Three-Years Worth of Growth

I've recently had an emotional blow that was three years in the making. But amazingly, I have a different attitude toward it than I would have three years ago. As I wrote to a friend:

It's also rather interesting to me that I am "giving credit" to God for this whole three years. The person I was three years ago probably would have blamed God for the way these three years have turned out. Now, I want to praise him for the exact same events I would formerly have blamed him for. I want to shout it from the housetops that God was active in my life, pulling strings, leading gently, slapping me upside the head. I can't however point to any objective evidence and say "See what a great thing God has done", and yet, there's a nebulous sensation in my spirit telling me that's exactly what has happened. It doesn't cut the hurt of the "loss" any ... but it makes the hurt worth it.

God is alive and well on Planet Earth.

BankOfAmerica is Anti-God

The title might be a bit inflammatory, but over the past few months I've really come to believe that God is very concerned with issues of fairness, especially as this relates to how the Have's treat the Have Not's.

I was driving back from Houston (Hi Christa! :-) bye christa.. :'( ) earlier this week and tuned into the Clark Howard radio talk show. Here I learned the story of Matthew Shinnick. I'll let Clark tell the story (http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2006/09/21/#boastory):

How the Bank of America blunder went down

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of the San Francisco man who was arrested and jailed when he tried to verify the validity of a check at Bank of America branch. Clark found out about this story and talked with the man, Matthew Shinnick, who has spent about $14,000 in legal fees to clear his name. It all started when Shinnick posted two bicycles for sale on Cragislist and received a check from a man for more than the cost of the bicycles. He went into his bank to see if the check was legitimate and verify that there was money in the person’s account. He was told it was a valid account and so he cashed the check. At that point, BOA employees called the police and Shinnick was arrested on fraud charges because the check was actually a phony. He had no idea that the real criminal had used the name of a legitimate company to fake a check. So, Matthew sat in the bank branch for hours while police figured out what to do and then spent the night in jail. Once he got out, he wanted to clear his name legally so the arrest would not come back to haunt him. He had to hire attorneys to do this and it cost him nearly $14,000. He then went to Bank of America and asked that the bank cover his fees because it was the bank’s error. But so far BOA has refused. This kind of treatment sends the message that banks only care about their bottom line and nothing about their customers. It's unacceptable and it's time to fight back.

Apparently some of Clark's listeners took up the challenge. According to http://clarkhoward.com/, $14 million has been pulled out of the bank by former BoA customers. If I were a customer, I myself would close my account.

Creation Corner

I found some of my old floppy disks of the 5.25" variety (which should indicate the age of these things). Apparently even way back then I was interested in informing others of creation-oriented information. Although I'd modify the following somewhat now, it is interesting to me to see what I was writing then.

---

Creation Corner
Almost everyone has heard at one time or another that "Evolution is a fact." What may be surprising is that creationists agree with that statement, provided that a clear definition of "evolution" has been made.

There are two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is what is generally meant when someone mentions evolution. It is the idea that a single cell evolved over millions of years into the many different forms of complex life we see today, including humans. This is also known as vertical evolution, for it involves an upward change from the simple to the complex.

Microevolution is the variation that we see within a basic kind. For example, some basic dog kind, a mutt if you will, has evolved over the years into the wolf, the coyote, the dingo, the huge St. Bernard, and the tiny Chihuahua. Another example is the basic human kind which was personified in Adam and which has evolved into Blacks, Whites, Reds, Yellows, Shorts, Talls, etc. This is also known as horizontal evolution, for it involves great variation all around the basic kind without any upward change from the simple to the complex.

Microevolution is a fact. It is demonstrated again and again in both the field and the science lab. Creationists have no problem accepting microevolution as fact. They do however object to the idea that macroevolution is fact. Many high school textbooks proclaim that (macro) evolution is fact and then trot out examples of microevolution to prove it. Most students are familiar with the textbook examples of the evolution of the black and white moths, or of the horse. But both of these are examples of microevolution. It is bad science to make a leap of faith from factual microevolution to theoretical macroevolution.

For thousands of years animal breeders have been trying to produce stronger, healthier, better animals, whether that means fatter cows or faster horses, and what has been demonstrated time and time again is that there are limits to how much change an animal type can undergo. Over the past 50 years or so, scientists in the lab have been breeding fruitflies to see how far evolution can go, and again, although they get all sorts of variations on the basic fruitfly, they all remain fruitflies. There are definite limits to biological change.

The textbooks may claim that there are no limits to variation, so that new species can evolve from current ones, but the actual scientific data indicates otherwise.

Grab for it All! (Not)

When you grab all you can get, that's what happens:
the more you get, the less you are.

-- Proverbs 1:19

The Side You've Never Heard

In the Creation-Intelligent Design-Evolution controversy, all you ever hear from the mass media is a pro-evo slant or a strawman caricature of the creation/design view. In order to balance the view (and thereby make you more educated than the average Joe on the street about these issues), take a look-see at these sites:

crev.info
Telic Thoughts
ID: The Future
Evolution News

You Are Who You Are

Ken Archer summarizes an insight of Pope John Paul II:

You are who you are, not what you would be if the system was different.

"[Archer's mentor] Willard says the intersection between his philosophical and devotional work can be found in the simple question: Who are you going to become?"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/009/27.45.html



"If I were richer, I'd be more giving...".
"If I had more time, I'd exercise...".
"I'd always be in a better mood if my job wasn't so terrible...".

Governance by Sex

I was reading an article the other day about the city of London "disciplining" some London firemen who refused to hand out flyers at a Gay parade. Someone commenting on the story, a Stewart Cowan of Stranraer, made a comment that struck me as a sharp observation. He wrote:

When a man’s conscience can be overruled by the sexual whims of another man, we are all in deep, deep trouble.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1290442006

Buttered Bread

I was just in a conversation in which the old joke came up about strapping a piece of buttered bread to the back of your cat so that you can create a perpetual motion machine.

Then I got to wondering how anybody ever thought of the idea of buttered bread always landing on the buttered side when it falls. I mean, once the bread falls to a dirty floor, does it really matter which side of the bread lands? Were you planning on eating the bread anyway?

I suppose you might, if you're an adherent of the 5-second rule. But I also suppose that whoever thought up the idea of the bread landing buttered-side down must believe that the butter somehow decreases the 5-second rule to a short enough time span that you can't recover the bread in time for eating it.

Which I guess is why, for insurance sake, you should always strap your bread to the back of a cat before buttering it.

Bible Literacy

As I think about the lack of Bible knowledge in this country, I realize that even the education children do get, perhaps at Sunday School, etc, tends to be choppy and disjointed. The big picture is seldom presented.

So here's the big picture in a nutshell.

God (named "Yhwh", which seems to be related to the verb "being" and might be thought of as "essence", or as Yhwh and Y'shua put it, "I AM [THAT I AM]"), created the cosmos, in six literal days, about 6000 years ago (as per clocks on the surface of the Earth; as per a clock on the outer reaches of the universe, perhaps billions of years ago, even though those edges are younger than the 6000-year old earth - gravity-time-dilation effects can be fun!).

The original creation was perfect; no death, no disease, no killing. Lions played with lambs. Dinosaurs frolicked with humans. Mosquitoes didn't suck blood. Weeds didn't produce painful grass-burrs.

But God allowed humans the choice to believe Him, or not to believe him. The first human pair, Adam and Eve, chose not to believe Yhwh, and acted against his one and only commandment, not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. (It's highly unlikely that fruit was an apple; it was probably a type of fruit that is now extinct.)

When they chose to not have faith in what God had said, and ate that fruit, the cosmos was thrown into a death spiral, and ever since then things have been broken and heading for ruin. This is why Grandma has cancer, and your baby brother has Multiple Sclerosis, and your dog just died of old age, and a stingray stabbed Steve Erwin in the chest and killed him.

God was essentially driven out of close contact with this cosmos because it had become poisonous to him. But he wasn't totally absent; he made appearances here and there. After about 16 and a half centuries of the world getting uglier and uglier, he "rebooted" the Earth with a global flood, which essentially turned the Earth inside out, burying billions and billions of plants and animals and turning many of them into fossils (largely buried in order according to their ecological zone: sea-bottom dwellers first, then fish, then edge-of-the-water critters, then slower moving land-dwellers, then faster and larger land-dwellers, followed by the most agile and/or smartest and/or flying beings). (Evolutionists interpret this fossil record as billions of years of "change" from sea-bottom dwellers to smart beings, because they refuse to consider the possibility of this Great Flood.)

