turkey dinner with no dressing is not turkey dinner

I wonder if agnostics are really just theists in denial? I was just thinking about a conversation recently with a friend and I asked him how his relationship with God was these days. He responded, "I consider myself an agnostic with theistic leanings." Now, I think about his breakdown of agnosticism and I wonder if there is any other kind of agnosticism? And following that, I wonder how much of the Christian life is spent saying, "I don't know the answer, but I know God..."? And yet the intention of this second statement is so wholly different... So what was my friend really saying? I wonder how much of our life we live on the basis of what we can consider a "reasonable doubt"? When I worked in Chattanooga with Hispanic immigrants, I sat in a meeting with about twenty guys and translated an employment interview en masse with their employer. I am firmly convinced now (as I was then) that many of the guys in the room were lying in their responses. I found myself caught in a dangerous ethical dilemma. So, in that case (the first time I'd encountered it), I took this employer out to lunch the next day and explained in general terms with no names mentioned, that I had strong enough reasons to believe that some of the people in that room had in fact lied. And his response became a predictable one as I continued to work in that field of ministry: They actually wanted illegal immigrants of a grey category who presented a reasonable enough doubt for the company to hire them. What the hell does that mean? "Reasonable doubt"... doesn't that make them illegal employers in denial? They had no interest in the truth, but rather sought only the justification to live outside of it. Now, illegal immigration is one issue in which to discuss reasonable doubts and I believe it to be more complex than this simple example. But the bottom line in terms of civil justice IS just that simple. And how simple is it when we stand in front of God? Are we taking the calculated risks we need to make to grow our faith in an unpredicatable world with an infinite-personal God? Or are we seeking to lose ourselves in a sea of reasonable doubt? I hate to think honestly of how I must answer...

"...good news of great joy to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David..."

Gone are the days when a man can go on a vacation and come back feeling ready to "start over." Our modern technology has insured that we are always (and maybe only) Running to Stand Still. In evolutionary biology, it's called the Red Queen Hypothesis. The Red Queen is the one in Alice in Wonderland who always yells, "After her! After her!" and runs and runs, but slips on all the cards and so never actually goes anywhere. Or, in Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, the characters say "Let's go!" all the time but they never actually go anywhere. however, i realize i'm in a cyber community of giants! thank you for adding so many great thoughts and discussions. i'm thinking about how to respond to all of them, but then worrying about how i'll actually get the work done that i need to in order to have enough time to blog my thoughts! gak! but for now i'll just say, you guys rock!

knowledge and ethics

What great thoughts, Meesh! (Roger, Michelle went to that leadership camp where E and I met in northern Michigan). Two stand out greatly to me: "reason is not the only thing that drives us" and "While it may be possible for the vilest individual to be a great thinker, that inconsistency between what he teaches/preaches and what he behaves upon will at some point reach a crossroads... It's not to say that corrupted people can't hold or teach wise paradigms... but if we do try to divorce our system of thought from our system of action we either end up schizophrenic or we end up bailing on one or the other." I spent the greater portion of Friday evening discussing and debating with an old high school friend, Alex, who's studying paleontology at the University of Illinois. I actually read the two quotes I posted here to him to see is response. How did he respond? The first thing he said was, "Oh my god, Brad, you've become a postmodernist! When did this happen?!" Then we spent the next few hours discussing knowledge and ethics. I'll summarize our conversation in my thoughts. The first being that it seems the hinge of this conversation has to do with what objectivity is. Modernism seems to construct its idea of objectivity around Reason, which can stand alone from the subject. Post-modernism, as a reaction, seems to start with the subject and claim that the only real objectivity is our own individual existence. Reason, to the post-modernist, can only be glimpsed through the biased lenses of our subjective filters. An interesting example of the clash of these two approaches is the tension Alex finds himself in at the U of I with teaching. He teaches a few paleontology classes and the teachers and teachers' aids have regular meetings to discuss education and what they're doing. Alex has taken sides in a debate about the relationship between knowledge and ethics that adheres to the current legislation in education, which says you can never introduce your opinions into the classrooms, you only state the facts. But many people in the department are saying that it is impossible to state facts without also communicating your personal ethics. They suggest that teachers profess their socio-economic and philosophical biases at the beginning of the course so that the student can pick and choose how to filter knowledge. These same people argue that every paper written should have a one paragraph bio which states the same socio-economic and phiolosophical bias before the actual content of the paper is written. Alex's response is, "Let's go look at a crag together and you tell me if your differing socio-economic background changes what you and I see!" These are two extremes. These are also taking place in a "hard-science" atmosphere, which is different than most of us would be dealing with, analyzing people and culture. Perhaps conveniently, I think of myself as neither a modernist, nor a post-modernist, but a Christian. To me, the key to approaching the subject is Meesh's statement, that we do not approach life with reason alone. If I am a modernist, the highest calling in life is Reason. It is the reference point for living and objectivity is rooted in it. I worship Reason, essentially. The highest aim is the search for the elusive "truth". But as a Chrsitian, I have to displace that central point of reference and say, "Isn't the principle we seek in Reason upheld and rooted in God alone?" If I am a post-modernist, the highest calling in life is existence. It is the reference point for living and objectivity is rooted in it. I worship my own existence, essentially. The highest aim is to know the elusive self. But as a Christian, I have to displace that central point of reference and say, "Isn't individuality essentially rooted in our relationship to God and mankind?" And so regardless of overly extreme commitments to false dichotomies, I think as a Christian we have to see things in relation to one another and in relation to God. As we see things in relationship form, there is unimaginable volumes of needed truth in the Scriptures God's given us and the Church can be the needed signpost in these conversations. The Bible may not have a lot to say specifically about the relationship of knowledge and ethics, but it speaks volumes about relationships. It calls it righteousness or right-standing. And that's where this whole conversation points and to me finds its grounding. The question here is not, "What's right?", but "What's righteous?".

