New Covenant

Homeschool journals and the reliability of the Gospels

As part of our homeschooling endeavors, my wife and I will have our children keep journals while we are on road trip vacations. Besides being a method to keep them busy, the exercise also helps them learn about the various places we visit, as well as to hone their writing skills. Typically, we'll have them keep a daily journal, encouraging them to be verbose and expressive as they relate the details of our trip.

On a recent trip, however, I asked them to take their journal writing in a slightly different direction. Instead of having them write from a perspective which relied heavily on feelings (i.e., expressing their thoughts and opinions about what we were doing), I instructed them to give an essentially historical and factual account of what transpired on the trip. They didn't have to try and include everything that had happened each day, but only that which they considered most important or most unusual. As an added bonus to this alternative approach, my wife and I also kept trip journals.

After the trip, the journals were polished off and printed. I then had each family member read the entire set of journals. Once that task was completed, we all gathered for a group discussion. As expected, the journals were written in a chronological manner (e.g., Sep. 21, Sep. 22, Sep. 23). And, as expected, while the journals contained many of the same trip events, they were not equally comprehensive in their coverage of the trip. Descriptions varied, numerical values were sometimes rounded, specific events were ignored, etc. Due to the type of experiment I was conducting, I purposely varied the style of my journal from that of chronological to topical. I also crafted my account to include rounding, and exclude extraneous information of events that none of the other family members were a part of.

During our discussion I brought up these various differences in each of the journals. I asked what the differences might indicate (e.g., error, difference of opinion, omission). I asked if any of the differences indicated a direct contradiction or whether the differences were simply paradoxical. Essentially, I took our children through the process of harmonizing the four accounts of our trip. This was possible because the harmonization was being done on events they were eyewitness to, and the analysis was being made on data they had a direct part in producing.

Lastly, I then asked if they were aware of any other examples, of multiple accounts of the same events, having a different appearance in the forms we had just discussed. Our oldest quickly answered with, "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John," and our youngest even piped in with the statement that Mark does not include any mention of Jesus' birth. This, of course, was the point of my exercise: To show our children, brought up in the midst of a 21st century Western culture which prides itself in recording data comprehensively, that historical narratives can (and do) vary, and that such variances are not, in and of themselves, indicative of contradictions or errors.

I think that an exercise, such as this, is important for our children (and for some adults) to understand. During our discussion, I told our children that there are critics of Christianity, and the Bible, who will attempt to convince believers that there are irreconcilable contradictions within the text of the Bible. As this exercise hopefully demonstrated, we have the means to intelligently respond to the critics.

First Sunday of Advent, 2009: Hope

Hope.

The essence of things not yet attained.

O Lord God of hosts, how long will you be angry with your people's prayers? You have fed them with the bread of tears and given them tears to drink in full measure. You make us an object of contention for our neighbors, and our enemies laugh among themselves. Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved!

- Psalm 80:4-7 ESV

Why do you think God had Israel wait - and hope - for so many hundreds of years, for the long promised Messiah? Why do you think that God would have us wait - and hope?

Patience. Yes, we learn to have patience. Yet, why? Why do we need patience?

Selfishness. To know who we are, and who He is.

God's Holy Spirit bears the troubled prayer aloft
With a more deeply uttered groan
Than ever echoed in earth's bitter air
And lets the burden fall before the throne

God answers
From a starlit hillside creche
A pain-cry rings
As cold air bites new flesh

- The Bondage of Corruption, by Keith Patman

Happy Advent!

© 2009 A. R. Lopez

A Personal Bible: because you're worth it

In our self-absorbed, narcissistic culture, filled with people desperate to find meaning to their lives, is it no surprise we've generated the Personal Promise Bible? (HT: STR)

Have you ever inserted your name as you read the Bible to make it more personal? Now you can experience the reality of God's love and promises in a way you never thought possible. In the Personal Promise Bible, you will read your first name personalized in over 5,000 places throughout the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs, over 7,000 places throughout the complete Old and New Testaments.

Indeed, with a tagline of "as unique as you are", such a product only reinforces the notion that the Bible was written directly to us individually. This, I think, is an issue that has crept up in the evangelical church in America. In Bible studies, class discussions, and sermons alike, do any of these phrases sound familiar: "To me, this verse means...", "What does this verse mean, to you?...", "My special verse is...", or "God gave me this verse..."? It's this "the Bible was written to me" idea which causes so many Christians to literally steal away the intended meaning of scripture. Consider the classic "my special verse" of Jeremiah 29:11,

"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

The main problem with this unique-as-you-are Bible is that most of the Bible was not written directly to us! This certainly does not mean we cannot gleam truths, insights, applications and personal significance from the words in God's Word, but it does mean we should approach the written Word in a manner consistent with how we approach any written form of communication. We must understand the historical foundation of Israel and the early Church which, as with any foundation, precedes us and on which we stand. We must understand that the ultimate author of the Bible (God) has an intent (plan) He is communicating to all people and working out through His church. And we need to realize that the individual authors of the Bible, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in specific literary genres, to specific audiences, with specific intentions.

