show has really gone over the line. It's like they're not even trying to pretend that they have an agenda that's not just about furthering views that conservative Christians disgree with, but that they actually want to blatantly mock Christianity, Christ and his crucifixion, and Christians. It's not that I hate Britney Spears or something either. I have a cd of hers, I've never despised her the way others I know have, she just seems like a normal person with understandable, if highly public, problems. Yet, it seems that whoever makes Will & Grace understands perfectly what she represents in and to our culture and made a very specific choice in casting her. That choice was to slap all Christians across the face and probably to promote debate about this episode in an attempt to make everyone else see what they "understand", which is that all Christians are idiots and worthy to be mocked. It's so insulting. I wouldn't be so rude as to cast Pat Robertson to play a homosexual man dying of AIDS. To me, it would be repulsive to be that hateful to all homosexual people to cast a such a person as one of them, as I think it would be to most people.

So why the double standard? Why do I have to be understanding of those who disagree with me, yet the Will & Grace producers don't? And how do they get away with it? I mean, I'm sure there will be the usual maelstorm of people saying the usual things they say when this sort of situation occurs, but there will be no real ramifications to them as there would be if the despise was going in the opposite direction. It makes me yearn for social reform, yet I don't see that coming anytime soon. And I think that the Will & Grace producers in the end will get exactly what they want: PR. Tons of people will watch that episode, they'll make tons of money and they'll get to further their views to more people. Plus, the people who do respond will be the same people who are so radical that they make real conservative Christians look bad and then the whole bunch of us will look unintelligent and judgemental.

These constant lose-lose situations are getting a little tiring on me.

State of the State

2006-01-26T11:56:00.000-05:00

We, the good people of Michigan got to hear from our Socialist royalty last night, also known as our Governor. I am talking about the State of the State. Instead of attacking the crux of her address last night, which would be way too much work and I probably couldn’t do justice to, I am going to remark upon a few sidenotes. First, the only real joke she made all evening was so corny that even my staunchest supporters would have groaned had I made it. “We are the state that put America on wheels – the state that put the “car” in NASCAR.”

First, this self-avowed Catholic said she wanted to end the ban in Michigan on stem-cell research. As the priest of the parish on Mackinac Island told the congregation one morning (the morning that all the Democratic bigwigs were on Mackinac for the Democratic Leadership Conference and many of them attended church that morning) “If you obey your party line more than you do what your pope says, you are not a Catholic.” MIRS also had a bit to say about it

Just about the first item Granholm mentioned in tonight's speech challenging the GOP-controlled Legislature to do something it almost certainly won't do, was removing limits on stem cell research. "If we are truly serious about improving both the cost and quality of health care in this state, we must tap the full power of modern science to combat life threatening illnesses," Granholm said. "Imagine having to watch your child suffer with juvenile diabetes. Imagine watching your wife lose her ability to speak, and walk, and even eat, as her Parkinson's worsens." Following these lines, the Governor called on the Legislature to pass a bill sponsored by Rep. Andrew MEISNER (D-Ferndale) to remove the limits on stem cell research. The Michigan Catholic Conference (MCC) fired off a response that called on all politicians and policy makers to "immediately halt any rhetoric that offers false promises to those families who are suffering." "Governor Granholm irresponsibly told thousands of Michigan families in her State of the State speech tonight that repealing the state's law prohibiting human cloning and embryonic stem cell research will lead to some sort of miracle cure," said MCC Vice President for Public Policy Paul LONG. "Governor Granholm is misleading these suffering families into believing that such 'clone and kill' legislation will alleviate the debilitating diseases that ail humanity. The facts are that scientists have been performing stem cell research on embryos for over 30 years, and to date have yet to produce any miracle cures for which the Governor has spoken." In closing, the MCC called on the scientific community in Michigan to continue supporting ethical adult stem cell research. According to MCC, this research does not involve embryos and is currently treating some 65 diseases, including Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Sickle Cell Anemia, heart damage and spinal cord injury.