Truth

2000+ years ago Pontius Pilate queried the bound "criminal" before him, "What is truth?" He (perhaps somewhat knowingly) addressed the question to the One who defined it in Himself, the One who literally embodies Truth. Some standards are unshakable... So, while I plunge into these conversations mid-stream...I think reason being not the only thing that drives us, we are not a dichotomized race or so utterly separated body and soul as the Greeks and gnostics believed. I'd agree in fact with Roger's assesment that while we may know what is true, right, good, and so forth we often choose against it for our own gratifications. However, I think that philosophy at least can contain truth, though it would be nigh impossible for every philosopy to be (totally) true. The contradictions would be endless. I've been told (by friends in philosophy) that it's point is to search for truth...the only difficulty that presents itself is that apparently no philosopher can ever claim to FIND T/truth because we press into agnosticism and epistemology...what we can/can't know, and how, etc. So how come those who claim to be philosophers declare so much, in ways that seem quite certain and absolute? And, Brad, I think your questioning Magee is appropriate. While it may be possible for the vilest individual to be a great thinker, that inconsistency between what he teaches/preaches and what he behaves upon will at some point reach a crossroads. We cannot maintain a doctrine or a philosophy or a worldview for long in the stratosphere before it comes crashing down to a pertinent reality in our lives, or the lives of those nearest to us, or whom we lead. Ultimately what we do/live proves what we believe/think. The weight of our minds and thoughts to shape our actions requires an almost constant vigiliance it seems, for if we are to live out our philosophies we will necessarily have to enforce them to some extent upon our behavior. That's not to say that corrupted people can't hold or teach wise paradigms...but if we do try to divorce our system of thought from our system of action we either end up schizophrenic or we end up bailing on one or the other. †And, one small note (I'm sure the tip of a much wider conversation) in response to Roger's comment that "presenting the truth to our friends has never been enough, and that the confrontation approach has not worked on any level in our own lives." The general tendency in our evangelism is to present truth. But we miss the same subtle distinction that Pilate did. We try to offer a platter of paradigms, philosophies, ideas that are true...and we fail to actually introduce people to the One who is the Truth. It's very postmodernly appropriate to say there must be an experience before an internal change can occur...I only partially agree. A transformational encounter with the Living God might well take care of both at once... But also, given even the earlier thoughts I shared about our thoughts needing to be imposed on our behavior...I am convinced that the Holy Spirit being God, He may well enough (and I think often does) begin a person's internal transformation, starts poking at their worldview, starts changing their minds about Jesus before, and perhaps SO THAT they can actually encounter Him as the Redeeming Son of God, not just a "good person," or whatever previously indifferent or hostile view they've held of Him. Probably not in every case, but often enough, I think that at least some of the transformation has to precede the experience, so that it "lasts" or even begins to make sense.

Again: Pro or Con?

Here is some more food for the thought. Again, I can see value in the statement, but inherently it seems to communicate more than the value of the statement and almost condone an unhealthy separation. This is from a book called "The Craft of Research" by Wayne Booth. It is great for thinking about organizing thoughts and doing research. "Most research projects in the humanities and many in the natural and social sciences have no direct application to daily life. In fact, as the word 'pure' suggests, researchers value pure research more highly than they do applied [research]. (Pure research is abstract, but spurs on more research, whereas applied research is practical). They believe that the pursuit of knowledge 'for its own sake' reflects humanity's higest calling - to know more and understand better, not for the sake of money or power, but for the good that understanding itself brings." p67 What is this saying about knowledge? What is this saying about knowledge in relation to God? What is this then saying about God? And what is this saying about the existence of a "right" disconnect between thinking and living? What does that mean for Christians in the fields of knowledge gathering? What is a more proper attitude toward knowledge? How does that affect our thinking and living?

Wittgentsein Ale

Dude, Roger, that is hilarious! We'll have to share some stories over one when you get into the Chicago area. Though, let me tell you what that would mean: If Wittgenstein were an ale, he would say that beer has a taste, but that neither you nor I can honestly taste it, though we can get closer and closer to the fine taste, but then we can't talk to each other about it. So, instead of actually sharing a great Wittgenstein Ale, he would say we should rather discuss and untangle the confusing ways the beer is made since really, we have such differing ideas about the process of its becoming ale that we can't relate over what it is we are trying to drink. Then, he would change his mind and say we should actually stop talking about how beer is made because we are actually too infected in our minds about what beer is through advertising to really look clearly at the process of beer's becoming beer. So, we should actually debate beer advertising and which ones we think best portray beer as it should be portrayed. And that if we can come together over a growing understanding of how beer is portrayed, then that is about the closest we can get to "really" sharing a Wittgenstein Ale. Still want to share one?