If we fail to understand these basic premises, and choose to personalize essentially the entire Bible, we'll end up with an anti-Word. Consider Jeremiah 29:11 in this unique-as-you-are context: "For I know the plans I have for Rusty," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper Rusty and not to harm Rusty, plans to give Rusty hope and a future." How many times have you heard Christians take this verse in essentially that personal-for-me context? Yet, are they ready to do the same with the preceding verse? "This is what the Lord says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to Rusty and fulfill my gracious promise to bring Rusty back to this place."

It's interesting to note, when I've pointed out Jeremiah 29:10 to people who want to claim Jeremiah 29:11, the mental gymnastics that take place to suddenly turn the meaning of verse 10 into an allegory or metaphor or something completely apart from the personal promise they are so convinced is contained in verse 11.

Could it be that one reason we've drifted into a post-Christian culture is because we completely misunderstand our place in God's Plan through an ill-educated approach to reading His Word?

Emergent buzzwords

Is anyone else tired of hearing the words "authentic" and "honest" from emergent church writers?

Friday Food Foto (v. 12)

Huevos Rancheros - New Mexico style (again)

Yes, from one of my favorite haunts, Socorro's restaurant, Hwy. 84, Espanola, NM. I can't seem to get away from the Huevos Rancheros which is, indeed, a fantastic breakfast. Fried potatoes, pinto beans, corn tortillas smothered, this time, with New Mexico RED chili, onions, cheese and, in true New Mexico fashion... fried eggs on top.

Enjoy!

Note: opportunities to share the Gospel

Christians, note this opportunity to share the Gospel, being handed directly to you:

Per CNN, Atheist ads to adorn New York subway stations.

The advertisements ask the question, written simply over an image of a blue sky with wispy white clouds: "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"

Take it from there...

Objectivism and the moral dilemma: Is the greater good always good?

It's not often you hear me disagree with something that Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, has written or said. Indeed, I heartily agree with his series on Decision Making and the Will of God. However, on his 27 September 2009 radio show, he made a commentary regarding utilitarian decision making and how it is applied to a specific moral dilemma scenario. His commentary was lengthy, and I recommend you listen to it in its entirety (begins at approx. 1:01:20 into the radio show). He presented a scenario, which was presented to him, as follows:

A group of the French Resistance, including families with infants, are hiding from Nazi occupiers. One of the infants wails inconsolably and will, more than likely, alert the approaching Nazis. The infant's life is terminated - probably by smothering the child so it's not making noise... to improve the group's chances of survival. But a moral imperative: Murder is wrong, has been violated. A case for utilitarianism could be made. However, is this not a case of moral relativism and, even though it's horrific, something that's necessary?

In responding to the scenario, he concluded that it would be expedient for the group to murder the infant. Take note that I am summarizing his statements here and, to reiterate, one should listen to his commentary in full for a complete understanding of what he stated. His reasoning included (my summary),

Utilitarianism as a standard model of moral action is relativistic (the end always justifies the means, but the end isn't always a moral good). However, this does not mean that considering the means to an end does not entail legitimate considerations.

Facing the scenario as an objectivist: a decision has to be made, taking into consideration relative circumstances and utilitarian aspects.

This is a moral dilemma in that there are only two choices and each of the two choices, in isolation, would be wrong to do. Note: taking circumstances into consideration, in your moral decision making, is not relativism. If it were, there would be no moral dilemma in this scenario.

In the case of this moral dilemma, the guiding principle is that human life has transcendent value and should be protected. In this situation the obligation to protect one innocent life (the baby's) is in conflict to protect the lives of all the other people in the group.

Which decision does the greater good? The morally obligatory action would be to silence the baby, although difficult and tragic. The only other choice would be much worse (and the crying child's life seems to be forfeit anyway).

It seems to me that, while Greg's decision is based on an objectivist methodology, he has placed too much weight on the concept of the "greater good". Is the greater good truly good when it encompasses betraying our commitment to certain moral truths? Despite any attempts at circumventing the rationale for the action, smothering the crying infant is still murder.

Consider the complications that arise when one envisions how the proposed scenario might actually play out. I realize that the scenario is carefully set up to invoke a moral dilemma, and that life is more complicated than the illustrations in our pre-packaged philosophical scenarios. However, a little tweaking of the scenario can also help illustrate some of the complications that may arise.