But God warned Noah of the coming flood, and Noah, along with his wife, his three sons, and their wives, built a floating box, big enough to take on representatives of the air-breathing land-dwelling animals. He didn't take a sabre-toothed tiger and a puma and a tiger and a lion and a house cat; he just took a couple of "cats" (or perhaps seven cats or seven pairs of cats, depending on if cats are "clean" animals or not). After the flood, these cats had enough genetic variety in them to breed small cats and big cats and medium cats and mountain-loving cats and long-toothed cats and etc. (Evolutionists today see this variation-on-a-theme and assume that the variation does not have any limits, so they figure that a cat could eventually vary into a totally different, non-cat, type of creature. Of course, thousands of years of animal breeding have not demonstrated this; decades of lab research have not been able to accomplish this; the fossil record does not support this; the Bible teaches limited variation, but only within a "kind"; genetic studies indicate that variation is limited; but these evolutionists don't let the data stop them from insisting that their view is true and that any other view is unscientific and anyone who even questions evolution must be some sort of stupid, flat-earth-believing rube from back-woods Hicksville.)

So the population of Earth, both human and animal, survived the Flood. But conditions were vastly different. Before the flood, the environment was such that rain and rainbows did not occur. People (and other organisms) lived to long ages. Dragonflies grew to have meter-wide wingspans. Etc. Now, after the flood, lifespans of people gradually dropped to about a tenth of what it was before. The hydrologic cycle changed. Seasons changed. Dinosaurs no longer could thrive in the environment, and basically became extinct (except for the occasional Komodo "dragon" today or mythical dragons reported from all cultures).

After the flood, Noah's descendents failed to spread out like God had told them to do, and started maturing their technology at a faster pace than their culture could absorb. So God broke up their tech-fest by suddenly confusing their language in the city of Babel. All of a sudden, different people could no longer talk to each other, so people started grouping together with others they could understand, and moved off into their own little niche. In this way, the human population spread out from Babel, and different people-groups started to form. And just like the cats who had long-toothed children and short-toothed children, the humans had tall children and short children. Some of the short children got together and married (yes, in those earliest days after the creation and again after the Flood, brother married sister, cousin married cousin; the genetic damage had not gotten bad enough yet in our DNA to cause problems from close-kin marriages). Some of the darker-skinned kids got together and married. Some of the more book-learning-minded kids got together and married. Some of the more sports-minded kids got together and married. And some of their kids wandered to other family groups, and learned their language, and married into those groups, thereby spreading the short/dark/sports-minded/whatever genes around some, but mostly over time the short group lost the genetic information for tallness, and the blue-eyed group lost the genetic information for brown eyes, etc. (Evolutionists point to this variation among humans as "evolution", but notice that new genetic information has not arisen out of nothing; instead existing genetic information has been lost out of the group's gene pool. This is just the opposite of what evolution needs.)

Yhwh then picked a man named Abram, and promised to bless the Earth through his descendents. Later Abram's name was changed to Abraham, and he was the father of the Israelite nation. (Israel was the name of Abraham's grandson. Jacob was originally the grandson's name, but later in life his name was changed, just as his grandfather's name had been changed years earlier.)

Israel had twelve sons, each of whom became the ancestor of an Israeli "tribe".

Generations later, a man named David, of the Israeli tribe of Judah (Judah was one of the sons of Israel), became King. He's the King David you hear about so much from the Bible.

Generations later still, in the town of Bethlehem, a descendant of David was born named Yeshua. (In our culture we would normally pronounce this name as "Joshua", but we tend to pronounce it as "Jesus", as our culture adopted the Greek pronunciation which is more like "Yaysoos".) This baby was unique, in that he inherited the biological cell of humanity from his mother, along with her half of the DNA programming that runs that cell, but he got the other half of his DNA from Ywhw himself. Thus, Baby Jesus was human, yet also God. Somehow, in this way, he did not inherit the damage, the "sin" if you will, that the rest of us inherit from Adam. Jesus was free from the Curse. (Note that "sin" is used in two ways in the Bible; one way means "imperfection" or "broken-ness"; the other means "action or inaction that leads to guilt". Babies are born with the first type of "sin" and thus need saving from death, but not the second, and thus do not need "saving from sin". Thus they don't need to be baptized until they reach the mental stage where they can actually choose to "sin".)

At approximately the age of 33, Jesus stirred the pot sufficiently among the religious leaders that they deemed it necessary to put him to death. Not having the political ability to do so themselves, they pressured the Romans into doing it for them, and the Romans dealt out death in a very cruel way; crucifixion on a cross.

Jesus could have sidestepped this death, as he, as mentioned, is God, and had the power to do so. But the whole reason he came to Earth was to die. In some way, his death undoes the curse that Adam brought into the cosmos. When Jesus allowed himself to die on that cross, he purchased back the cosmos from certain death. (And by choosing to do so in a cruel way, he demonstrated that we are valuable enough to him to go through the worst kind of torture for us. Many people would take a bullet for someone they loved; but would they take extreme torture, especially if they had the ability to end the torture with just a thought, at the cost of that loved one?)

Then three days later, Jesus rose up from Death. He had conquered Death completely, and promises to all of us who believe in him to free us from the death-grip that is currently on this cosmos. In the meanwhile he has returned to his heaven, away from the poison of this fallen world. He's not quite ready to redeem it and us just yet.

We still live in the broken world. It has been purchased, but it has not yet been redeemed. We, and the cosmos around us, are groaning in anticipation of the redemption promised by Jesus. Even though our bodies wither and grow old and diseased and die (at which time our spirits go to live with Jesus), one day Jesus will return, bringing us in our spirit form with him. Then our spirits will be reunited with a raised, renewed, like-new-before-the-Curse body, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Those believers still alive will have their bodies changed instantly, so that they also will be like-new-before-the-Curse bodies.

The Earth will be consumed in fire, just as it had earlier been consumed by the Flood. After that, the details get hazy, but there seems to be some sort of new Cosmos to replace this broken one, probably similar to how we get new bodies to replace our broken ones.

And I don't know what life will be like there and then, except to say it'll be awesome. Beyond imagination (and I'm sure you can imagine a lot; I know I can).

And that's the gist of the Bible.

While we're waiting on the return of Jesus, we need to be transforming our culture into one that gets along with each other, and looks out for each others' benefit rather than just looking out for "Number One". This is what God wants; he wants peace on Earth; good will toward humanity; love, one for another, helping each other with our burdens, feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick, eradicating poverty. God wants his house-rules to be in effect here on Earth; he wants his reign to extend over all nations; he wants the Kingdom of God to absorb all humans, but not in a political way, but rather in a heart-mind philosophy-led way. He wants his will to be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven.

If you want to be part of the eternity-long paradise, and want to be free eventually of disease and blindness and baldness and stinky armpits, and want to make the world into a peaceful community of one-another-ness, you can join the movement.

You've heard the basic story; if you believe it (and are willing to stand up for this belief publically), and are willing to steer your life away from selfish pursuits that hurt others (such as alcoholism or cheating on your spouse or stealing or even the more innocuous playing of the lottery (which has as its basic, underlying goal the making of many small losers out of your fellow humans in order for you to gain)), then you can admit to this belief and decide to make this life change, and begin your new life by being immersed in water ("baptized"), which is essentially the "official signing of the contract" to become a Christian. (Many Christians would downplay this contractual event, but the conversions and teachings in the Biblical book of Acts demonstrate its integral role in conversion).

That's the story; I'd love to have you consider it seriously, and act on it to become a fellow believer.

Stunned

I'm certainly no great scholar of the Bible, but as I read comments on the web on various stories, I'm continually stunned by the ignorance of the basics of the Bible and Christianity in this United States of America.

I would not expect non-Western nations to have basic Bible knowledge, but when Westerners don't know the basics, I'm just stunned to realize how far our country has drifted from its more Biblical roots, just in the past half century or so.

This spurs in me the desire to teach basic Bible literacy to this nation. I believe our country would be better off with that kind of education.

Have I mentioned....

that I really like my guitar?

Just Ribbin' Ya

This is from one of those email lists that float around the 'Net:

At Sunday School they were teaching how God created everything, including human beings.

Little Johnny seemed especially intent when they told him how Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs.

Later in the week his mother noticed him lying down as though he were ill, and she said, "Johnny, what is the matter?"

Little Johnny responded, "I have pain in my side. I think I'm going to have a wife."

Sin Damages the Earth

Yhwh turned rivers into wasteland,
springs of water into sunbaked mud;
Luscious orchards became alkali flats
because of the evil of the people who lived there.

Psalm 107:33-34

Circumcision: It's not just for Jewish men anymore

I'm pretty sure I was raised to avoid thinking of baptism as being the "Christian circumcision"; at least that's what my brain tells me I "should" remember, although I can't actually remember learning that.