3 Thoughts in 1 Post

Roger, thanks (as always) for the thoughts! Real quickly: 1. You said look at David and then said look at "me" (being you) as examples of the ordinariness of making decisions that do not rightly find a logical consistency between the "do" and the "be" of who you are. Some might call it hypocrisy. I call it confirmation of the grace-based life. But doesn't your even saying that make the claim that you see a connection? Davids Psalms to me are intimately linked with the joys and pains that flow out of the big picture living in front of God. When he cries out, "How long, O Lord?" are we to read that as a general principle that speaks about perseverance as if disconnected from his life? Or is it a specific example about David's life and the perseverance he had to go through to be the man of God the Lord was making? I think it's both, but you can't read what he says without considering his life and how that affected his need to think those things. Am I any different? Certainly if I live my life unto myself alone, then there is no causal link between you and me. There would be no link between the life I live and what I think from learning in that life on the one hand, and the life you live and what you learn from your life on the other hand. If we live totally unto ourselves, you and I are totally isolated or alienated from one another and so we can disconnect our lives from what we think and just talk about principles that have no link to our lives whatsoever. Welcome to existentialism, welcome to atheism, welcome to hell. But we both live our lives out in front of an infinite-personal God in whom there are not just general principles held up that we can learn and encourage one another by, but there is also some directing going on between His lordship and our obedience, so that He is guiding us and teaching us through the lives we live. And as we live in front of Him, seeing every context as a new place to seek and learn from Him, then there cannot really be any disconnect between the lives we live and the effect our lives have on our understanding of who God is and where our life fits in before Him or before each other. 2. Role of the church: Ephesians 2:20 "So you are no longer foreigners or aliens, but members of God's household, held together by Christ who is the chief cornerstone." (BBV - bad brad version) But yeah, it's taking people off the streets and bringing them into God's house and living together there where God is the papa bear and we are His pride and joy. 3. Transformation and experience: you said, "...there must be an experience before an internal change can occur." I say, "Okay." But then I also say, "But what is the point?" You said, "[so that] an internal change can occur (=transformation) there must be an experience." You agree, then, that the point is transformation. The danger for many people handling experience in the Church is that they make experience the thing sought after and it becomes the point. In other words, "Experience = transformation". And that is a far different statement. I would agree that very often God confirms His truth and demonstrates transformation with experience. But experience is no test and it is no base to build on. Though often God gives confirmation of the goodness of the foundations that we need THROUGH experience, you can't say that the foundation IS experience. So, to me the question isn't, "Should or shouldn't there be experience in our faith?", but more correctly, "Where should or shouldn't there be experience in our faith?". To me, experience is a blessing of confirmation and encouragement, and it is and should be testable by God's truth and God's character and the fruit born in the life of the person being encouraged by experiences. If you want I can tell you lots of stories of people living out this difference. For now, I'll stop preaching and just say, ROCK ON for the questions and the things God wants to teach us all together in the rubbing and stretching of being His household! Amen. ("Amen" is a Hebrew phrase, I think, that means "let it be so").

Wittgenstein

Sounds like a German beer to me Brad. A good one. Though I feel a little out of depth here I have an opinion. I do see how a persons lifestyle can exist seperate from their ideology and capacity to think or write. Look at David...he by no means led a chaste life, and yet his poetry stands through time as being absolutely awesome. Philosopher he is not, but thinker absolutely. I think of the practical examples of how I live my life, and while as a thinker I conceive notions of living that abound with Christ-centeredness, I make the choices each day to ignore reason, opting instead for the life my natural self wants...self indulgence. I have never thought of philosophy as anything other than thought or reason, and while truth is valid (recipricol in nature, and tenacious), philosophy can never claim to be truth for it is based upon the righteousness of thought; and thought is context specific. As I write Brad I am unsure whether I believe what I am ariting, or whether I have even come close to hearing your question. Valuable to me though is the fact that I have thought about it - considered the question through a lens that is myself rather than the words or thoughts of others. I take great satisfaction in that. Finally - some thoughts of my own:-). Reaidng through Foster's devotional classics I came across a writing from Mere Christianity, stating that the aim of the church is purely to draw people into Christ...to make Mini-Christs so to speak. It is that simple, and yet I have tried to make it so complicated. How we do that is where human creativity comes in, and that is the part I like. However, in talking with a new friend down here in LA, we were both struck by the fact that presenting the truth to our friends has never been enough, and that the confrontation approach has not worked on any level in our own lives. I spoke about your words, about the transformation rather than the experience of God, and received well though it was...it does not serve the evangelism side well....for there must be an experience before an internal change can occur. Is there any better way than sharing our lives with people - eating with them, learning of their families etc? This is the route I like. need there be a confrontation? I think I know the answer, and it is yes...but how that confrontational truth is delivered is something again that is specific, and exciting. What do youmake of Lewis's thought on the nature / role of church? Oh - and please email me your phone number Brad...Id Love to call you

Pro or Con?

This is a quote from a book called "The Story of Philosophy" written by Bryan Magee. He is responding to some people's claims that Heidegger's being an Anti-Semitic Nazi must bear some influence on the content of his thinking. Magee responds, "The idea that a great thinker must be a morally admirable human being is romantic, indeed childish, and is in any case contradicted by too many examples in the history of philosophy for us to take it seriously." Now, I understand the idea of validity to be important. I take it mean the analysis of a person's thinking - whether true or not - as either credible to some practice or not, but Magee seems to go beyond simple validity to almost saying that it doesn't matter. And it is so blatantly and universally presented as an acceptable norm that it shocks me! He seems to be putting out the concept of thinking as disconnected in value from life practice, something that Wittgenstein and Popper would have had a field day over. "Think for the sake of thinking. No, solve problems!" Perhaps he wouldn't have meant for me to read it as I am, but I don't think his statement is uncommon of a value-less society. My philosophy teacher in college said the same thing on numerous occasions, though with a much more querky presentation, being as he was querky himself. Anyway, I read that and thought, "Is that an argument for or against the value of philosophy?" And as such, threw me back toward the thinking of "Wittgenstein's Poker". What is the point of philosophy? Does this attitude expressed in words by Magee create a picture of where we approach it? I can hear Francis Schaeffer in one of his tapes right now going to town on a statement like that. Man, would that be exciting to listen to...