In Greg's commentary he noted that the mother of the infant may not want to have the infant silenced (murdered). Yes, I think that would be a safe bet. Let's run with that and suppose that not only does the mother not want her child killed, but she herself begins screaming when the majority of the group decide that is exactly what must be done. Not to worry, though, because while one of the larger males in the group rips the child out of the mother's arms, a couple of other males wrestle her to the ground to stifle her screams. After the child is killed the mother, understandably so, cannot keep from crying... essentially the same problem faced earlier with her infant. Despite their pleas, and subsequent threats, the woman will not relent from her incessant mourning.

Snap!

That would be the sound of her neck being broken so as to silence her. All, for the good of the group.

A moment later, in walks her husband who had been away from the group on reconnaissance. After seeing that both his wife and child have been summarily executed he begins a wild, and loud, fight with several of the males in the group.

Slice!

That would be the sound of his throat being slit so as to silence him. All, for the good of the group.

Unreasonable? Well, consider a scenario where we have a group with 6 adults and 5 infants, in which all the infants are crying. Since 6 is greater than 5, are we justified in silencing the infants?

How about if the group has 5 adults and 6 infants, and all the infants are crying? Tough luck for the adults, I guess, because 5 is less than 6.

What would happen if the group consisted entirely of adults, yet one of them has a severe case of hay fever (anyone been in Oregon in the Spring? Ugh!). There the poor sap sits, sneezing and honking, obviously having forgotten to take his Claritin.

"Aaaa-choo! Aaaa-choo! Honnnk! Honnnk!"

Snap!

And pity his poor neighbor suffering from a cold.

"Cough! Cough! Hack! Hack!"

Slice!

At a certain point, I think, the greater good argument begins to crumble in on itself. It's one thing to offer one's self in sacrifice, and quite another to force an ultimate cost upon someone else. Is the good gained truly worthy of the act committed?

Dawkins, Creationists, and books

I don't think they [creationists] read books anyway, except for one book. It's aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution...

So says Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, in a Salon interview.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I'm a creationist (of the Old Earth variety) and, while I don't consider myself well read, I have read The Origin of Species, Finding Darwin's God, Tower of Babel, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, Rare Earth, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and A Brief History of Time, just to name a few books from the non-creationist book bin.

It can't be this easy.

Words, and their meaning

In our understanding of the communication aspect of language, the concept of "units of thought" is critical. At its lowest level of detail, a word comprises a unit of thought. However, the meaning of the word, in the context of the author's intent, is best understood when one moves up to higher level units of thought - those of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books.

As John Holzmann shows us, another critical aspect of understanding the meaning to a passage of text, is that of grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. In Get Myself into trouble..., he bravely addresses that tenuous issue of Worship Songs.

Spelling, punctuation, grammar, the words themselves: they matter very much to me. And I realize they mean much more to me than they do to the average bear. That's my training. That's a discipline I have pursued since I was very young. I realize that the structural elements of language make a difference, and so I seek to use them to the best effect.

I am concerned that [our church], in its worship/singing on Sunday mornings, seems, often, to ignore these elements . . . to the detriment of meaning.

Among the various songs he takes aim at is Everything, by Tim Hughes.

...at the tail end of the song, we wind up singing a heretical pantheistic affirmation that God is everything ["You are everything"]--repeated at least four times over (though, as I recall, [our worship leader] encouraged the congregation to sing it 8 times). Please! God is not "everything." He made all of creation. He made human beings. Etc. He is not the things He made.But then, after a pantheistic affirmation, finally, the song winds up repeating a kind of Hinduistic mantra, a meaningless jumble of words: "Jesus everything." Four times over on the screen. Eight times over as a congregation:

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

As above: Whatever is that supposed to mean? . . . Or is it the intention of [our church] to advocate that its members enter into a kind of mindless euphoria through thoughtless repetition of meaningless--but holy-sounding--words?

How many of the worship songs we sing, on Sunday mornings, fall into the trap of pushing non-Christian (or even heretical) ideas at the expense of thinking through more theologically proper songs? Do we dumb-down our worship songs to accommodate a touchy-feely culture, or in response to a less intelligent society? Or both?

In the Middle Ages, stained glass was used to illustrate narratives of the Bible because the populace was largely illiterate (as was the case in most societies in history). Now, it seems, we purposely cater to a culture that, despite the means and ability, prefers to feel than to think.

Also reference Holzmann's post, Hymns and praise songs: what's the difference?.

Change... we can believe in

From NLPC,

NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites.

My journey towards owning a firearm, vol. 2: the Tueller Drill

Twenty one feet.