Nonetheless, the other day I read this passage:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism....

Col. 2:11-12

Seems to me that makes it pretty clear that baptism is the "Christian circumcision".

Maybe I'm just wrong about what I think I was probably taught.

====

In trying to find this passage just now using BibleGateway.com, I came across another interesting passage:

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

Rom. 4:9-10


Putting these two passages together, it would seem that righteousness by faith is credited prior to baptism.

However, I'm of the mind that the New Testament makes it clear that it is at the point of immersion that one gains a new life, has his sins washed away, dies to the old life, etc. So I think perhaps my leaning now is to believe that God may very well credit righteousness at the point of faith/decision, but that it's not "official" until immersion, and we have no business teaching otherwise.

But, what do I know?

SPIRIT and Truth, or Spirit and TRUTH, or Spirit AND Truth?

When talking to the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus declared,

Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

In my church-upbringing and culture, the focus when reading this passage was always on the "in truth" aspect.

Just now, re-reading it, I discover that I think Jesus' focus was on the "in spirit" aspect. He and the woman were discussing where the proper place for worship is: Jerusalem or Samaria. They were discussing issues of "truth". Then Jesus points out that the Jews had the "truth". Then he contrasts the focus on truth with what is to come: a time of worshipping in spirit and truth, pointing out specifically that God is spirit.

I think perhaps my church culture has neglected the spirit in favor of the truth.

The Early Church and the Synagogue

Never knew this.... Take it as you will.

Here, assembly is a translation of the word "synagogue," which is used to denote the meeting or meeting place of believers. This fits the Jewish background of the readers (cf. 1:1). Later James also uses the word "church" (5:14).

http://www.biblebb.com/files/GR763.HTM

This sure fits in with the idea that the early church was synagogue-based.

And why don't Bible translators stick to the text instead of substituting words ("ekklesia" for "synagogue"; "the LORD" for "Yhwh", etc)?!

Christians - A Third Race

My cousin has been writing a series of lessons for Bible class, and one of them deals with "The Development of the Christian Assembly".

In the historical background he provides, an interesting nugget made itself apparent.

After the Romans conquered the Jewish nation, they soon learned that the Jews were stubborn in several ways, such as by keeping themselves separate from non-Jewish culture, and refusing to worship any god but Yhwh, and not eating and partying with non-Jews, etc. The Romans learned that the Jews had a long history to which they were loyal (at least in principle), and the Romans found that unless there was a reason to do otherwise, it was generally just easier to leave the Jews alone as much as possible.

In the early years of Christianity, the Romans did not make any distinction between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews; as far as the Romans were concerned, they were all just Jews. Accordingly, the Romans tended to treat the early Christians like they'd treat Jews, leaving them pretty much to themselves (as in Gallio refusing to bother with trying Paul over "Jewish issues" in Acts 18:12-17).

However, after Gentiles started becoming Christians, it became apparent to the Romans that these converts did not have the long history of being a Jew to account for their refusal to participate in Roman society (worship of the Roman gods, wild parties, etc). The Romans began to see these Gentile Christians as a developing "third race"; not Gentile like themselves, nor Jewish like the Jews.

It just struck my fancy (as it did those Christians, apparently, as per my cousin's writings), that we are a "Third Race", a "new People".

Fascinating.

Life is about One Another

The bulk of the following was lifted from http://www.acts5.com/scripture/oneanother.html

So much of church time is spent on "acts of worship", particularly preaching. But the New Testament spends a lot more time on "one another" than on "church activities":

... you also should wash one another's feet.
John 13:14

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
John 13:34

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.
Romans 12:10

Honor one another above yourselves.
Romans 12:10

Live in harmony with one another.
Romans 12:16

...stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
Romans 14:13

...make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
Romans 14:19

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
Romans 15:7

(Notice how bringing praise to God is not via song-leading or preaching, etc, but rather via acceptance of one another?)

...wait for each other.
1 Corinthians 11:33

...have equal concern for each other.
1 Corinthians 12:25

Greet one another with a holy kiss.
2 Corinthians 13:12

(Oh, wow. I am so bad at greeting others .... (Not that I'm good at the other items on this list, but this one I know I'm bad at.))

...serve one another in love.
Galatians 5:13

Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:2

(Note how the law of Christ is fulfilled? Not by going to church three times a week, or worshiping in a certain prescribed way, or teaching some specific doctrine, but by bearing the burdens of each other.)

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
Ephesians 4:2

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Ephesians 4:32

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21

(Notice how we show reverence for Christ?)

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
Philippians 2:3

Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Philippians 2:4

Do not lie to each other ....
Colossians 3:9

Bear with each other.
Colossians 3:13

Forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.
Colossians 3:13

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

Live in peace with each other.
1 Thessalonians 5:13

But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.
Hebrews 3:13

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.
Hebrews 10:24

Offer hospitality to one another....
1 Peter 4:9

...do not slander one another.
James 4:11

Confess your sins to each other.
James 5:16

Pray for each other....
James 5:16

These things build up the Kingdom.

The Purpose of Christian Assemblies

For most of us, all our lives, we've thought the "purpose" of going to church was to "worship".

However, I can't find any support for this idea in the New Testament.

I find our purpose for Life to be "worship" (Rom 12:1), but our purpose for assembling is twofold:

1) to participate in the Lord's Supper, and

2) to build up one another.

Granted, worship is included in our assemblies, but worship is not the purpose of our assemblies. Here's a representative passage from Hebrews 10:24-25:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Accordingly, I propose (only tongue-in-cheek) that we change the marquee' out in front of the assembly building so that it reads:

Provocation Assembly
Where Our Goal is to Provoke You!
(Unto love and good works...)

How Often to Worship?

In the oldest Mosaic culture, "regular" worship was to be conducted three times a year, in Jerusalem.

Later, after the Exile, "regular" worship was to be conducted every Sabbath, in the Synagogue.

With the New Covenant, we are to "regularly" worship at all times, in all places. "Church" is not our worship time; "Life" is our worship time.

"...present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom.12:1).

From three times a year, to once a week, to all the time.

Wow. We're called to a higher standard.

Purpose of Prayer is also for Each Other

Wow. I always thought prayer was to be directed to God, but according to Paul, it is also to be directed to your fellow Christian, for his up-building:

If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

1 Corinthians 14:16-17

So one of the purposes of public prayer is to edify those hearing you.

Interesting.

How Can You Women Stand Us Filthy Men?

Last year I got to pondering about men and women (like, when don't I ponder about men and women?). It was easy for me to understand why men like women; you women are soft, and silky, and smell pretty, and look great, and sound like angels when you speak, and are, as someone once said, the closest to heaven we men will ever experience in this life.

Men on the other hand are dirty, always needing a shave, stinky, selfish, uncaring, oblivious, rude, sloppy, lazy. In short, I just don't see what you women could possibly find attractive about men.

And then it hit me. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, each was given a punishment. Part of Eve's punishment was that her desire would be for her man.

Ah-h-h. That explains it.

Psalm 15

Psalm 15, as rendered (mostly) by "The Message":


1 Yhwh, who gets invited to dinner at your place?
How do we get on your guest list?

2 "Walk straight,
act right,
tell the truth.

3-4 "Don't hurt your friend,
don't blame your neighbor;
despise the despicable.

5 "Keep your word even when it costs you,
make an honest living,
never take a bribe.
"You'll never get
blacklisted
if you live like this."

Camels and Gnats

Something I wrote to a friend some time ago, which I find interesting:

Jesus set the example that humour has great power to shine light on dark areas in one's life. His teachings are rather full of puns and sliders (some of which are obvious in the Aramaic language but which do not translate well into English, like the straining of a gnat ("galma") while swallowing a camel ("gamla")).

An Interesting Turn of Phrase

"The Message" renders Job 31:12 thusly:

Adultery is a fire that burns the house down; I wouldn't expect anything I count dear to survive it.

Earlier, as rendered by the NIV, Job states:

I have made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.

and

If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door, then may my wife grind another man's grain, and may other men sleep with her.

These statements mean something. I think men everywhere should take them to heart.

---

Now, leaving a more spiritual and pure mindset, and dropping briefly into the gutter, I gotta admit that my brain at first glance rendered this last quote as "may my wife grind another man's groin". Which, I suppose, means the same thing, just not in such symbolic language.

It's the Cell, Not the DNA

Back in Darwin's day, the basic unit of biological life, the cell, was considered to just be a blob of jelly-like protoplasm. As biologist Michael Behe puts it, it was "Darwin's Black Box" (a book I'd recommend if you have interest in such things).