That CS Lews quote is incredible...

It makes me think of a song I've been in love with lately by Fleetwood Mac called, "PeaceKeeper". I don't know if they wrote it about any conception of a Christian God or if they were just thinking of a personified image of peace, but regardless, there is some cool theology in that song AND it's a cool song. There is a verse about the power of friends' influence and our need to choose which influences we take on. It's the verse taht starts, "you know all of our friends are gods..." The CS Lewis quote touched on that in me. Here is the song: "we make all of our sons the same everyone will suffer the fire we've made they all explode just the same and there's no going back on the plans we've made peacekeeper take your time wait for the dark of night soon all the sons will rise peacekeeper don't tell why don't be afriad to fight love is the sweet surprise only creatures who are on their way ever poison their own well but we still have time to hate and there's still something we can sell peacekeeper take your time wait for the dark of night soon all the sons will rise peacekeeper don't tell why don't be afriad to fight love is the sweet surprise when the night is cold and still when you thought you'd had your fill take all the time you will this is not a test it's not a drill take no prisoners, break their will you know all of our friends are gods and they all tell us how to paint our face but theres only one brush we need it's the one that never leaves a trace peacekeeper take your time wait for the dark of night soon all the sons will rise peacekeeper don't tell why don't be afriad to fight love is the sweet surprise peacekeeper take your time wait for the dark of night soon all the sons will rise peacekeeper don't tell why don't be afriad to fight love is the sweet surprise when the night is cold and still when you thought you've had your fill take all the time you will this is not a test it's not a drill take no prisoners, break their will

quote for today

"It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbor. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor's glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you say it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities , it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, ll politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal." --C. S. Lewis. "The Weight of Glory" in: The Weight of Glory pp. 18-19.

just a response to questions

those questions rock! i'm glad to get a little into the brain o brad! it seems like formulating the questions is the most important part anyway....

by Gary Moon

"To enter the kingdom is to recognize the cadence of our true culture and step away from where we have been seated. With the glorious freedom of a child, we abandon ourselves to its rythms and become free from the opinions of others. To enter the kingdom is to become lost in a gaze at the one who is making the music, knowing that it is being played just for us."

An Edict, Attempting to Imitate and Emulate the Erik Ease of Evaluation

I don't know what that means, but I'm going to post questions I have, somewhat like the questions you posed about 200 blogs ago and I liked the way this sounded when it came out. :) Ready? Go. Community development, what is it really? What difference does it make whether community is developed by civil institutions or the Church? Does the one inherently oppose the other and/ or do they implicitly instruct out of their nature about God? What do they teach? How important is dual attention in community development between the people who make up the community and the larger culture and its legislation in which they are given space? What can a balance of that attention look like? What is the role of culture in community? What is the difference between "counter-cuture" and "cultural engagement"? What is the difference between wholistic redemption or the dialectic as tools for analysis? How are these tools more or less rooted in God or mankind as points of reference for worldviews? Can you use both tools and arrive at the same assessment generally? Why? How should each be used? Is Community Development a recent term? What is its historical equivalent? If it is a recent term, why has it suddenly appeared and become important? As a term only, is it instructive of cutlure? Is it blinding to culture? Is it only good for use in today's day and age? Should it be sacrificed for a more universal term? Of what significance is the separation of church and state in community development? What kind of research is being done in this area? What is the value of current "faith-based initiatives?" What is the current "conversation" they are having? How do I get in? What relationship or effect will faith-based initiatives bear on welfare as a whole? What similarities are there between faith-based initiatives and communitarianism? Is it simply religious and arreligious community-oriented thinking? How would I fill in the blanks: I want to study _____ because I want to find out _____ so that _____ . How could any of this be important to people like my parents or E and Brooke's parents or my fraternity friends or anyone content to flow?

back in the saddle...temporarily

okay, today i'm going to try to make up for lost time/posts. but i have to warn all one of you readers out there (hi brad) that i've got a vacation starting manana, so i won't be posting for about two weeks. yipes! today, however, you get a barrage.

delinquent blogger!

dudes.... high school reunion, busy work, lots of storms, then getting stomach flu. not good for blogging. I have been working on a paper I wrote about 5 years ago for an evolutionary theory class in grad school. it feels good to engage my brain that way. but just like when you exercise after a long absence, i am sore from all the theoretical gymnastics. anyway, most of that stuff that i've been reading is so boring for someone who is not interested in it. i didn't think it was worth posting, even if i'd had the time to blog. I've also been reading a somewhat related book by a prof at Calvin named Del Ratsche. He writes a lot of stuff on the history and philosophy of science from a Christian perspective. good stuff! the book i'm reading of his right now is Nature, Design, and Science. It's pretty good so far--but VERY abstract. He writes something like a post-modern American version of C. S. Lewis--which of course means that he sounds nothing like Lewis. But he's still fun to read because he's a clever writer and makes funny comparisons even when talking about huge, philosophical, hard-to-understand topics. anyway... i'll have a quote tomorrow (maybe?!!?)