Granholm was also pretty insulting, I thought, to the American Dream. “This plan is about fighting to protect your opportunity for that middle class way of life. It’s our Michigan version of the American dream.” Apparently the Michigan version of the American Dream is to settle for mediocrity and be happy so long as we’re comfortable and have our plasma tv and X-Box.

“This is about a dynamic Michigan whose ancestors were not afraid to believe that one day there might be a Mustang on four wheels, not four hooves.” That’s right! Our forefathers were all psychic prophets who knew that we would eventually all drive cars, and before they were even INVENTED or conceived of by normal humans! They all had the powers of Nostradamus! And when Henry Ford was putzing around in his Model T he was thinking, “Yes, someday there’ll be a really sweet version of this and I’ll paint it red and call it “Mustang.” I’m sure.

And lastly in the just plain horrible quotes category: “The foundation of a good life, of course, is a good-paying job.” Yes, of course. All you need in life is lots of money. Of course, if the Michigan version of the American Dream is to be middle-class, then I guess that makes sense. Mediocrity and comfort are the foundations of a good life. What a far cry from the ideals of such apparently duped figures such as Socrates. We know that Socrates, through the writings of his pupil Plato, was very interested in what made up “The Good Life”. As one college website puts his philosophy, “The good life is a life that questions everything; it is a life of doubt, of self-awareness, and of ever more refined understanding. The good life is the life of an active and inquiring mind.” And from what I remember of my college English and History classes, Socrates believed that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Apparently, here in Michigan we believe, “The life without plenty of money and comfort is not worth living.” What an insulting view our Governor takes of us, the people of Michigan, and shame on us if this is really true. I am not saying I believe everything that Socrates did, but he at least had a far higher-minded philosophy than our current governor apparently thinks we do. I would say that “The Good Life” would have something to do with loving God, serving Him, and loving and serving others. These things, I believe, do not have to contradict an active and inquiring mind and the examination of the world around me and my internal beliefs and thoughts, but their importance, I believe, far outweighs a mind that is just active and inquiring. However, if the people of Michigan are stuck with the “Good Life” just being one that is comfortable and mediocre, then maybe our unexamined lives AREN’T worth living.

Of course, I could be all irate just because she’s a Democrat. This is an interesting study of the findings of scientists on the internal thought-lives of politicians.

Not Again!

2006-01-19T09:47:00.000-05:00

What is it about me? I deftly got around being hugged (again) by Representative X, only to now be accosted by Representative Y (another Democrat). This guy, I wasn't even sure of who he WAS until after I talked with my co-worker. What is it about these Democrats!??!? (thiink BIll Clinton)

After my co-worker and I got back to the office and I told him that working on some assignments he gave me would complete my life he asked me, "Wow, you're really in a good mood. Must be that hug Rep. Y gave you." my reply? "Yeah, it made me feel all warm and fuzzy and sexually harrassed." At least I got free breakfast today and remember a ziploc bag to put any leftover fruit in. mmmm fresh pineapple....

In case you want someone completely evil to vote for in 2008...

2006-01-13T10:20:00.000-05:00

vote for this guy . What is this world coming to?