One and one-half seconds.

The Tueller Drill was developed by Sgt. Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City Police Department, to demonstrate the amount of time it would take an assailant, armed with a contact weapon, to travel 21 feet (7 yards) to his intended victim. Based on the tests conducted, it was demonstrated that it only took 1.5 seconds for the attacker to reach his victim. The point of the drill was to illustrate the dilemma faced by an armed victim, namely, to be able to recognize the potential threat, determine that an attack is occurring, and respond appropriately (in self defense). Particularly designed for persons armed with a holstered firearm, the drill was contrasted against the time required to draw, aim, and shoot the attacker. Tests typically show that most experienced shooters can recognize a threat, draw their firearm, and shoot in around 2 seconds.

That leaves the victim in the red by about 1/2 of a second.

Thus, it is entirely possible for an attacker armed with a knife to move across 7 yards and make contact with his victim before the victim can take action to defend himself. The dilemma an armed person now has is whether or not he can recognize a real threat with a non-existent threat, and whether or not the aggressor is within his danger zone. If he makes the wrong decision, and kills the person representing the non-existent threat, he could be faced with murder charges. If he makes the wrong decision, and waits until the bad guy's attack is well underway, he could be dead.

What to do?

In Armed Response, David Kenik recommends running through various scenarios designed to instill the reality of how quick an attack could take place. For instance, he envisions a home invasion occurring while your family members are in various locations within the house. How much time would it take to get your family into one safe location and to retrieve your self-defense handgun? He thinks that the lag in time to accomplish so much dictates his being armed while in his own home. 

Is Kenik overreacting? Maybe, although his point is well taken that if an event (such as a home invasion) were to occur, time would be of the utmost essence. In my opinion, scenarios such as those recommended by Kenik are useful in helping to educate one on the need for alertness at all times. One of the key components of one's response time, to an attack, is to recognize that an attack is occurring or about to occur. Indeed, one of the tips given to women, regarding their responsibility in managing their own safety, is to always be aware of who is about in their surroundings. This is typically known as being in relaxed alert mode of Condition Yellow.

Apart from the fact that many people consider a lethal threat occurrence to be so unlikely as to negate the necessity for consideration, much less training, I have to wonder how such people view events such as house fires, car accidents, natural disasters, etc. As for my family, my wife and I have discussed with our children what to do in the event of a house fire. We've done this, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a house fire.

Owning a firearm, for the purposes of self-defense, opens up a myriad of responsibility issues for the firearm owner, not the least of which is the understanding of the Tueller Drill and its implications. Regardless of whether or not an attacker is 21 feet away, one's awareness of his surroundings is paramount. Self defense experts will reiterate that tactical training, with one's firearm, is critical and should include exercises designed to stimulate one's ability to make shoot or no-shoot decisions under stress.

Probably most important, is the decision one must make regarding whether or not they can shoot a firearm, in self defense, and potentially take another human's life. And that will be the topic of vol. 3 in this series.

All photos - © 2009, A. R. Lopez

Regarding wariness towards the cult of Obama and our children

From FoxNews (HT: Belmont Club),

The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama's address to the the nation's schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to "help the president."

(emphasis added) From Hope & Change parents,

You're certainly free to consider me paranoid. And I'm free to consider you naive.

Winter Squash

We have some winter squash that sprang up in our garden.

Does anyone know how to prepare these vegetables? What types of recipes are they good for (if any)?

Thanks.

Health care is not a right; Rationing is inevitable

Two provocative excerpts from Eric Chevlen, in an article at First Things.

It’s a mistake to think of health care as a right. It is not a right; it is a good. Freedom of speech, by contrast, is a right, as is freedom of religious belief. They are privileges that inure to individuals as a consequence of the primordial right, free will. That is why we see them as inalienable. The exercise of these rights does not depend on any action of government, but rather on its inaction. Government may not legitimately interfere with their exercise, but nothing mandates that the government provide us with printing press or chapel.

Health care is different. It is more akin to the other goods which sustain life: food, clothing, and shelter. A well-ordered society exists to protect its members from the unlawful taking of life, and is structured to facilitate its members’ acquisition of these goods.

And then,

To claim that Congress will devise a new federal health care plan that will not involve rationing is like claiming that it will invent a triangle that doesn’t have three sides. Currently, within the private sector of health care, we have a large number of private insurance companies vying for the business of their customers. They ration health care on the basis of evidence-based medical necessity. The Obama health plan, the details of which are still being worked out, will also ration health care. The alternative to that is an accelerated escalation of aggregate health care costs. But the single-payer system to which Obama’s plan will lead will have no competitor and no pressing financial incentive to please its customers. No competitor for the single payer means no alternative for the patient. We can reasonably expect that a single-payer system of rationing will be largely implicit rather than explicit, and governed as much by cost and political considerations as by medical evidence. Such a system would likely combine the fiscal responsibility of the Postal Service, the customer friendliness of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and the smooth efficiency of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

A nice way to look at it...