Just in the past twenty or thirty years has it become clear that the cell is an incredibly complicated factory, having all sorts of machines on the factory floor, with pipes running to and fro, and communication conduits, and little factory-floor robots shuttling materials around, and loading docks, and emergency repair teams and warning alarms and monitoring sensors and on and on and on.

However, it struck me this morning that the average person on the street still believes that DNA is the stuff that makes us who we are.

I wanted to take a quick minute to help update the populace.

DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) provides the programming that runs the factory equipment. It does not actually build that equipment.

So where does the equipment come from?

It comes from your mother.

Your mother provides a copy of her cells; this is the egg. She also provides half of the programming library (DNA) to run that copy of her cells. Your father provides the other half of the programming library.

You are essentially a cellular clone of of your mother, but the instructions (DNA) contained in the central library (nucleus) determine if your factory machines produce green widgets or red widgets, if they produce long eyelashes or short eyelashes, if they produce a dark-skinned person's dosage of skin-coloring melanin or a light-skinned person's dosage of melanin.

Kinda helps to emphasize what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:12:

For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

This also explains how that an animal "kind" can reproduce after its kind, but still allow all sorts of "variation on a theme". (In reality, evolutionists find this "variation on a theme" all over nature, in the lab, and in the fossil record, while they only imagine "cross from one kind to another" change; yet they insist we are a product of this imaginary latter kind of change. Check out their "best examples" of evolution - "variation on a theme" is what you'll find.)

More From Job

In the last entry I mentioned that Job seems to believe death to be final, but then again, maybe not.

Here's what he says in Job 19:25ff (NIV):

25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;

27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.

"The Message" puts it thusly:

Still, I know that God lives—the One who gives me back my life—
and eventually he'll take his stand on earth.
And I'll see him—even though I get skinned alive!—
see God myself, with my very own eyes.

Two things about this passage:

1) What's this business of the Redeemer standing on the earth in the end? Is that symbolic? Is it during the First Coming of Jesus to the earth? Or is it indicative that in the Second Coming, Jesus will actually step foot on the earth again? (I only ask this question because in my church background, we've been taught that the New Testament indicates that "we'll meet him in the air, and so shall we ever be", without Jesus ever setting foot on Earth again, whereas many other groups teach that not only will Jesus return to the earth, he'll do so for 1000 years or some variation thereof, depending on who you're talking to.)


2) This sure seems like a clear-cut indication that Job believed in a bodily resurrection; not just some ghostly spiritual body. That's my take on things also -- well, actually, I tend to think that the distinction between physical and spiritual may not exist then as it does now.

Tidbits from Job

"The Message" is an interesting version of the Bible. I would not use it as a "study Bible" by any means, as it's way too "loose", but it sure inspires thoughts that normally wouldn't be prompted in my mind by a standard version of Bible.

Here's an interesting passage from chapter nine of Job. In the midst of his suffering, Job says:

God and I are not equals; I can't bring a case against him.
We'll never enter a courtroom as peers.
How I wish we had an arbitrator
to step in and let me get on with life—
To break God's death grip on me,
to free me from this terror so I could breathe again.

This may or not have any messianic relevance, but it struck me as sounding decidedly messianic.

Then, just a few chapters later Job says:

O Earth, don't cover up the wrong done to me!
Don't muffle my cry!
There must be Someone in heaven who knows the truth about me,
in highest heaven, some Attorney who can clear my name—
My Champion, my Friend,
while I'm weeping my eyes out before God.
I appeal to the One who represents mortals before God
as a neighbor stands up for a neighbor.

Definitely sounds messianic to me. But then, what do I know?

Another tidbit I found was in chapter 12:

Strength and success belong to God;
both deceived and deceiver must answer to him.

That second half just resonated with me.

And the final tidbit that has struck me, so far, in this book, is that Job seems to not believe in an afterlife. All his talk of death seems so final, like this passage from chapter 14:

But men and women? They die and stay dead.
They breathe their last, and that's it.
Like lakes and rivers that have dried up,
parched reminders of what once was,
So mortals lie down and never get up,
never wake up again—never.

But then again, he at least seems to hope for a resurrection, for right after that passage he continues:

Why don't you just bury me alive,
get me out of the way until your anger cools?
But don't leave me there!
Set a date when you'll see me again.
If we humans die, will we live again? That's my question.
All through these difficult days I keep hoping,
waiting for the final change—for resurrection!
Homesick with longing for the creature you made,
you'll call—and I'll answer!

So much stuff to glean from the word of God; so little brainpower with which to do it.

Creation-oriented take on news

Fascinating website for those who have an interest in science news from a Creationist perspective: http://crev.info/

Why Evil?

I just started reading the book of Job, and I got to thinking about how we humans would be if God directly rewarded good behaviour and punished bad.

I daresay that most of us would mostly behave very well. After all, if treating people with respect and doing good and never lying and never cheating on our spouses resulted in having riches and fame and fortune and the best looking and most pleasing spouse, we'd probably all do those good things.

But we'd do them for our benefit, not because we love God.

On the other hand, if we live a life of poverty, and have a horrible disease, and are treated like scum, and we still love God, then we really do love God, and are not simply faking it.

That's one of the main points in the book of Job. Satan accused Job of loving God because it had a high return on investment for Job. God proved Satan wrong; Job loved God because he loved God, not because he loved the rewards of "loving" God.

We often hear the phrase "he has the patience of Job"; I think the more desirable trait would be to have the love of God that Job had.

Esther: What an Interesting Book

So many interesting tidbits in the Biblical book of Esther.

• The king of Persia, Xerxes, threw lavish parties, in which the "guests could drink as much as they liked—king's orders!—with waiters at their elbows to refill the drinks."
• Ten or 14 eunuchs are mentioned by name in this book. The palace must've been crawling with emasculated men. I can't imagine a much worse (psychological) fate than to be taken prisoner and made into an eunuch.
  
• Queen Vashti was a babe.
• The Medo-Persian Empire was quite male-dominated.
• Apparently when the King decided to put away his wife, he had the right to bring in all the young virgin girls he could find and "test" their suitability as a new queen. This test seems to me to be a night of sex.
• Esther was one of these virgins, and apparently spending the night with the King was an honor, even if it meant having only one night of sex in her life and then living in a harem with other women the rest of her life, as Esther and her cousin Mordecai conspired to avoid saying anything that might spoil her chances at the opportunity to become queen.
• Esther was raised by Mordecai after the death of her parents, but even when she was no longer under his roof, she did as he said.
• Mordecai stuck to his principles, rather than doing the "In" thing.
• "An order written in the king's name and sealed with his signet ring is irrevocable". An edict was sent out in the King's name, calling for the destruction of all Jews. Because of Esther's actions, a second edict went out allowing the Jews to take up arms and defend themselves. This second edict could not revoke the first, so it provided the means for the Jews to defend themselves, which turned to the advantage of the Jews.
• The date set for the destruction of the Jews was determined by lot, or the pur. This same date is when the Jews were allowed to defend themselves, and became a great day for the Jews, worthy of celebration as an established holiday. Thus was born the Purim Festival.
• The king allowed just the Jews living in the city of Susa a second day of "defense" against their enemies, and thus the Purim Festival became a two-day affair rather than a one-day affair, celebrated the day after the anniversary of the day chosen by lot, and the day after the extra day of "defense".
• The Purim Festival became a national holiday for the Jews. Notice that it, like Hannakuh, were not instituted by God, but by humans. Notice also that Jesus celebrated Hannakuh (and can be presumed to have celebrated Purim). Thus, even though Christmas is not a Bible-ordained holiday, I personally have little issue with Christians celebrating it and attaching some religious significance to it.
  
• Apparently the average person in the Empire was literate, being able to read the King's edict postings.
• When Esther balked at risking her life to approach the king in an attempt to save the Jews from slaughter, Mordecai made this fascinating statement:

If you persist in staying silent at a time like this, help and deliverance will arrive for the Jews from someplace else; but you and your family will be wiped out. Who knows? Maybe you were made queen for just such a time as this.

• The book of Esther does not directly mention God. (Neither does Song of Songs.)
• Fasting appears to have been a significant activity in ancient times, particularly in conjunction with facing a difficult decision or trial.
• Again, at the end of this book, we see the author of Biblical material referring to extra-Biblical sources. This to me has some significance in our understanding of inspiration. I remember reading once a saying that has stuck with me for years: "If it's true, it doesn't need to be inspired." I'm less interested in arguing what is inspired and what inspiration means, than in simply determining if the text is accurate and reliable, which I conclude the Bible to be. With this view, I'm no longer bothered by the differences in detail from one Gospel account to the other; these differences attest to the reality of the event. It's similar to how a police detective might view accounts of a crime given by two different witnesses; if the accounts are exactly identical, they become highly suspect, whereas if the accounts differ slightly in various details, they corroborate each other as being seen and remembered from two slightly different viewpoints. This leads me to highly respect the accuracy of the Bible, while allowing for minor perceptual "issues".