Here's my rant

2006-01-10T13:33:00.000-05:00

I attended a concert last night for a friend with a bunch of people from my church small group. It was highly enjoyable until after the concert one of the pastors of my church, Pastor X, came up to me and put his arm around me and asked me, speaking of singing, what God was telling me about the worship team. I tried to answer him, to tell him that I was so busy with other ministries and with trying to fit in some time for myself around it that it came down to 2 ministries: the youth group or the worship team, and I decided that working with people in ways that might help them was more important than being just another voice. Even if I do have a good voice. He wouldn’t let me answer him, just said something like, “Well, I don’t need to know what God is telling you, I just know what I’d be telling you if I were Him.” Which is such a horrible thing to say. When someone won’t let you give them your reasoning and just says, “well, what is God telling you?” then there’s this implication that if you knew what God was saying to you, you’d do whatever they think you should do. Since earlier that day I had been told by someone else what “God wants me to do” I was getting a little sick of everyone ELSE apparently having better knowledge than I about what God wants me to do with MY life. Then Jeremiah, knowing how upset I can get when people try to pressure me to do things with my voice, or only talk to me when they are talking to me about my voice (So hurtful. Imagine people NEVER taking the time to talk to you until after they hear you sing and then they come up and are all chatty. It’s like they’re saying “well, I guess you have enough value for me to talk to you now that I’ve heard you sing” Sorry, being valued only for my voice is not my idea of someone who actually cares about me.) decided to try to rescue me. He was my gallant knight and jokingly flourished a non-existent sword and cried, “Unhand my lady!” Good try to get the conversation stalled so I could escape, but then Pastor X said, “and who made her your lady?” and Jeremiah replied, “uh...God” and Pastor X stated, “Not yet, He hasn’t” and then started asking us a barrage of questions about who we’re talking to. Jeremiah was a tad confused, “what do you mean, who are we talking to?” I know the lingo though. Basically Pastor X was asking us whether we have a courtship, not a dating relationship. To which Jeremiah replied that he didn’t like to argue semantics (often the difference between dating and courtship) but then Pastor X started asking us who we speak to about our relationship, who is our authority, who are we accountable to etc. And it really started to irritate me. I know he’s concerned because I guess it’s easy for couples to be all hormonal and do inappropriate things physically before they’re married, but my parents have not questioned the way we’re handling the relationship, and I talk to them about it, I talk to various friends, including a little with another pastor at my church and his wife and Jeremiah talks to his dad and to his cousin (and we are usually with some member of his family or hanging out at his parents home with them there), but I felt condemned because we don’t have some specific, formalized system where we tell someone every single little detail about our romance, with that said person dispensing advice on what we’re doing right and what we’re doing wrong. And that pissed me off, because my church really isn’t legalistic usually and all of a sudden here I am feeling condemned for not doing something that is extra-biblical in the first place. And it was not by the pastor who has opened up his home to me and treats me like a second daughter and takes the time to get to know Jeremiah (who I would accept advice and constructive criticism from), but by someone who never takes the time to talk to me except to pressure me to join the worship team and usually ignores me. This is extremely aggravating to me. I probably do have an “authority problem” in that I don’t automatically accept someone as my authority. They have to earn enough respect from me to have me listen to advice they decide to give me without me specifically asking for it. That is a lot of respect usually for me to give someone, but there are people who have earned that much. It’s not like I only listen to myself. Also, I would not mind having a formalized system of one person Jeremiah and I go to advice etc for, in fact, I think it can be a very good decision for couples to make. However, I don’t like the implication that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to have a good, God-honoring relationship without that set system. I also don’t like it being implied that we are making some huge relationship mistake by not having that system in place that may be fatal to the health of our relationship and we’re just going to go out and screw like rabbits and make bad relationship decisions because without some specific person in control we can’t possibly make the correct choices with respect to our relationship or have enough self-control to stay sexually pure until marriage. It’s insulting, not only to us but to also to our parents who have not communicated with us any concern over how we are going about our relationship.

I do have big lips...

2006-01-10T09:03:00.000-05:00

You scored as Lara Croft. A thrill-seeking, slightly unscrupulous, tough-as-nails archaeologist, Lara Croft travels the world in search of ancient relics perhaps better left hidden. She packs two Colt .45s and has no fear of jumping off buildings, exploring creepy tombs, or taking on evil meglomaniacs bent on world domination.

Lara Croft

75%

Batman, the Dark Knight

71%

Neo, the "One"

63%

The Terminator

58%

Captain Jack Sparrow

58%

El Zorro

58%

James Bond, Agent 007

54%

William Wallace

54%

The Amazing Spider-Man

50%

Maximus

50%

Indiana Jones

50%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide - Reuters article

2006-01-06T14:42:00.000-05:00

This is ridickerous, as a friend of mine would put it.... An Italian court will decide whether or not Jesus existed. I think they should call in Lee Strobel...

Feeling Poetic

2006-01-06T10:30:00.000-05:00

A clash of similar natures
Unnerving to extreme
But produces such a spark
To ignite a lasting passion

Divorce

2006-01-03T16:51:00.000-05:00

This is a really great article on divorce, its affects on children, and how the prevalence of it in our culture affects us all.