Bam Bam Bam

Well I seriously cannot wait until I have a ton of time to process the wonderful resonses you both made. I do have time now, while I sit in the main library at the University of Alabama, Tusc. to tell you of my crazy adventures. I started in Asheville, where unfortunately I had way to much Baileys and woke up with a headache having slept in my friends van with 5 other guys. I then drove to Boone, NC to climb for a few days. Too much rain for it though so I ate at some nice restaurants...like Wendys and Shoneys:-) Then i headed south, going throught he blue ridge parkway for a hundred miles, sleeping on the side of the road under a canopy I bought from Walmart for 10 bucks. It was good enough - though my sleeping bag was soaked in the morning from a downpour and poor siting. I have become very creative with an 8x10 canopy/sheet. I use rope and establish the structure, and then slide under with my new Northface Bag and Thermarest which a kid left at camp. What a thing to leave! It has blesssed me and Ill return it as soon as I get to Baton Rouge. The south (Bama) is so different. They speak really funny here, and I just go around pretending to be a student...thus getting free access to showers and computers. It rocks. I could be homeless and do very well indeed! The drive has been long. I find myself talking with God a lot...it seems easier to be a christian on my own than with others:-) That is a weird thought. I did some worship at the rest shelter last night and a lady stopped by to see what I was doing. She probably thought I was mad...but her husband said i sounded good. I figure Ill do that tonight too...just go lead worship somewhere in Tuscaloosa...hit the streets maybe. Ill let you know how my travels go. I love you both. I miss you so much. And Erik, you missed something about the bubble. I am not just a pretty face who smiles a lot and plays music...Im also British!

quote for the weekend

dudes! 10 year high school reunion today. we had lunch at a park near here and then we're going to do dinner at Dave & Buster's. It's so crazy seeing people who were such good friends ten years ago but then sorta disappeared. b thinks my "storge" love is so strong that i almost have to have these people be significant to me wherever they are. i totally do want to be in their lives again. but i'm not sure why--i'm not sure i'd have anything in common with them. but that sense of a shared past is so significant to me.... Speaking of the four loves: i'd quote from that, but i think i have one last Jacques Ellul post before I retire this book for a while. It was a great book, but so intense. I know I'd have a hard time reading his stuff daily. "There is one very important truth which needs to be stressed:namely, that such research [into the cultural direction of the world] is necessarily a corporate act. It is impossible for an isolated Chrstian to follow this path. I believe, in fact, that one of the essential conditions for its realization is the substitution of a tru solidarity among Christians (a solidarity--voluntearily created by obedience to the will of God) for the sociological solidarity, purely mechanical in character, which is being dinned into our ears, and which people want to make the basis of the new world. In order to undertake this search for a new style of life, every Christian ought to feel and to know that heis supported by others, not only for spiritual and ideological reasons...but also for purely material reasons.... So long as the solidarity between Christians is not expressed in mutual help, which will permit everyone to find a balanced life, to discover a style of life that truly expresses his faith (and not in order to avoid starving), it will only be a matter of words." --Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, 2nd ed. (1989). pp. 123-124.

can you see these changes?

hey there! is everything looking slightly different? it should. there is now a title field for each post. you don't have to use it, but it's there. also, the font is different. i like it a lot. it's called "Gill Sans" and as long as you have something similar on your computer, it will show up. if not, oh well. at least i can see it :) also, underneath the "blogger" button, there are "links". i've put in a few quality websites that i thought people might like to visit every once in a while. there are also a couple of blogs. let me know if you have a suggestion or five about what links are worthy of being posted there. props to daniel fox who gave me a little HTML boost--enough to actually help me figure out this blog stuff anyway. yay dan!

Interesting interview, brdfrd. i wonder how universal those thoughts about marriage are. they seem relevant to me... but then i'm nuts. quote for today, july 10, 2003 "Perhaps it seems rather crude to describe glory as the fact of being 'noticed' by God. But this is almost the language of the New Testament. Paul promises to those who live God not--as we should expect--that they will know Him, but that they will be known by him (1 Cor. 8:3) It is a strange promise. Does not God know all things at all times? But it is dreafully re-echoed in another passage of the NT. There we are warned that it may happen to anyone fo us to appear at last before the face of God and hear only the appaling words, 'I never knew you. Depart from me.' In some sense...we can be both banished from the presence of Him who is present everywhere and erased from the knowledge of Him who knows all. We can be left utterly and absolutely outside--repelled, exiled, estranged, finally and unspeakably ignored. On the other hand, we can be called in, welcomed, received, acknowledged. We walk every day on the razor edge between these two incredible possibilities. Apparently, then, our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, to be on the inside of some door which we have always seen from the outside, is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation. And to be at last summoned inside would be both glory and honor beyond all our merits and also the healing of that old ache." --C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory" from The Weight of Glory. pp. 15-16.