All in all, I found the book of Esther to be an enlightening read.

Gouging with Interest

Nehemiah 5 provides an interesting slant on loan interest. Nehemiah scolded the lenders in Israel, saying,

A great protest was mounted by the people, [saying] ...

"We're having to mortgage our fields and vineyards and homes to get enough grain to keep from starving."

And others said, "We're having to borrow money to pay the royal tax on our fields and vineyards.

I got really angry when I heard their protest and complaints. After thinking it over, I called the nobles and officials on the carpet. I said, "Each one of you is gouging his brother."

"We did everything we could to buy back our Jewish brothers who had to sell themselves as slaves to foreigners. And now you're selling these same brothers back into debt slavery!"

"What you're doing is wrong. Is there no fear of God left in you?"

"I and my brothers and the people working for me have also loaned them money. But this gouging them with interest has to stop. Give them back their foreclosed fields, vineyards, olive groves, and homes right now. And forgive your claims on their money, grain, new wine, and olive oil."

I think of this sort of thing when I think about what happened at the bank this past week. Due to an arithmetic error in the checkbook, and then being away from the Internet on vacation for a week, I'm all of a sudden $180 poorer because of nine overdraft fees. I can understand the bank needing to cover some expense in such a situation, and wanting to discourage overdrafts, but this seems, well, evil, to me.

Divorce, Returning-Exile Style

I'm not sure what to do with the passage in Ezra 9-10. After all the preaching I've heard at church about the evils of divorce, I find that the Jews under Ezra determined "purity of race" to be more important than the sanctity of marriage vows.

The passage basically says that they realized that the people of Israel have not kept themselves separate from the nations around them, having intermarried with those people. Accordingly, they decided to divorce non-Israelite spouses and separate from them and from any offspring of those unions.

I'm not sure what to do with this.

I put my trust in Yhwh! Sort of ..., Mostly.

I found it interesting that after Ezra petitioned the King of Babylon for permission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city, he had this to say:

I proclaimed a fast there beside the Ahava Canal, a fast to humble ourselves before our God and pray for wise guidance for our journey—all our people and possessions. I was embarrassed to ask the king for a cavalry bodyguard to protect us from bandits on the road. We had just told the king, "Our God lovingly looks after all those who seek him, but turns away in disgust from those who leave him."

So we fasted and prayed about these concerns. And he listened.

Ezra 8:21-22

Instruments in Old Testament Worship, and in the New

I had a friend write to me fairly recently,

I am not so sure about "instruments" (I guess you refer to musical instruments) and hand-clapping being present in the temple. According to my information these were more present in the idol temples of the gentiles.

This came to mind as I recently read from the Books of Chronicles such passages as the following (around chapters 29-31):

The king ordered the Levites to take their places in The Temple of Yhwh with their musical instruments -- cymbals, harps, zithers -- following the original instructions of David, Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet; this was Yhwh's command conveyed by his prophets. The Levites formed the orchestra of David, while the priests took up the trumpets.

Then Hezekiah gave the signal to begin: The Whole-Burnt-Offering was offered on the Altar; at the same time the sacred choir began singing, backed up by the trumpets and the David orchestra while the entire congregation worshiped. The singers sang and the trumpeters played all during the sacrifice of the Whole-Burnt-Offering. When the offering of the sacrifice was completed, the king and everyone there knelt to the ground and worshiped. Then Hezekiah the king and the leaders told the Levites to finish things off with anthems of praise to Yhwh using lyrics by David and Asaph the seer. They sang their praises with joy and reverence, kneeling in worship.

and

All the Israelites present in Jerusalem celebrated the Passover (Feast of Unraised Bread) for seven days, celebrated exuberantly. The Levites and priests praised Yhwh day after day, filling the air with praise sounds of percussion and brass. Hezekiah commended the Levites for the superb way in which they had led the people in the worship of Yhwh.

It seems pretty clear to me from these passages, at least in Hezekiah's day, that instruments (and choirs) were part of Temple worship. (Other passages lend themselves to this conclusion also, but I'm not really on a proof-texting expedition; I just found that Chronicles addressed the issue somewhat.)

Concerning clapping, when a Psalm (47:1) encourages it, it seems likely that clapping was not unknown in Temple worship:

Clap your hands, all you nations;
shout to God with cries of joy.

But that smacks of proof-texting, so I'll say no more about that.

Note that I'm not arguing that Christian worship should (or should not, for that matter) contain instrumental worship or choirs or clapping or burnt offerings; I'm only saying these things were part of the Jewish worship in the Temple in the olden days.

Even though the more solemn worship assembly of the synagogue arose during the Babylonian Captivity, after the return there are indications that choirs and instruments were still used in non-synagogal, Temple worship (e.g. Ezra 3:10-11, Neh. 12:27ff, 46).

If instrumental music was still a part of Temple worship in the first century (I won't try to make the case, but I believe it to be true), and if the earliest disciples, still being Jew through-and-through, were worshipping in the Temple (and I again believe that to be the case), then the indication is that instrumental music as part of worship is not un-Christian per se; it's just that in the non-Temple worship of Christians (as opposed to Temple worship, which would have ceased entirely after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.), instrumental music was not acceptable.

Accordingly, it seems to me that instrumental music has no place in the "formal" Christian assemblies (as that appears to violate the pattern established in early non-Temple Christian assemblies), but outside of those assemblies, instrumental music, as part of worship, seems perfectly acceptable to me. It took me many years to come to this conclusion, as it goes against what I was raised to believe, and it is likely to offend greatly many in the church I now attend, but I'm just trying to go where the evidence leads rather than just accepting my parents' beliefs as my own.

(By the way, my Dad seems to have a sense of guilt when he catches himself whistling church tunes when out working on his ranch, as non-singing "church music" is not acceptable in his belief system. Were he to adopt my belief system, as outlined above, he'd find his guilt issues to dissipate (which, by the way, is not an acceptable reason for adopting a belief system; a belief system should be adopted because it's True, not because it provides some emotional value such as dismissal of feelings of guilt).)

Worship as You're Able, Even if it "breaks the rules"

Some time ago a friend of mine and I had a short discussion. I held to the idea that if Christians were stranded on a deserted island due to a plane crash, and only had access to coffee and donuts for use in the Lord's Supper, it might be acceptable to use these non-Biblical items in that memorial event. I said,

In such a case, I would concede that perhaps the spirit of the worship takes precedence over the "truth".

My friend objected strongly, saying,

We cannot substitute what we have because that is all we have. Truth is that Jesus used unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. If that is not available, AND it is physically impossible to make it available the way to do it (as far as I can see) would be to worship 'in spirit' only. Since we must worship both in spirit and in truth and it is physically impossible to obey the truth, then we should only worship in spirit. We cannot start worshipping in spirit and untruth!! That would be disobeying what God said.

In reading the books of Chronicles, I came across a passage that seems to support my viewpoint. (I wasn't reading to "prove a point"; I was just reading, and came across this passage which seemed apropos.)

It's in 2 Chronicles, chapter 30. Hezekiah, a "good" king over Judah, cleaned up the nation, getting rid of idols and worship-houses for false gods, etc. He had the Temple restored, which had been neglected and had fallen into disrepair. He did what he could to get the nation back on track with Yhwh as their God.

He then invited all of Judah, and their sister nation, Israel (which was even more prone to idolatry than was Judah) to come to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Passover, which had been, like the Temple, neglected for years.

However, because of practical reasons, they were not able to celebrate this feast in the prescribed, "Biblical" fashion. They could not celebrate it at the proper time (at least until the next year, if they wanted to wait); the people weren't properly consecrated; the priests weren't ready; they doubled the time for the feast, carrying it on for a second week beyond the prescribed one week.

Hezekiah, realizing that not everything was "kosher", prayed. Here's the basic passage, starting in verse 18:

Hezekiah prayed for these as follows: "May Yhwh who is all good, pardon and forgive everyone who sincerely desires Yhwh, the God of our ancestors. Even—especially!—these who do not meet the literal conditions stated for access to The Temple."
Yhwh responded to Hezekiah's prayer and healed the people.

Later, 31:21 says,

Hezekiah carried out this work and kept it up everywhere in Judah. He was the very best—good, right, and true before his God, Yhwh. Everything he took up, whether it had to do with worship in God's Temple or the carrying out of God's Law and Commandments, he did well in a spirit of prayerful worship. He was a great success.