I went on another walk today...Man, I love this place!

2005-12-23T17:32:00.000-05:00

Wow! Look at these colors!

and yes, another tidal pool...different beach though
into the woods
The entire beach is made up of pebbles like these. Amazing yes? Look at all those types and colors!

More pictures from home

2005-12-23T14:49:00.000-05:00

moss on rocks

Sun streaming through hanging moss

Quaint little town up close

Quaint little town from farther away
logs with ivy growing over them
uprooted tree trunk
water rushing through crack in rocks
trees fallen across the path

inside a bush looking out

tidal pool

tidal pool 2

madrona tree

an interesting tree

another look at the interesting tree

Pictures from home

2005-12-23T13:54:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite parks on the island. More coming soon. I've been having some problems with the download feature on Blogger...

Madrona trees reaching magestically into the sky

That same Madrona tree

Me with Mariel! She's my friends' baby...sooo cute!
Our Christmas tree
Daddy with Mariel. He is so enamored of her. He'll make a GREAT grandpa someday!

In the Chicago Airport...

2005-12-23T13:42:00.000-05:00

I went to Chicago on Monday, then drove back home. Then on Tuesday I flew into Chicago to catch a connecting flight to Washington State. These are pictures from the psychodelic walkway between terminals B & C. If you get there in the early morning, when no one is there it especially feels like you're halucinating. Tweaky music accompanies weird light patterns playing up and down the passage as a people mover whisks you by weirdly lighted pannels.

Here is the same picture, lightened up a bit.

Jeremiah and my trip to Chicago

2005-12-23T13:25:00.000-05:00

Me in front of the tree at the downtown Marshall Fields

Jeremiah in the Cheesecake Factory (YUM!)
Jeremiah in Marshall Fields
oooo! So many presents!
Another picture in front of the tree!

This Country Is So Screwed Up...

2005-12-13T10:21:00.000-05:00

As you log out of Hotmail, you get shot into MSN's homepage. They have banners of things that might be interesting to catch your eye, so hopefully you read and then get bombarded by advertising, of course. The main banner had the following article to link to under "Ways to make the holidays more romantic"

“10. Volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. You'll get to spend quality time together, plus you'll realize how fortunate you really are.”

WHOA! Now I don't curse, but this sort of quote makes me want to. How #*$(#*$'ed up is THAT?!?! Not "volunteer at a soup kitchen because if you are any sort of a human you should care about those less fortunate than you and want to help them and do something to help them practically and show you care about them and hopefully bring some joy into their life." not even, "volunteer at a homeless shelter because it'll build character." No, folks, we're supposed to volunteer because we'll "realize how fortunate [we] really are" Yes, that's right. the real reason to volunteer is to be smug, self-satisfied individuals who can clap ourselves on the back for being more fortunate then those we're 'serving'. And not only that, it can be 'quality time' with our sweetie! Oh yes, just another way to entertain ourselves, once we've been to all the good movies and coffeeshops. Oh how sweet and romantic! I guess you don't go volunteer at a soup kitchen to show those who may be feeling like they've been rejected by society that there are people who love them and care about them, or practically help them, or even the stand-by "to build character", nope, we do it to serve ourselves by "being romantic" and cute. Yay! Another way we can be self-absorbed! And then we can go home and pat ourselves on the back for performing a "selfless" action and give a "whew! I'm glad I'm not one of THEM. Man, how great am I?" and then keep passing homeless people on the street without acknowledging they're human or maybe, if we're really great people, think to ourselves "How fortunate I am!"

We really are bastards aren't we?

Them Libidinous Dems

2005-11-30T09:30:00.000-05:00

This morning was my boss's fundraiser. So, after trekking into the downtown, almost wiping out until I remembered "turn INTO the fishtail, turn INTO the fishtail!" because while there was only a light dusting of snow it covered a treacherous layer of ice, I arrived to look pretty and collect checks.

me: what's my job tomorrow? Look pretty and collect checks?

coworker: That's pretty much always your job.

me: wouldn't that be prostitution?

coworker: They don't take checks.