The father of a friend at work recently passed away. It was unexpected. My friend is a Christian, and it was evident, from talking with him when he returned to work, that his faith helped him and his family cope with the trauma and grief.

What was interesting, as he found out and we both discussed, was how other people at work reacted to the news of his father's passing. One person, in particular, made a telling comment. When discussing what had transpired within the family after his father's death, my friend said, "We're doing good, though, because we know he's in a better place." The other co-worker, a non-Christian, then responded, "That's a nice way to look at it."

"That's a nice way to look at it." The statement, and the tone with which it was made, could have been paraphrased as: "Even though it is purely fantasy, thinking that your father still exists somewhere is a good way to help you feel better."

That day, my friend and I both got a clearer understanding of the hope we have, as Christians, in the Resurrection and the Life. And we also got a clearer understanding of the utter lack of hope those without Christ must deal with. I pray that our lives, and not just our words, emulate that hope to those in this world who lack it. And I pray that our lives are lived in a manner which indicates that we really believe that heaven exists.

Yes, that's a nice way to look at it; but only if it's true.

Was the fire Elijah called down also meant to set you on fire?

At a recent Christian youth event, the keynote speaker had, as the scripture reading, 1 Kings 18. A key excerpt from the chapter,

And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

1 Kings 18:36-38 ESV

Seems straightforward, doesn't it?

Yet, per my daughter's notes, the speaker at the event proceeded to tell the youth in the audience that:

Fire was the answer then and fire is the answer now. He (God) wants to set you on fire and show the world that He is God. God's will is to reveal Himself through a people blazing with power and purity and love. We can ask God for fire - but don't ask like the prophets of Baal - we do not earn God's Spirit - that is the way of idolatry.

No, no, no, no, no!

What is it about our self-absorbed culture which mandates that we, as 21st century Western Christians, must find within Biblical passages some connection of how it directly applies to us? Why are crude analogies constructed, linking some present day action with selected excerpts from the text, regardless of whether said analogies have anything to do with the actual meaning of the text in question? This may come as a surprise to many evangelicals out there, but most of the Bible wasn't written - directly - to us.

Granted, the notion that God wants us to "be on fire", showing the world He is God, is not necessarily a false one. It's just that the text of 1 Kings 18 doesn't say that.

In 2001 I attended a lecture by Walt Russell, a BIOLA professor and author of the book, Playing With Fire. His talk was instrumental in illustrating the proper methodology one must take in interpreting the Bible (or, any text, for that matter). Through a proper understanding of literary genres, author's intent, public meaning, personal significance, etc., he laid out the groundwork for how we should approach not only our own reading of the text, but a teacher's lecture or a pastor's sermon.

With regards to 1 Kings 18 we should be aware that the genre of the text is that of historical narrative, an Old Testament narrative, to be specific. Within the Old Testament narratives we need to understand that, while there is typically a central human figure in the story, the central figure (or, hero) of the story is always God. Such narratives should reinforce God's eternal plan, as laid out through human history, as well as provide a bridge to illustrate our continuity with the children of Israel (as the people of God). Secondarily, such narratives also give us a glimpse at both positive and negative role models within the old covenant of believers.

Thus, if we were to read 1 Kings 18 with the mindset of "what does this passage mean?", we would no doubt see that God had brought a drought on the land and had told Elijah that He was going to now bring rain. Of note here is the fact that Ahab had abandoned the Lord's commandments and followed Baal. Elijah sets up the confrontation between the prophets of Baal and the Lord God, boldly stating that "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." Of course the prophets of Baal can do nothing and, after Elijah taunts them, he calls on the Lord God (the hero of the story) to bring fire down from the heavens. The chapter concludes with God bringing the rain he had promised.

Is it so difficult to now look at the passage and ask, what does this passage tell us about God and His plan? Is it so difficult to see that the Lord God is one, is a jealous God, is compassionate for His sheep, is creator of all, and is worthy of worship? 

Yes, we 21st century Christians should be on fire for God. We should be showing the world God's love and, in effect, that He is God. But we shouldn't be about loosely grabbing His Word for backup text to such notions. It's not only a lazy way to read His Word but, if taken to extremes, can be quite flippant. Consider that, if we aren't to ask like the prophets of Baal, what would be the consequences? - our imminent slaughter? Or, if we are to be set on fire, like the altar Elijah prepared was, what and when are the jars of water to be poured over us? False analogies have a tendency to break down pretty quickly.