This is an interview I put in the newsletter that our family group from The School of leadership Training has been doing the last couple years. I was pretty pleased with how this turned out. So I now share it witch yoo: On Family ìWhoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will save it.î (Luke 9:24) An Interview with Brenda Sutter How would you describe your family to someone who doesnít know you? Iíd basically say weíre a young couple who are seeking Christ and trying to raise our family as He would want. How would you describe what God wants, I mean, what principles or values would you say you stand on in raising your family? I think of studying His Word and prayer. Proverbs is filled with practical, godly wisdom that we need in todayís world for raising a family. Thereís no community closer than family. Have you been surprised by anything in raising family that you wouldnít have expected before having your own? When you have your own family, itís different than the family youíre born into. You kinda get to choose your own family. And with my choice Iím saying that these are the people I love most in the world. But then you find that family is sometimes the hardest to love. What I mean is that when youíre with friends, you think about how to be loving. You arenít with them all the time, so when you are, youíre conscious of being their friend. But when youíre home, you just let loose and youíre not as conscious and so youíre often not as loving. Yet these are the people Iíve chosen to love more than any other. Itís really hard. How do you balance family and friends? Iím definitely not as in touch with my friends, now that I have a family. I had to learn to adjust, you know? You can only be invested in so many people realistically, so it becomes important to find people whose lifestyles can complement my ability to give and receive. When you have a family, itís not always the same friends who can be this. I find I have time in the day to do things, but at night is the only time I have with my husband. Itís great to have friends like Shari whoís also available during the day. Has your relationship with God changed since you began raising your family? Itís definitely increased my understanding of His role as Father. Watching Rob and being a parentÖ I would give everything for my daughter, and that doesnít even compare to what God gives. I also guess I understand His discipline better. I realize how important it is for our daughter to be disciplined and all the ways it would negatively affect our family if she wasnít. It makes me think of Godís desire for us to lose our lives so that we can gain it. Are there any gifts or things youíve learned about yourself that have come out through marriage and parenting? I first think of all the bad things Iíve learnedÖ (laugh) I think I have gifts in hospitality that really have come out in benefiting Rob when heís working all day and can have a warm place to come home to. We were just talking about that a few days ago. Iíve learned what a joy it can be to be self-sacrificial. Itís tough when you want what you want, to have to live a life that is all about what the other people in your family need. Especially as a mother. But itís a real victory of joy to be able to say sometimes at the end of the day, ìI didnít do one thing for myself today and this was a great day!î íCause itís not really about me. When youíre married and in family, you have to share every responsibility. Thatís part of the one-ness thing. What I do affects not just me, but Rob and Hannah too. When I donít spend time in the Word and in prayer, that overflows into Rob and Hannah too. If Iím not pouring into Christ, weíre all affected. Is there any advice youíd give to newly weds or single people about preparing for family in retrospect? Thereís really nothing that can quite prepare you for it. The only thing I can say is that prayer is the best preparation. Pray about everything, strive to be a person of prayer, and be prepared to surrender all.

all of you readers of the quotes of the day may notice that nothing's been consistent for a few days. i apologize on behalf of American Electric Power and Time Warner, Inc.--both companies have been unable to provide consistent electricity or internet service for several days. our daily dose of severe weather since the 4th has caused many things, including my rather large backyard pear tree, to break. but in this brief reprieve from the lightning and hail, and while i seem to have both computer power and internet service, i will offer this quote of the day. Some comments: C. S. Lewis is my 2nd favorite author behind J. R. R. Tolkien...both of which I've loved since a very young age--not just since the over-marketed cash-cow movies and republished books have cascaded upon the public. But I've never read the collection of addresses and short papers entitled _The Weight of Glory_ before a certain member of this blog (who shall remain nameless) left two boxes of books in my living room with no certain date for retrieval. So I thought I'd make the best of it and actually begin reading some of those books. The Weight of Glory was among them and viola! here you have a quote of the day for Wednesday, July 9th, 2003. "I can imagine someone saying that he dislikes my idea of heaven as a place where we are patted on the back. But proud misunderstanding is behind that dislike. In the end that Face which is the delight or the terror of the universe must be turned upon each of us either with one expression or with the other, either conferring glory inexpressible or inflicting shame that can never be cured or disguised. I read in a periodical the other day that the fundamental thing is how we think of God. But God Himself, it is not! How God thinks of us is not only more important, but infinitely more important. Indeed, how we think of Him is of no importance except insofar as it is related to how He thinks of us. It is written that we shall "stand before" Him, shall appear, shall be inspected. The promise of glory is the promise, almost incredible and only possible by the work of Christ, that some of us, that any of us who really chooses, shall actually survive that examination, shall find approval, shall please God. To please God...to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness...to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in this work or a father in a son--it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is." --C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory" from _The Weight of Glory_ (1949, updated 1962). pp.13.

Quote for today, Monday July 7, 2003 "The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we ma follow Christ; and to nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. If there lurks in our modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." --C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory." In: _The Weight of Glory_ (1949, updated 1962). pp 3-4.

yikes! I just noticed that bradford dropped his fifty-cent-piece into the hopper while I only added two cents. brad, you are the encourager and I think the world would be a sadder, meaner place without you. So after reading what brad wrote, I'd say that it was more well thought-out and grounded than mine was. brad has the mind and heart of a pastor; my heart and mind are more like an old rusty plow in the middle of a Kansas soybean field. it's funny that we ended up saying sorta the same thing. plow on! I mean, don't plow on... pastor on or...bad metaphor.... nevermind