I think the most interesting story of the morning, was when an elderly Democrat arrived, let call him Representative X. Representative X shook my coworker's hand, shook my hand, and then, surprisingly, leaned forward to hug me. I got a kiss on the cheek too. Right as he was doing that, Representative Y (A Republican) commented:

Rep. Y: Found another girl to charm?

Rep. X: It's my mission to love every woman on this earth. I've got too many, want to help me out?

I guess looking pretty worked for me this morning:-)

True Freedom

2005-11-28T16:29:00.000-05:00

"True freedom is not freedom from all responsibility to God and man in order to live for myself, but the exact opposite. True freedom is freedom from myself and from the cramping tyranny of my own self-centredness, in order to live in love for God and others. Only in such self-giving love is an authentically free and human existence to be found." - John Stott

Double Wammy

2005-11-28T16:24:00.000-05:00

I've known for a while that I have a "hero complex". Yeah, I just want to rescue everyone. This keeps being demonstrated too. Like my Myers-Briggs personality is 'The Champion' and my name 'Alexandra' means "defender of men/mankind". No wonder I want to save and defend everyone! I am really starting to be of the school of thought that names are significant and have a lot to do with how you turn out. I even have a keychain with my name on it that so sounds like me

"She is virtuous and has strong feelings for fairness. Her emotions are quick to rouse, and are explosive. She is colorful and glittering."

Even keychains can know me if they are about my name. Crazy. Then I was looking at this birthday thingie (very descriptive I know) and found out that I share a birthday with Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great! Not only is my name so similar to his that they mean the same thing, but we share a birthday! No wonder my hero complex is so strong. From the day I was born however many hundreds of years after Alexander the Great and then named "Alexandra" I was destined to feel like I am significant and meant for something important and that I have to be everyone's defender and champion. Man, my parents really set me up.

Next step: take over the world.

Mannequin Sex

2005-11-22T09:05:00.000-05:00

Weirdest story ever. As my co-worker stated, "What is this world coming to? Mannequins aren’t even safe from [sexual] predators.”

I can see indecent exposure, but...sexual assault? They do realize that a mannequin is an inanimate object right? I guess the question is, will they throw the mannequin away, or continue to dress it in such provocative clothing? I mean, think about those skanky mannequins you know. It probably deserved it, the minx.

I understand my boyfriend so much better now

2005-11-14T15:14:00.000-05:00

I am not sure to what extent I believe this, but it's interesting nonethless. I was at a conference on Saturday and the speaker, Dan Allender, was saying that names are very important and that they say a lot about who a person is. As he said, "...for example, if you have the name of a biblical prophet you may find yourself being a disrupter of systems and you may also find you have conflictual interpersonal relationships."

I almost fell off my chair laughing.

My college degree says I’m over-educated but it’s written in Latin, so no one but me can read it

2005-10-31T10:31:00.000-05:00

During a conversation with my co-worker about how college does not actually teach you anything about what you do in the workplace after you graduate:

Me: All my college diploma [from Hillsdale] says is that I was indoctrinated by the Republican Party

Co-worker: It actually says that at the bottom, doesn’t it?

Me: Yeah, but it’s written in Greek

My Lucky Weekend

2005-10-28T13:36:00.000-04:00

So, my co-worker gave me 2 tickets to tomorrow's MSU Vs. Indiana football game and I am STOKED! I've been to high school football games and to Hillsdale's football games (really more like a glorified high school football game), but I've never been to a serious football game that is important enough to make it on tv! I love live football. In high school, my best friend, Sally, and I would go to almost every football game, including the JV ones on Monday afternoons. Why not? We were both homeschooled and had the time. We'd watch 'our boys' play and always got to Con's (It's been named something else as long as I can remember but everyone still calls it by its old name) for a hot dog during halftime. When it got cold we'd huddle together for warmth and we'd cheer our team, the Vikings, on. In college I did not go to as many games. First, I had homework and secondly, none of my friends were really big fans. I like sports, but there are few things I like well enough to do them alone. So, I'm very excited about tomorrow.