So, let's stick with meaning inherent to the text.

How to understand the book of Revelation

Understand that Revelation is a chiasm, and the central verse is Rev. 12:11,

"And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death."

An exhortation of hope for persecuted saints through the ages.

Friday Food Foto (v. 11)

Huevos Rancheros - New Mexico style

From Socorro's restaurant, Hwy. 84, Espanola, NM, comes this fantastic breakfast. Fried potatoes, pinto beans, corn tortillas smothered with New Mexico green chili, onions, cheese and, in true New Mexico fashion... a fried egg on top.

Enjoy!

Confessions of a self-indulgent culture

Do you have an NEO (i.e., Near Earth Object) impact written into your insurance policy?

From NASA's Near Earth Object website:

No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them.

When naked apes, endowed with the imago Dei, turn their backs on God, they fear for their lives...

image courtesy of NASA

Apollo 11 memorabilia

It was 40 years ago, today, that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon.

Wechoosethemoon.org is providing a virtual recreation and NASA has a dedicated website for the anniversary.

I still recall watching the fuzzy, black-and-white images on a small television set, with Walter Cronkite providing a running commentary. Having followed the space program through Gemini (too young to really remember Mercury), I was enthralled by the prospect of humans actually walking on and exploring the Moon. At the time I would collect newspaper clippings, magazine articles, photos, etc., all related to NASA's space program.

Over the years since, many of the data I collected has gone by the wayside. However, in rummaging through what memorabilia I have kept, I've run across the following...

 

I had an envelope, complete with a first day of issue stamp on it, sent to me.

My Uncle, who worked at NASA in Houston, had a friend on the USS Hornet, the aircraft carrier designated to recover the Apollo 11 astronauts (and capsule). He had his friend send me an envelope with special cancellation stamp and postmark.

Additional memorabilia, including newspaper headlines and magazine covers...

Ever have one of those days?

Our Western custom of shaking hands is, indeed, a quirky one. When executed properly the act is, at best, a firm establishment of proper manners and, at worst, an excellent method of germ exchange. And then there are the various faux paus to deal with (ever been on the receiving end of a limp shaker? - ugh!). Worse yet, have you ever held your hand out only to suffer the degrading experience of being rejected?

Luckily, that only happens to rank amateurs...

On the 4th day of July

Have a great Independence Day!

-image: © 2009 A. R. Lopez; Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, Missouri

Charles Finney: Pelagian?

An interesting interview of Michael Horton on the Stand to Reason weekly radio broadcast, on June 8th (rss feed for weekly podcasts).

Horton, the author of Christless Christianity: the Alternative Gospel of the American Church, made some claims about Charles Finney that were quite astounding. In discussing the premise of the book, namely, that the American church has pushed Jesus aside and essentially put a self-help, therapeutic gospel in His place, Horton alluded to the theological stance of Finney, that which Horton posits is more tuned in with Pelagianism than with Arminianism. From the book,

As I will make clearer throughout various points within this book, ever since the Great Awakening, especially evident in the message and methods of evangelist Charles G. Finney, American Protestantism has been more Pelagian than Arminian.

In his essay, The Legacy of Charles Finney, Horton is more blunt,

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns.

...

Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, 'the church growth movement'), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of 'Christian America,' and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the 'Higher Life Movement' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.

Wow!

I'm certainly not an authority on Finney, but an initial hearing of Horton has revealed many issues with which I agree on. That American evangelism, in the alleged Finney sense, could be the catalyst for many of the ills within the church, as well as cults outside it, which we see today, is astonishing.

Evangelical Loss Leaders in an anti-Christian society

You've certainly seen the advertisement before; that which features a certain item, priced ridiculously low. In fact, it's priced so low that you ask, "How can they sell it at that price and turn a profit?" Well, they can't. It's a loss leader, designed solely to entice people into the sales establishment upon which, it is hoped, they will purchase additional items, thereby resulting in an overall profit to the store.

The point to be taken here is that the loss leader tactic is simply a part of an overall marketing strategy - a philosophy, if you will, which fits squarely within the economic system of capitalism, to which growth and profit are generally accepted as the primary goals.

I wonder, how wedded to capitalism is the evangelical church in America?

Recently, there was a concert staged, at our church, specifically designed as an outreach to the youth in the community surrounding the church. Whereas there is typically 25 youth at a Wednesday night meeting, there were 120 youth in attendance at this concert.

Was this a loss leader? A means of enticing people in the doors, and then banking on the "numbers", the probability that a certain percentage of them would desire to come back?

Such a tactic is hardly limited to a youth concert in 2009. I've grown up in the church and can look back and see the tactic deftly applied throughout my life. It is, in fact, our modus operandi.