I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it, but it seems to me that God is more interested in the "spirit of the law" rather than in the "letter of the law", at least in some cases.

Read the Bible!

Some time ago I wrote:

The Living Word

We've all read it a hundred times:

For the word of God is living and active....
Heb 4:12

Recently, when I read this, it hit me.

It's not passive black text on a crisp white background.

It does something.

Put it in your head. It won't just sit there like a coffee cup on a side table. It'll do something. It's active. It's alive.

Just recently as I was reading the books of Chronicles, it struck me that the Kings listed in these books serve as examples to us; some were good Kings, striving to elevate Yhwh to the prime position over their nation, and some were evil Kings, turning to the so-called gods of the nations around them, along with the evil practices of those gods.

It's one thing to read the stories in the Chronicles, and learn lessons from each story; it's an entirely different thing to get an over-arching lesson of choosing to serve Yhwh or of choosing to serve other gods. If I had been reading the Bible in the "a little here, a little there" style, I still probably would have gotten the individual lessons from the individual stories, but I would have missed out on the thread that runs throughout the books - who ya gonna serve? Yhwh, or someone/thing else?

It struck me once again, that the only way to learn these subtle lessons is to read the Bible. Read it. Then read it again. Then read it again, in a different version, with a different mindset. Then read it again.

I'm afraid that we as a people have failed to read the Bible any more. Is it any wonder the church is so weak in the 21st century?

Acts of Worship

In the past few weeks I've had occasion to see the dichotomy between two different paradigms concerning worship.

One paradigm holds that worship is any outpouring of a reverential, value-assigning attitude toward God, and can be conducted at any time in any place in essentially any form. This paradigm holds that one may worship God when learning of a raise at his job, or when enjoying the intimacies of the marriage bed, or when reveling at the sudden release of a migraine into pure comfort, or when awestruck at the body's ability to heal paper cuts, or when thrilled about knocking a homerun in a game of baseball.

The other paradigm holds that worship is a formal act or set of acts that takes place at a specified time, and which has a formal starting and stopping point. This leads to the non-Scriptural term "Worship Service" which is applied to the regular (typically thrice-a-week) Christian assemblies. In my upbringing (traditional "Church of Christ"), there are "Five Acts of Worship" found in the New Testament and which are to be incorporated into the "Worship Services". These acts are singing, praying, giving, Lord's Supper, and preaching/teaching.

Whereas I believe that Christian assemblies should incorporate worship, and should conform to the general pattern of the first century assemblies, I do not believe that worship is limited to those occasions. I hold more to the first paradigm.

Fifth and Grape (the church I'm currently attending) appears to hold to the second paradigm.

As I sat in a "worship service" (cough) there recently, it struck me that these folks are inconsistent in their application of their paradigm. They believe the "worship service" should consist only of these five "New Testament example" acts. Thus their "services" don't include non-approved acts, such as singing "Happy Birthday" to members, or clapping (yes, I may touch on that issue some other time), or drinking coffee and having donuts while listening to the preacher, etc.

Yet they do include the non-approved act of having announcements in their "services". I think most of them grew up with announcements occurring prior to or after the "worship service" time proper, but as they've aged, they haven't realized that they've allowed announcements to drift into, instead of staying before or after, the "services".

I just found that interesting.

Pure Religion

James 1:27 says:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

I've spent much of my first forty years of life working on the part about not being polluted by the world (not that I've been exceptionally good at it). Just recently it's been weighing on my spirit that perhaps I need to spend the next forty years honing the other skill of looking after orphans and widows in their distress.

Colorado Trip

I just got back from a week in Colorado. Had lots of fun. Here are the pix: http://faculty.acu.edu/~westk/2006/COLORADO/index.html

Am I the Rich Man?

In case you're not familiar with Jesus' story about Lazarus and the rich man, you can read it here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31;&version=31;).

All my life I've thought that if I had been the rich man, I would've been appalled that a poor beggar, covered with sores, was at the end of my driveway, needing help, and I would then do something to help him.

But this past Sunday, when the story was mentioned again, I realized that reality may not mesh with my self-righteous imaginations.

For one thing, I'm thinking from a modern, middle-American lifestyle point of view, where the beggar is at the end of a 30-foot long concrete driveway, sitting on the curb. However, as I got to thinking about it, this rich man probably had a long winding drive, which was gated at the street. If I had been the rich man, I would not be quite so likely to notice the beggar with him that far from the house, except when I'm coming and going, and by the time I got [back] to the house, I would have forgotten about him.

Until my guests arrived, that is. The rich man was probably receiving all sorts of wealthy guests. So if I had been him, I now have to concern myself with the comfort of my incoming guests; they're not going to want to be bothered by a bum, no more than you like getting stopped at a traffic light next to a panhandler.

For another thing, if I feed this bum, or send some medicine out to treat his sores, he'll tell his friends, and tomorrow there will be four bums at the end of my drive looking for a handout.

For a third thing, aren't there places in town that are designed to take care of this bum? Don't the priests at the Temple have some sort of system to take care of the poor?

And it began to dawn on me that I'm not sure I would have acted any different than the rich man did.

Wow. What a revelation.

This was all brought home to me last night as I was sitting in the car downtown waiting for someone. A beggar lady came up to the car, asking for a handout. I had seen her before, and knew her story to be a lie. And I was glad I didn't have any money on me, telling her that nowadays I pretty much only carry a check-card (which is true).

But as she walked away, I wondered if perhaps she was Lazarus, and I was the rich man.

A couple of days ago I read part of the blog of a homeless man (it's in vogue now for homeless people to be given old laptops and to blog from their local public hotspot). He said that typically homeless people have some sort of "issue" that prevents them from having a job or functioning in society. Sometimes it's mental illness, sometimes it's alcoholism or drug addiction, sometimes it's an intermittent physical condition (like migraines) that might allow a person to work for months, but then might require a month or two worth of sick leave - what employer will keep an employee that needs to take off two months out of every nine?

My self-righteous attitude thinks, "Well, they shouldn't be addicted to drugs", or "It's their own fault for starting to drink alcohol in the first place."

I also tend to think, "Our society has safety nets for people like this; if they really need help, they can seek out the safety nets."

What horrible condemnation awaits me from the rich man, who didn't hear a story like his as a warning all his life?

Someone else, a former alcoholic and drug addict, warns me against giving to people like this, as it feeds their addiction. This, of course, just adds to my self-righteous justification of not giving a dollar to these people.

Another reason to not give is that I've heard that these intersection-located panhandlers make two or three hundred dollars a day. Wow! That's pretty good money.

So I'm really torn. Am I feeding the addictions of con-artists if I give them a buck, or am I the rich man, bound for torments, if I don't?

My brother Darrell, and my other brother Darrell

In reading the books of Chronicles recently, I kept coming upon lists of brothers who had very similar names. I'm not enough of a scholar to know for sure that these are brothers rather than more distant relations, but the first impression I'm left with is that some folks in those days used the same name, or nearly the same name, for different children. Here's some examples from 1 Chronicles:

1 Chron 1:33 - the sons of Midian, Ephah and Epher

4:15 - the sons of Jehallelel, Ziph and Ziphah

4:20 - the sons of Ishi, Zoheth and Ben-Zoheth

7:16 - two brothers named Peresh and Sheresh

7:30 - two brothers named Ishvah and Ishvi

14:3 - David's sons, Elpelet and Eliphelet (both named "Eliphelet" in 3:6)

25:4 - Heman's sons, Hananiah and Hanani

It seems there were others, but I'm not finding them now. I just found this interesting.

"Worship Service" vs a Life of Worship

Over the past few years I've come to realize that worship is not something to just be done three times a week during the formal assembly times of the church. As this idea has developed, I got curious once and went looking through the New Testament for the purpose, the reason, for Christians to assemble.

Lo and behold, I discovered that the Christian assemblies are never referred to as "Worship", or "Service", or "Worship Services".

I further discovered that the only "black-and-white"-provided reasons for assembling are for building up and edifying and encouraging one another, and for the Lord's Supper.

This topic came up during class this morning at church. The preacher, and I daresay most of the class participants, haven't yet made this paradigm shift; they still believe that worship is a dedicated period of time that must follow the pattern laid out in the New Testament, and by applying the jigsaw-puzzle mentality to a host of scriptures, come up with the "Five Acts of Worship".

I used to believe this way; the shift to a different paradigm was a very subtle, gray shift, not a 180 or anything obvious like that. Accordingly, it's very hard to see how to explain the shift, and therefore to help others to see it. Yet the end results are so different.