I also am getting to go to the Symphony tonight! My roomate was given 2 tickets to a performance and she invited me to go with her. I am super-excited! I get to dress all pretty, enjoy fantastic music, and it's good company. I get to do not 1, but 2 of these once-in-a-long-time events for free and with my favorite people!

It's a good life.

scary

2005-10-26T12:41:00.000-04:00

read this article

A Season of Inactivity

2005-10-19T10:44:00.000-04:00

I have been a little remiss of late with my blog, and the reason is mainly because I've been posting a little on my other blog over on myspace. It's very addicting I've found:-) If you happen to sign up because you see the joys of it are multi-fold, please friend me.

The news in my life is thus: Tomorrow my mother comes to visit (a.k.a. check out The Boyfriend) "Oh you're dating him now? Maybe I should visit." This comes with all sorts of amusement. I would say that the proper term for Jeremiah's state of mind would be "terrified." I am reminded of how lucky I am that I knew pretty much all of Jeremiah's family (including aunts and uncles) BEFORE we started dating, so I was already comfortable with his parents and friends with his sister and the assorted cousins that seem to be, enjoyably and to my delight, always under foot. So, this week my mother shall get to know Jeremiah and attend all my weekly events with me. I get to take 2 days off work to squire her about as well, which is very nice and we have all sorts of enjoyable events planned.

The Blues

2005-10-05T11:37:00.000-04:00

I am having one of those days when I want to go home, curl up in a ball under my covers, drink hot tea with honey, and cry. Maybe watch some mindless entertainment after a long nap. Most definately have someone give me a hug. (An impossible commodity when you work at a state capitol) Yes, I have the ‘Blues’. That horrible state of mind where I’m all mopey, with no good reason, and it’s for no good reason, but then because I’m already blue everything around me is more likely to upset me, causing some serious, entrenched depression. The kind where I get mad at some of the people I care about the most because they don’t have the psychic skills needed to read my mind to know exactly what I need and rush to my side when they are miles away and have not even talked to me today to have any of even the most rudimentary of tools to guess that something is wrong. This obviously shows they don’t care about me enough, or at all.

I hate it when I’m illogical. Especially when I’m illogical and I KNOW I’m being illogical. Blissful illogic must be nice.

2005-10-03T14:00:00.000-04:00

“Christ calls human beings to humble, but not to stifle, their intellect.” - John Stott

2005-09-30T15:35:00.000-04:00

GO HERE

2005-09-23T13:50:00.000-04:00

"I think democracy absolutely depends on the continuing right of the ignorant and misinformed to make all the core decisions in our society, and I would never place a mandatory restriction like that on people's right to vote." - Orson Scott Card

Given alone that sounds like the worst statement possible. But it really is true. We wouldn't be free if we were forced to be informed. So continues all the stupid majority making decisions for the informed minority. Gotta love democracy. Too bad this isn't really a Republic anymore.

Political Leanings...

2005-09-23T09:11:00.000-04:00

Wow. I'm a Libertarian. My dad and Jeremiah will be so happy. Just don't tell anyone I work with...

You are a
Social Liberal
(71% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(71% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

Close to a Quarter Century

2005-09-21T13:22:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I turned 24. One more year and my car insurance goes down! I'm very excited. Usually, I plan a big party because I love having everything to revolve around me for one day. Hmm, well rather the world always revolves around me, but I enjoy everyone realizing and acknowledging it for one day a year. This year I did not plan a party. I figured my house church would have some sort of small celebration and decided I did not want to go to the trouble of planning a big party, that I would be happy so long as I got to spend it with the people who I care about the most and that if I did throw a party I might spend more time stressing over it coming off well than enjoying it. So, I did nothing. Turns out it came off quite well. My darling Jeremiah decided to try to make quite a special occasion of it for me. This is rather interesting considering his views on birthdays. Back when I was getting to know him, he went off on a rather lengthy diatribe about how celebrating birthdays is ridiculous, because actually having a birthday is the minimum qualification for existence. His thinking goes that if you discover the cure for cancer THEN you have accomplished something significant enough to qualify you for having your birthday celebrated. Otherwise you're just existing, so why celebrate it? Imagine my surprise at having an entire EVENT planned just to celebrate my birthday. I mean, I haven't even discovered the cure for a sniffle, let alone something as significant as cancer. I have always wanted to walk into a house expecting to see the same old room and have it be decorated just for me - and that's exactly what happened! Balloons & streamers and colorful tableclothes piled high with good food and finished off by a fantastic cake made by Jeremiah with the most delicious whipping cream/strawberry frosting imaginable. I would wish you all had been able to be there - except then there would have been less cake for me.