Yet, despite the church adopting capitalistic strategies, and despite the false success of mega-churches, we now see an America which is turning its back on Christianity. Our society is becoming decidedly secular and, in particular, anti-Christian, in its base form.

While we may have succeeded in entertaining the masses, how much of the Gospel has truly been delivered? In a recent Bible Study, my pastor made note of the fact that many scholars think that the church in Corinth, that which Paul was writing to, was made up of about 40 people.

40 people.

If an evangelical capitalist had written the letters to the Corinthians, I daresay he would have given them a detailed explanation of marketing tactics designed specifically to result in church growth. Yet Paul makes no mention of church growth methodologies. He simply tells the Corinthians how to live as Christians.

What a concept.

Inexperienced weakness in a land of enchantment: how our enemies view a feminized president

The question bubbled over with effervescent infatuation; innocent, yet unadulterated adoration for the one who now guides us.

Thank you, Mr. President. During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most? (emphasis most certainly added)

Can anyone picture FDR being asked what enchanted him the most? Truman? LBJ? Teddy Roosevelt?

Have we gone from expecting a Rough Rider as President to expecting our leader to be enchanted? Has the Steyn feminization of the West now contaminated the office of President of the United States?

Barack Obama, the junior junior Senator from Illinois, bows low to foreign leaders, gleefully embraces foreign dictators, and posits diplomacy with tyrants. Those who would do this country harm cannot see in these actions anything but weakness.

Christians: pray for Barack Obama

A Prediction: 1,000 Swine Flu cases in U.S. by May 18, 2009

So say the "worst case" statistical models at Indiana University.

However, researchers state that time is of the essence and that models could change every 12 to 24 hours, depending on how quickly various governments react to the threat.

So... what's your wager?

My journey towards owning a firearm, vol. 1: Why?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Also known as the 2nd Amendment.

I've purchased a firearm - a semi-automatic handgun (to be specific, a Glock 22, .40 S&W caliber).

How did this happen?

There are many reasons for one to choose to own a firearm: Self-defense, the exercising of one's 2nd amendment right, insurance for potential times of civil unrest, pure enjoyment (as in target-shooting), hunting, etc. Yet, despite this, I've been surprised to find that my decision to arm myself has sparked a variety of responses from people with whom I am acquainted. Emotions ranging from joyful glee to tentative fright to that of sour judgment have been levied in my direction - all because of my desire to own, and use, a firearm.

I was quite unprepared for such disparate reactions. So, let me take a few posts explaining my journey towards owning a firearm.

First, why... Why own a firearm? Well, let's say that I've always been interested in firearms but, for various reasons, have never pursued said interest. Introvert that I am, I tend to not want to look like I don't know what I'm doing (in front of others) and, when dealing with firearms, one had very well know exactly what they are doing. While I could have certainly found ways to learn, whether it be through friends, or the classroom - I never made it happen. That changed recently, though, as I finally decided to get the education, knowledge, and training to be proficient in the handling of firearms. What was the catalyst? Middle age, perhaps. I've joked with more than one friend, that, given I now reside in middle age, I'm simply going through that so-called crisis in which men desperately need to hold on to and prove their manhood - typically via the acquisition of a convertible sports car. If that's the case, then at least my venture into the sport of shooting is much cheaper than that of purchasing Nissan's latest Z model!

However, it goes far beyond a mere desire to prove my manhood.

Rush.

Yes, shooting a firearm gives one quite the rush. The night I returned from taking a gun safety / practice class, my adrenaline was flowing and I couldn't wait until the time I would return to the shooting range for more - fun. Up until that class, I had never fired a pistol and had never fired a rifle with a caliber larger than .22LR. The night of my class, I fired a .40 S&W caliber semi-automatic handgun (an HK USP), and it was, literally, an amazing experience!

As I stepped into my shooting lane that night, our instructor had us - I was joined by about 5 other shooters - load one round of ammunition into the pistol's magazine. Upon his command we were to load our firearm, take aim, and fire at a paper target (ostensibly, a silhouette of a human being). The HK USP is an all steel gun, which means it's a bit heavy. This particular model had a serrated grip which seemed, to me, to be excessively rough. Gripping the gun in my right hand, I placed the magazine (with one round in it) into the magazine well. After the magazine clicked in I then pulled the slide back to engage the cartridge into the chamber. At that point, the gun was "live"... and deadly. My trigger finger, up to now, was not on the trigger as - per basic firearm safety rules - you do not put your finger on the trigger until you are about to fire. As I leveled the live handgun, pointing it towards the target, I placed my left (support) hand into position, against the open, left side of the pistol grip, wrapping my left hand fingers around my right (strong) hand. I then acquired my sight on the target, held my breath, and gently squeezed the trigger.