hey there man! long time no blog! I don't think any of your questions negate any of the things we've been talking about or writing about. We're all asking the same question: what does it mean to be a follower of an obscure, Palestinian man who died 2,000 years ago? That is the same question that most people will ask in their lifetimes (the ones who hear about his life, anyway)--and the most intrusive of all questions. That question makes demands--huge demands. No other person claimed to take the sins of the world upon himself unto death. No other person claimed that death could not hold him. No other person has been purported to have been raised from the dead (without a human agent to do the "raising"), who then walked around with the same people who watched him die for several weeks before disappearing. No other person claimed that the Spirit that he shared with his Father--who also happens to be the Creator and Judge of the Universe--would revisit his followers to dwell within them. So, as Francis Schaeffer used to say, Yeshua bar Yosef of Nazareth, in the Roman province of Palestine fulfilled the Jewish prophecies of old by demonstrating the claims and the character of the Infinite-Personal God. By doing so, he showed the world--both spiritual and physical--that God wished to condescend himself into relationship with individual people, that God so loved this messed up Earth that he was willing to go to absurd lengths to win the love of the sheep for the Shepherd, to destroy death and suffering, to make things "make sense", etc., etc. Because he's both infinite and personal, he makes claims on the lives of every individual and every group, nation, people, etc. That's very confrontational of him, no? But to try to cease this rambling, or to at least give it a point, you are an ambassador for this Messiah. And your ambassadorship is about "making disciples of all nations." This has less to do with preaching propositional truth correctly or relating personal experiences with this man's Spirit (though some find those things compelling) then it has to do with becoming a servant, a "little Christ," a revolutionary, a caretaker, one who loves at their own expense and even in spite of themselves. This is the kingdom. Not that we loved God, but that he loves us--so we can love each other. So, if I can be brutally honest, yes, to a degree your time here was a make-believe world where people thrust you into positions of leadership inside of the Christian bubble because you are nice and good looking and can play guitar well. When you are outside of that context, everything will be harsher. Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble." But he followed this up not with "so avoid the world" but with "But take heart, for I have overcome the world." It's a big difference between "shelter yourself" and "love your neighbor." So to sum up: how is your life different then theirs? Not just "what do I believe that is different?" But "How does my life reflect the gospel? How is the Good News shown through my daily life?" Earlier, you were saying the answer is "I don't know." And even though I think you do know and there ARE some things that make you different in your behavior than the kids you are around, maybe one of the things you need to take more seriously (and this is not a condemnation, just a response to your earlier assertion that you're not sure there is anything different about you) your nature as an ambassador through the things you buy, the words you speak, the TV you watch (or don't), the way you spend your time, the way you respond to authority, the car you drive--the little things that make a person who they are--and how these things are shaped by the testimony and life of a man that died and yet lives inside of you. I'm not saying you need to be frickin Mother Theresa to these kids...I'm just saying that your ambassadorship for Christ centers more around who you are in front of them than what you preach or who you were in Columbus.

Roger, (I hate that these blogs are entered "upside down" and not in order...) Thanks for sharing where you are, brother. You are coming from a tough place it sounds, yet in the midst of it you're asking some great questions! Rock on for that! "Is the bubble of community real in the sense that it is in touch with the life of true saviorship?" What a great question!! If I hear you correctly, you're pretty discouraged at the moment. You've just come from an environment where it was "easy" to be a Christian and where you could openly talk about your own questions as well as be around older and younger Christians which gives your faith a pretty firm sense of groundedness. Now, you're the old guy. And it seems to me that this abrupt change bears some heightened responsibility on your heart, responsibility that when added to your context, sometimes makes you feel like you're alone. Brother, let me affirm and encourage you firstly by saying that you are not alone. In fact, I can't think of a time when you should more clearly know that God is right there with you, as well as a whole history of saints who have had to wrestle with what is real and what it looks like to really act on the truth of God in the face of soft and hard opposition. And there is also your community, those of us with whom God delighted to allow a time of dining and dabbling in each other's lives over the feast of these truths. I for one will attest to the confidence I have in calling you my brother, chosen by God and set apart for his glory along with a whole host of brothers and sisters that He is raising up together. This is the first identity I see in you and it's where I will understand every question, struggle, or doubt you carry to firmly rest. I hope that everyday, a little more, you can too. Let me also encourage and affirm your questions. I hear what you're asking and know that they can be tools for next steps that God is asking of you. But make sure that your questions are not posed just for us, to produce light conversation and a momentary fleeting of superficial interaction that's rooted in words and symbols instead of lives connected in the process of transformation. I will be praying for you this week. But I'm not going to pray that you'll be comforted in your own strength with answers that give you a false sense of control or with some experience of the Spirit that glosses over issues of change where God is calling you. I will pray for a real movement of your soul to latch onto God with a new found dependence and that in doing so, there will be fruit born as evidenced by opportunities to be a signpost for others and to hear someone tell YOU who God is in your life and not the other way around. You have the gift of asking questions that when delved into can dig you deeper into the God who is there. Lastly, let me encourage you with a quote that we threw up about twenty blogs ago from Larry Crabb. You mentioned that "the answer to salvation seems to be getting people to experience God - and then letting Christ do the rest." I'd love to hear what things you discover in chasing out that thought. In the mean time, consider this as part of the chase: "When we value an experience of the Spirit over the transformation by the Spirit, we run the considerable risk of experiencing something other than the true Spirit of God and never really changing... Authentic transformation reverses the direction of the soul's energy." God has loved you enough to place you right in the thick of it, man. He has not left you on the sidelines or kept you on the bench. I love you, brother, and hope this finds you well! Brad

This may seem cheesy if we're looking for something direct, but after reading Roger's email, this verse is all I could think of... so here it is. Epheisans 6:10-18 10 A final word: Be strong with the Lord's mighty power. 11 Put on all of God's armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies and tricks of the Devil. 12 For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms. 13 Use every piece of God's armor to resist the enemy in the time of evil, so that after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14 Stand your ground, putting on the sturdy belt of truth and the body armor of God's righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News, so that you will be fully prepared. 16 In every battle you will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery arrows aimed at you by Satan. 17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray at all times and on every occasion in the power of the Holy Spirit. Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all Christians everywhere.