So now I am 24. This is good, because no one loves you when you're 23:-)

2005-09-15T10:40:00.000-04:00

My pirate name is:

Mad Dog Flint

Part crazy, part mangy, all rabid, you're the pirate all the others fear might just snap soon. Like the rock flint, you're hard and sharp. But, also like flint, you're easily chipped, and sparky. Arr!

Get your own pirate name from fidius.org.

The Price I Pay for Beauty

2005-09-09T09:38:00.000-04:00

Is $23.00 to be exact. However, the additional fees I pay in lost sleep is steeper. Waking up at 6:00am on a Friday morning to drag my sleepy body over to the East Lansing Douglass J day salon for an eyebrow and upper lip waxing loses me an hour and a half of precious Friday morning sleep. Precious, because I get so little sleep during the week anyway, especially now that I'm dating an insomniac. However, I have proven that however over-committed I was BEFORE dating Jeremiah, there was still room to fit more activities into my schedule. It was helpful, however, that I spent such a large amount of time with him beforehand, as he was (and is still) such a good friend. However, the toll on my mental and physical well-being became apparent to me this morning. I had my monthly ritual-pain-for-the-sake-of-beauty and delicious Douglass J coffee, and got to work half an hour early (better early than late!), mainly because I'm the Head Honcho (offical title) in the office today and got to park under the building and not take my usual trek to the building. Because I was there waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early, I decided to do something constructive with my time and took a nap under my desk until the time that I should have arrived at work. At this point, I thought I was fairly good to go, especially after I had my intern make coffee (wuh-ha ha! So stereotypical! Can't have her getting above herself! She needs to know her place!) and so I thought I'd be getting yet MORE caffeine into my body. I'm not really a coffee drinker, I'm more of an herbal tea and 2 slices of Ezekial bread toast in the morning kind of girl, so I thought "Ah ha! I'll be AWAKE today!" I was sadly mistaken. To add some extra zing to my caffeinated delight, I decided to mix in some hot chocolate, non-dairy creamer, and sugar (if the sugar from the creamer and chocolate weren't enough!). I was stirring in the sugar when I realized that it was NOT sugar I was pouring in but salt! And it's not like the packets look the same, or that I rarely use either of them either. My daily luncheon is usually a Thai Kitchen soup, to which I always add one salt packet - yes the very same salt packet that I was adding to my coffee. Fortunately, my intern and I discovered it about the same time and only after I had added just a little to my coffee creation. However, I think I really do have a few screws loose this morning due to the early wake-up and my face having to endure so much torture at such an early hour.

However, I would not change my montly ritual for the world. Each month, I feel like my face is a butterfly that has just emerged from its hairy chrysalis. And I enjoy having warm wax on my face as much as I enjoy playing with candles with my fingers. It's the taking of the wax off my face I have an issue with. And really, it's not all that bad; it's much better than tweezing, in my humble opinion.

But it's still a price to pay - although worth it.