This different paradigm manifests itself in so many different ways at church. I have wrestled for almost a year with becoming a part of the church I'm currently attending. On the one hand, I'm comfortable there, and really like the people, and feel like I'd have an influence there. On the other hand, the influence I'd have would likely either turn everyone against me, or would cause dissension in the church. I've prayed a lot about it, that God would guide me one way or the other, but it seems that it's just a decision I'll have to make on my own, with my own human wisdom and/or fallibility.

One thing about attending here is that I've been very regular. Elsewhere I'm not sure I'd be so regular. I'd have a hard time getting plugged in; or there'd be too many people and I'd get panicky; or there'd be too few people and I'd feel like the church is dead.

I think a HUGE difference that could be made in this church would be new song books. Huge. Absolutely gargantuan. This church is stuck in the 1950's, and I suspect a large part of that is the song book.

But I'm rambling. The basic point of this blog is that I don't really fit in at the church I'm attending, and I believe they are teaching as doctrine some commandments of men, but I don't know what to do about either issue.

--
Addendum:
Today I came across this page which goes a long way toward explaining my thoughts concerning worship.

Drivin' Through History

I've recently discovered a 30-minute show on the local "Christian" television channel called "Drive Thru History, with Dave Stotts".

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I love this sort of stuff. I think Christians would benefit greatly from this program. It should be shown in the adult and high school classes on Sunday mornings.

Last night's episode had Dave visiting the towns of Hieropolis, Laodicea, and Colossae. Hieropolis has hot springs, and was a popular tourist spot; Colossae was known for its springs of cool, refreshing water.

The third town, Laodicea is interesting in relation to the book of Revelation. Aquaducts from the two towns mentioned above carried water about 20 miles into Laodicea, but by the time the water got there, the hot water from Hieropolis was no longer hot, and the cool water from Colossae was no longer cool; this tepid water, being neither cold nor hot, had a bad taste. Also, the town of Laodicea was known for its banking industry (making the town rich), it's clothing industry (providing clothes), and a medical industry that produced eye salve (for healing eye problems).

The church in Laodicea is the only one of the seven churches mentioned in the book of Revelation about which nothing good is said. Instead, we read the following from Rev: 3:14ff:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

and:

But you do not realize that you are ... poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

Interesting.

What If New Scriptures Were To Be Found?

I've often wondered what the church of Christ would do if some archeological dig found a forgotten lost book of the Bible. Oh, I know there have been many so-called "Lost Books of the Bible", but I'm talking about the genuine thing.

For example, Paul writes to the Colossians in Col 4:16:

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

Here we have a God-inspired account of the existence of a letter written by Paul to the Laodiceans, apparently carrying equal weight as the letter to the Colossians as regards inspiration, which we do not have today. What if that letter were to show up, here, nearly 2000 years later? How would it be received?

Young Eutychus

I always thought Eutychus was young, as in 8 to 13 or thereabouts. Apparently not:

As Paul extended his speech, a young (neanias - signifying between the ages of approximately twenty-four to forty - Arndt, p. 536) man named Eutychus was borne down with “deep sleep.”

From http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/eutychus.htm

Seek Truth

Nobel Prize-winning French novelist Andre Gide had a point when he advised, "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

as stated by Tom Harris of the National Post.

World Vision

Over the past few years I've developed the vision that this physical Earth on which we sit is not just something to be ignored while waiting on the much better home in Heaven. There are lots of indications in the Bible that Jesus wants us here, being salt and light; there are indications that sin actually, physically, corrupts the land where sin occurs. Some deep stuff that I'm not wanting to go into at the moment.

But I just came across an interesting verse, in Revelation 11:18:

The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.

Notice that last line? Yhwh's not happy about us destroying our Earth; I suspect He then would not be particularly happy about us ignoring it either, allowing it to fall apart around us while we look to a new Heaven and a new Earth (which is a Biblical concept, just not, apparently, to the exclusion of taking care of this one and keeping it running as long as we can).

Epiphany

This morning I had an epiphany.

I was thinking about a man I know who has typically had great success meeting women and, um, "dating" them. (Yeah, that's the term; "dating".) He's married now, and has been married for about 5 years. He's been married before, I think twice.

It struck me that he's great with meeting women, but has not been so great with keeping them. I really hope he keeps the current one, because she's a dandy.

Anyway, on to my epiphany. It struck me that there are two skillsets involved here:

1) meeting women (and one-night standing them)

2) keeping a woman

I've never been good with meeting women (and refuse to one-night stand them, hormones notwithstanding - women (in general, and that one woman specifically) are more valuable to me than that). But perhaps I have that second skill of maintaining a long-term relationship. This thought encourages me somewhat.

New Words

In an earlier post I mentioned watching a Woody Allen flick, "Anything Else", from which I learned several new words. Here's my list:

hebetudinous
amphigories
veridical
polymath
maladroit
adventiciously
homunculus
typhlosis / lotic
neoteric
tergiversate

I'll leave it up to the reader to learn what these words mean. (A couple I was familiar with, but didn't really know.)

The phrase "vino veritas" was also mentioned, in contrast to "eros veritas". I still haven't gotten around to looking that up. (I hope I didn't just say something offensive.)

Woody's character also ranted at one point, if my memory serves me correctly, about people always going to psychologists and psychoanalysts, etc, trying to find answers to Life. He wrapped up that little rant by saying that people should just learn that "Life is what it is". Somehow that resonated with me, but I'd have to see that scene again to figure out more about why it resonated. Still, thought I'd mention it, because, after all, this is a blog, which means I can rant all I want about meaningless nothings.

Vox Day uses an interesting word: "omniderigence". Apparently it's a voxism, meaning:

Performing universal action, providing sole and total motivation; all-acting.
It refers to the idea that God is a micro-manager, not only knowing how many hairs are on your head, but also being responsible for when each one falls out. (Vox believes this is a non-Biblical concept.)

Lots of fun, learning new words.

Veridicality

Roget's defines veridical as:

1. Conforming to fact: accurate, correct, exact, faithful, precise, right, rigorous, true, veracious. See CORRECT, HONEST, REAL, TRUE. 2. Consistently telling the truth: truthful, veracious. See TRUE

This was one of the words used in the Woody Allen film, "Anything Else".

The other day I got an email from a friend who said, "Though your extreme honesty is sometimes a shock to my system, it's mostly refreshing and often admirable."

I'm afraid my friend isn't claiming that I'm veridical; I'm afraid she's claiming that I tend to open my mouth when perhaps I should keep it closed. Still, I think I'll follow Homer Simpson's example when he got stuck in a doggie door and bemoaned, "Oh, why did I have to be so voluptuous?"

Oh, why must I always be so veridical?

Paradise Found

I mentioned watching recently the Woody Allen movie "Anything Else". In it, Woody's character, Dobel, says something to the effect of "I believe it was Camus who said that women are all we're ever going to know of paradise on earth." I've been unable to find this quote by Camus, but this site purports to record this line as part of the movie's transcript.

I found this line interesting because months ago I wrote to a friend that "Women are my favorite thing in the whole wild world (cupcakes are nothing, nothing, in comparison)."

I just wanted to take this moment to publicly state that I believe the quote above speaks truth: you women, as inscrutable as you often are, are a magnificent gift.

On another topic mentioned previously, a word used in that film with which I was unfamiliar was "amphigories". This word refers to meaningless writing, particularly nonsensical verse. The old song, "I'm My Own Grampa", would probably qualify as an amphigory.

heb·e·tu·di·nous

Merrium-Webster's Online Dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hebetudinous) found hebetudinous for me. It means lethargy or dullness.

My life is somewhat hebetudinous. What can I say? I'm a couch potato.

The Second Adam

I woke up this morning with a thought.

As per the idea that Jesus was resurrected without any clothes handy (see Streaking Through the Garden), I realized that the First Adam had no need of clothes in the Garden, before Sin came into the world, and now the Second Adam had no need of clothes in the Garden, after Sin had been dealt with.

Interesting ....

Lucy!! Ju got some 'splainin' to do!

Someone please explain to me why I have to blog the most boring details of my life . . .

Today I played chauffeur for Mom, Dad, and Dad's sister, Leta. I drove them to Lipan, where lives Mom's sister, Billie, and Billie's two sons Lane and Jerry, with their respective families. I visited with Lane a few minutes, then Dad and Leta and I went on, leaving Mom at Billie's; they were going to join up with their third sister, Jewel, and spend some time together.