Hey everyone - it is time for me to negate the questions posed and dig in to some crap that my life has churned up. Being at a camp where I have met one Christian who is from Russia and never see is way more difficult than I would ever dare admit. The world I am in is more real than columbus - and yet I wonder where it is I have landed. Was I in a bubble for two years, or was that place in Columbus a haven that is only real to those who are truly in community? Is the bubble of coomunity real in the sense that it is in touch with the life of true saviorship. As saved people we really are not in the world that I now inhabit. This world is rude, my language gets ruder. THis world is so real though - real people living real lives...baron of any notion of God. For the most part they seem happy too. True - they have little comprehension of anything other than themselves...but not knowing Jesus is no big deal to them. Instead - it is a big deal to me...that I can know Christ and still act the way I do. Jesus doesnt trick us with the spirit - but there is no going back once it has been part of ones life. The answer to salvation seems to be getting people to experience God - and then letting Christ do the rest. Yes - kids here are prone to debate and they love talking about God, Jesus and the differences between Jesus CHrist and the orthadoxy they know throught the Torah. How is my life different they ask...and I have no argument to sway them...just an experience that I cannot articulate. How I pray for the experience of God to enter the lives of people...that shall be how the battle for the post modern is won. Camp is tough and great...I make compromise after compromise...fall to the level of the least...and try to climb. I give thanks that I am harnessed from above. But for the blood of Christ I should fall.

alrighty. that quote send by brad is so good! i love that book. it's so short, it should be required reading in all small groups once a year. let me strike the hornet's nest with a (somewhat large) stick. read the following: http://www.maketradefair.com/stylesheet.asp?file=05032002111332&cat=2&subcat=2&select=6 and then follow these simple questions. or really, just this one multi-part question: if any/all of the 1 billion people who live in poverty were lifted out of poverty, then what? would they be lifted out of poverty permenantly? would anyone else (say 1 billion other people) need to fill in that poverty gap--shifting the poverty to another part of the world? will lifting one sixth of the world population out of poverty only create an even larger number of people who will descend into poverty later (when they have children?) not necessarily good or fair questions... unkle screwtape asks all....

when looking into the dark maw of death, other things seem so small and unimportant compared to simply living. I get so stressed out (I think the biblical term would be "worried," as in: "Do Not Worry") thinking about bills and future decisions, etc. I keep forgetting that even the hairs on my head (many of which got cut off yesterday, BTW) are numbered. yet there's this seeming paradox--some things definitely have the imprint of Another, other things seem to be without purpose or reason. case in point: my aunt kathy has an aneurysm in a central spot in her brain. tomorrow she finds out when she needs to get surgery. given how much she prays or her beliefs or whatever, you'd think she'd just be immediately fixed whenever we pray. "the prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective" is the verse that comes to mind. we thought the same thing for my aunt joan, who had a lung disease caused by chemicals sprayed on plants. she did live past her originally proposed time. but she still went at the ripe young age of 62. she was still as young looking and acting as a 40 year old. it begs the question, "why her?" a question i suppose we're not meant to know. anyway, b left again today for a week. that makes the 3rd week this summer. i've only seen her for 7 days since she finished school. it was good to see her, to appreciate her talents and watch her have fun with others, to ride bikes and play with the cats and garden and even grocery shop. it's hard to have her gone again. it's important to appreciate life.

"We really do experience in ourselves, at the same time as the power of Christ, the power of the cross to create community. Yet we also find in ourselves everything that goes against community, and have to be completely aware of this fact. We are and we are not communal people... We are also weak and selfish, and there is in us this sturggle between trust and mistrust, where we all believe and don't believe... You cannot possibly live a religious life realistically unless you realize that this is going on all the time." ~ Eberhold Arnold, "Why We Live In Community", p 46

Quote of the day, Tuesday, July 1 [i'm not sure if he's writing hyperbolically or not. i'm thinking not, but there's such an apocalyptic feel to this passage that i'm not sure how anyone took him seriously.] "...all the "means" [technology, etc.] at our disposal, all these technical means which the modern world has created in its pride and vanity--money, and michanical force, and propaganda, the cinema and the press, comfort, or the means of communication--all this miserable pandemonium in the midst of which bewildered men and women do not know what to do--may be put in their right place, if they are set in the perspective of that end [an escatalogical view], already present in the means that God uses." --Jacques Ellul, _The Presence of the Kingdom_, 2nd ed. (1989) pp. 71

whoa, yesterday's post was pretty disappointing. i'll try to make today's better. this morning on the way to work, i walked by a bumper sticker that said "my rules apply to everyone except me." I'm hoping that it was displayed with a good amount of tongue in cheek. But I'm guessing that despite the perceived irony, that is probably an accurate statement for many--maybe even most--people. I know that in spite of efforts in the opposite direction i end up criticizing people for things I do too. some of it may even be jealousy--wanting something that the other person is getting so I make like i'm disappointed with them for liking that thing. i can't think of an actual example of that...but i'm sure there are many. anyway, have to find a quote. i think i'll have to go back to jacques ellul, 'cause he's just so smoove.