Hypocrisy

2005-08-24T13:46:00.000-04:00

"We want to use hypocrites so we can continue in our hypocritical ways. Hypocrisy in other people doesn’t keep us FROM something, but keeps us doing what we want to do. They are convenient, so we can continue to do something that we want to keep on doing." - Monty Hipp

Evangelistic Stripping

2005-08-15T10:13:00.000-04:00

In reaction to Metzger's post, information which I believe may have been given to him by a mutual acquiantance of ours, I was telling a situation that happened to me in high school to some friends of mine. I was sunbathing up by my house, and I had taken off my shirt and only had a bra on because, let's face it, this is usually a perfectly safe activity at my house. Our house has an incredibly steep and long driveway, and when we as children carpooled we were usually left at the bottom, because most of the cars on the island are not powerful enough to make it up the hill. The only people daring enough to make the trek up the driveway were, yup, the Jehovah's Witnesses. I think we all know where this story is going now. Here I was, minding my own business, lazing in the sun and drifting asleep when I hear the grinding that cars' wheels make on our driveway and the vrooming of an engine and it chugs up the hill. I hurriedly put on my shirt just before the car rounded the last bend. I thanked my lucky stars that I had not fallen completely asleep and had been awake enough to hear them coming up the driveway. Although seeing me in my bra may have converted them on the spot. I've decided to reneg 'evangelistic dating' for the more effective 'evangelistic stripping'. As a friend of mine says, "Hey Tiger, wanna hear about Jesus?"*

*note: This entire post is completely sarcastic. I have not ever and will not ever condone loose moral behavior to convert people to Christianity. I understand that this is abhorent and completely contradictory to what Christianity is and the conversion that should be of the heart and not instigated by lust. I hope no one is offended by my post, but takes it in the light, sarcastic tone that I wrote it in.

The Bargain-Basement Bartered Bride

2005-08-15T09:30:00.000-04:00

So, one of my friends is trying to convince me to marry him. He was, apparently, insulted when I reminded him about a conversation we had where we decided we could NOT marry each other. This conversation was brought about by an over-abundance of alcohol on his part and an under-abundance of sleep on mine. Only God knows now about what conversation topic brought about this momentous decision, because it's a sure fact that neither of the parties involved do! The topic came up again and my friend decided he was insulted that I would not marry him (although he has made that decision too, I remind him!) and proceeded to try to convince me that he would be my perfect husband. Considering that apparently his idea of my perfect husband is a guy I only have to see one day a week, except for the time that I serve him the grilled cheese sandwich I would be making daily for his lunch, I really don't think he has a handle on what I desire for my marriage to look like - but what the hey. My friend, deciding that I was not impressed by his amorous attentions in my directions switched his theme, "And, hey, I'm willing to give your dad 35 head of cattle for your hand in marriage, some sheep, and a few chickens." Deciding that I was worth more than a mere 35 head of cattle, I started telling his cousins that he'd offered 60 head of cattle. Of course, they pointed out that the only cow he'd ever had was long dead and buried, suggesting that maybe he should dig the carcass up and give THAT to my dad. It was quite the blow. I went from being worth 60 head of cattle to one rotting cow carcass. Quite the bargain-basement bartered bride. Of course, he could always rustle some cows. Getting them to the island though...that's what will be the hard part.

Thoughts from a friend's blog

2005-08-10T16:09:00.000-04:00

Why is it possible to learn more in ten minutes about the Crab Nebula in Taurus, which is 6,000 light years away, than you presently know about yourself, even though you've been stuck with yourself all your life?

[I'm much more complicated:-) also known as 'High Maintenance' according to at least one of my friends to my face and undoubtably many behind my back:-)]

Why is it that the look of another person looking at you is different from everything else in the Cosmos? That is to say, looking at lions or tigers or Saturn or the Ring Nebula or at an owl or at another person from the side is one thing, but finding yourself looking into the eys of another person looking at you is something else. Ane why is it that one can look at a lion or a planet or an owl or at someone's finger as long as one pleases, but looking into the eyes of another person is, if prolonged past a second, a perilous affair?

[Well, I guess if I ever feel like living dangerously I'll start gazing undistractedly into people's eyes:-D But seriously, a person's soul, their heart, their very depth of being is in their eyes. To look prolongedly into a person's eyes is one of the most intimate acts you can do. There's a reason why lovers gaze constantly into each other's eyes. They are merging themselves with each other, brushing their hearts and souls next to each other. Holding a gaze with someone is as intimate as caressing them. ]