Dad and Leta and I went on to Granbury. Granbury High School, from whence Dad graduated in 1947, was having a multi-class reunion, and Dad wanted to stop in and speak to some of his friends. He didn't have time to stay for the whole thing, as we had a trip to Fort Worth planned, but he did get in a few minutes of visiting. Before going to the reunion, he had me drive to the private house of one of his class-mates who is stuck at home with health issues (connected to an O2 tank, etc) so he could visit with him briefly. Dad later talked to this man's wife at the reunion, and told her he had stopped, and she was very glad for that, saying that he needed that visit. When Dad told us about this later, Leta mentioned that maybe a few others had stopped in likewise, but I think we all doubted that. Dad gave voice to that doubt, and said something to the effect of "People tend to be wrapped up in their own little capsules." Just before he said that, I was thinking that his actions served as an example to me, and that I spend way too little time thinking about other people; once he said that, it struck me that, yes, I'm in my own little capsule. "Self-contained" is the way I've expressed it before.

On the one hand, self-containment is good, as it means I'm not draining those around me by being needy towards them (well, except to my friends whom I need to send long, rambling emails to); on the other, so much of Christianity is supposed to be about looking out for the other person's benefit. I'm a horrible failure at that. It was good to get this reminder today. (Not that it'll make a difference, sadly, I'm afraid.)

After leaving Granbury, we went on to Fort Worth. The traffic was not bad, as FW traffic goes, but wow! I sure don't miss it.

We did a quick drive-by of Mom and Dad's old house. Other than a new privacy fence having been erected all around, it looked pretty much the same.

Then we went on to the nursing home where Dad's mom is. She's 103 and six months. She doesn't know a lot any more, but she recognizes and knows me every time I go. I kindda wish I would've had my guitar, and would've been able to just plink a bit while sitting next to her. But, in hindsight, it wouldn't have done any good, as she's only slightly less deaf than a post.

She complained about "what a hell" she's living in. I told her that yes, it's bad; that's just the way things are sometimes, but that it's temporary, and it'll get better. She asked how it'll get better, and as I held her hand, I told her that Jesus would give her a new body, and she'd be young, and strong, and vibrant. I have no idea how much of the message she heard, how much she'd comprehend, or how much she'd believe. But I think she could at least tell that I was making human contact with her; she glistened up in her eyes, but later Dad asked if she had teared up when I left (a minute or two after they had already left the room), so I reckon that's a normal response for her, and probably doesn't mean anything. Still, I'm glad I've been able to visit her a few times since she's gone into the home. I wish I could provide more of what she needed (just having a family member nearby, etc).

Speaking of nursing homes, Nesa's mom, Cherry, has deteriorated significantly in the past two days. She's been moved into the hospice wing, and the folks there are giving her a few days up to a few weeks.

I so look forward to when we can really understand, no, when we can SEE, the truth of the phrase, "Oh Death, where is your sting?"

From the nursing home, we went to KFC (a fast-food chicken eatery here in the States, formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken), where we met my sister Candy for lunch. Candy lives there in Fort Worth.

So it was good to see Grannie, and it was good to see Candy.

Then we headed back to Lipan, where we picked up Mom, then back to Abilene.

And that pretty much was my day.

New Words

I just watched the Woody Allen film "Anything Else", with Christina Ricci. I don't think I've ever watched a Woody Allen film that I really liked. They're all just, anh, okay.

And I've always wanted to like Christina Ricci. I fell in love with her as Wednesday Addams in the first Addams Family movie; she was so ... dark, in a comedic sort of way. I loved her line, "Are these Girl Scout cookies made from real Girl Scouts?" (perhaps not exact; I'm going on memory and I've only seen it once, and that a long time ago). And sometimes I do like her, such as in "Pumpkinhead". But usually, she's just a little, um, trampy, or something. And I suspect she's that way in real life. It's really sad. I wonder how many child stars in Hollywood wind up burning up their lives by the time they're twenty. Take Mary Kate and Ashley for example, or even Hillary Duff. Sigh.

Anyway, back to "Anything Else". Like I've said, the movie was okay, but I really enjoyed all the new words that Woody Allen's character used. I was stunned to hear so many words I did not know. I'll be looking them up in the next couple of days, and plan to use them in my next few blogs.

Or maybe not; I just tried looking up the first word, hebetudinous, in http://www.dict.org, and came up empty. Perhaps I'm misspelling it, or perhaps it's a made-up word. Oh, well, I'll try harder when it's not so late.

Streaking Through the Garden

When Jesus was crucified, he was presumably naked, or nearly so, as his clothes were divided amongst others (Matt 27:35). His body was taken down and wrapped in a clean linen cloth (Matt 27:59).

After his resurrection, the disciples went to the tomb, and saw the linen and the head piece laying there in the tomb (John 20:6-7).

Was Jesus running around the garden naked?

Did he take clothes from elsewhere (another dead body? a clothesline? one of the unconscious soldiers?)

Did he miraculously create clothing?

Did he "appear" to be wearing clothing?

I tend to favor this last item, as he was able to appear in a different form to the disciples walking to Emmaus, and he was able to pass through solid walls (indicating that his physical, raised, human body was not bound by physical constraints as ours are (and we shall be like him (1 John 3:2)! Woot!). So basically, he could think tux, or he could think jeans and a t-shirt.

I don't suppose this is terribly important, but I just found it interesting to realize that Jesus probably didn't have any clothes handy when he rose from the dead.

Blog, huh?

Jonesy tells me I should quit spamming him and my other friends/family with all my rambling emails, and blog my ramblings instead.

(That's not actually what he said, but it's close enough to make him look unkind, and a great guy like him needs to be smeared a little every once in a while. He actually was trying to be helpful, not get me to quit spamming him.)

So I'm going to take this under consideration, and perhaps post more often here.

Pew? Eee!

It is generally my habit when attending church to sit on the end of the pew. This past Sunday morning, just as the worship period was starting, my Mom & Dad, who were greeters that day, came to my pew, and because they'd need to leave a minute or two early to get to their greeting spot to greet people leaving the building, they suggested I move in toward the center of the pew rather than them going in to their normal spot, and having to climb over me later or me having to leave the pew to let them out. It made sense.

Except that I have a bit of a problem with crowds. It's not always a real problem; sometimes it's just a minor discomfort; sometimes it's not even a problem at all. When I was asked to move inward, red flags went off in my brain, but I didn't have time to consider the issue; I just moved inward.

As soon as I was inside the pew and trapped, I instantly locked up. I mouthed some of the words to the songs, but was not singing; I was panicking. I needed out. All I needed was to get to the aisle, or better yet, outside the building. I was useless.

About half-way through the sermon, some things the preacher said distracted me enough that the panic attack started fading, and by the time of the invitation song, I was okay.

Later that day:
----
That night, knowing my parents were still greeters, I sat on the pew in front of our regular pew, so that I could have my own end of the pew. It might not have been a problem for me to be pushed inward that night, but I wasn't taking chances. One of the women on the row behind our normal row questioned me about it, and I explained that I wasn't about to get trapped inside the pew again. She said she understood; her husband, when he was alive, would only sit on the end of the pew because otherwise it made him panicky.

That triggered a memory I had when I visited Stephen and Esmé last. Talking to one of the women at church there, I mentioned that the pews in their new building were exceedingly long, and she mentioned that the members of the church realized that too late, discovering after the pews were in that most of the men avoided the inside of the pews.

After returning from that memory, I looked around the auditorium at where the men sat. I saw one man who was not on the end of a pew.

My brain clicked: Men have some sort of aversion to being trapped on the inside of a pew.

Since a huge bulk of church attendance involves sitting in a pew, and there are relatively few pew ends available, I wonder if many men might not have a natural unrealized aversion to church attendance because of this. I know that in my own case, I often dreaded going to University church here in Abilene; I couldn't really verbalize what exactly I dreaded; I just knew that University was too crowded and that made me dread the idea of going. Once I started attending with Mom and Dad at 5th and Grape, one of the reasons I found attendance to be easy there is because I was physically comfortable; I never felt crowded. (Although this past Sunday night, a friend whom I told about my panic attack put 2 and 2 together and said something to the effect of, "Oh, that's why I always see you go out the side door instead of the door everyone else uses, which would entail going through a gauntlet of hand-shakers and greeters. I've always wondered.")

In other words, perhaps something as simple as replacing the pews, or rearranging them so that the men don't feel trapped, would make more men feel comfortable in the assembly building, and perhaps, such as in my case, remove a sense of dread toward attending.

Just a thought.

Name Changes, Part II

The name "Chyntt" has stuck. A couple of weeks ago, Nesa and I went and spent a few days with Esmé and her family. On the day we left, I picked up my Bible off the table to pack it, and I opened it. Here's the video I sent to Jenifer (who, you'll remember, started the whole thing): http://members.cox.net/snert/Jenifer.avi