Many shooting instructors tell you that, as you squeeze the trigger, the actual firing of the gun should come as a surprise. Let me tell you, the first round I shot definitely came as a surprise. In all honesty, after the gun fired (loudly), and the recoil bounced back into my body, my initial thought was, "What on earth am I doing here? I'm in way over my head!" Our instructor then asked us to load our magazines with multiple cartridges and continue firing. I did so and found that, as each successive shot reverberated through the indoor range, I grew accustomed to the sound of the gun firing, to the shock of the firearm pushing back against both of my hands with the recoil lifting the barrel up, to the blast of hot gases venting out from the gun, to the sound of an expended shell casing bouncing onto the concrete floor, and to the distinctive smell of burned gunpowder. I became fascinated with acquiring the target in my sights, and then seeing how close the projectile, which I had sent flying, came to hitting my target. I marveled at the processes involved in taking dead aim onto a subject - the concentration - the discipline - the mechanics.

Is it wrong for me to enjoy shooting a firearm, a firearm which, if pointed and fired at a human being, would most likely kill them? I don't think so, and if you happen to think so, then I'd be interested in knowing what you think about the fact that multi-thousand pound vehicles are frequently seen being driven erratically about, at speeds upwards of 80 miles per hour? The kinetic energy stored up in a moving SUV is tremendous - and I shudder to think how casually such energy is wielded about, without the slightest regard to the potential impact to innocent human life.

Yet I traverse a tangent.

Having a rip-roaring fun time, though, was not the only impetus for my researching and entering the realm of gun ownership. Self-defense was another. We live in dangerous times (and not simply because Barack Obama was elected). I have a family to protect, and a firearm is one method with which I, and they, can be protected.

However, the very lethal nature of a firearm, combined with legal ramifications of using lethal force, make the use of such a methodology extremely complicated. 

And that's what I'll discuss in vol. 2 of this series - Having a pistol for self-defense.

- first image: my Glock 22; second image: results of my first night shooting, with the HK USP; all images © 2009 A. R. Lopez

Will they blame Bush for this, as well?

These days, the same park is filled with people: families with children, women in jeans, women walking alone. Even the nighttime, when Iraqis used to cower inside their homes, no longer scares them. I can hear their laughter wafting from the park. At sundown the other day, I had to weave my way through perhaps 2,000 people. It was an astonishing, beautiful scene — impossible, incomprehensible, only months ago. - NYT

ABCNews video here.

HT: HotAir

Christ, the Lion and the Lamb, God, and giving worship to Him whom worship is due

An engaging study of Revelation is going on at my home church, every Wednesday night. Our pastor, a New Testament scholar, who wrote his dissertation on Revelation 19, is providing for us an in-depth analysis of the context of Revelation, including educating us on the genres it's comprised of, as well as the cultural meaning of the imagery described. Suffice it to say, this ain't no Left Behind series!

Last Wednesday, we began Revelation 5. Here is the text, per ESV,

5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, 4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” 14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Note that the scroll, referred to in verse 1, was being held by God the Father (ref. chapter 4), who was given his due worship. He is seated on the throne and is holding the scroll in his right hand. While it appears that no one is found worthy to open the scroll, one of the elders states that the Lion has conquered, so that he can open the scroll. Yet we see a sort of juxtaposition taking place when John sees not a Lion appear, but a Lamb - that had been slain.

Lion / Lamb, conquered / slain. 

The Lamb then approaches God, on the throne, and does not ask to be given the scroll, but he takes "the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne"! The elders and all creatures then confirm that Jesus is worthy to receive worship.

The Lion who has conquered is the Lamb who was slain, and he is worthy of that which is only allowed to be given to God - worship.

It's all a matter of timing

From President Obama,

Today, ...the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists. We will help Iraq build new ties of trade and commerce with the world. And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region.

The only thing new about this strategy is that Obama has shifted (i.e., changed his mind) regarding his approach towards our presence in Iraq. Remember, this is the same person who opposed the Surge, who once gave up hope on succeeding in Iraq, and who once stated that the lives of troops killed in action were "wasted". (HT: HotAir)

Life is, by no means, fair. Many times, our fortune, or failure, is simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time - of having that lucky break. What we'll see, in the next few years, is Obama receiving the accolades for any progress to be displayed in Iraq. Bush, in our media's shortsightedness, will take more than his share of the blame for what it cost to succeed - the failures, mistakes, and blood. Yet, he is the one who was fated to do the dirty work.

And, I think that history will eventually provide us with the clear picture of who accomplished what.