The love of God. What is this, really? Everyone talks about it like they understand it. Many people think that it is an emotion that causes us to feel connected to God. Others dispute this, saying that it is much more objective than that. I know a song by a Christian rock group called "Luv is a Verb". If you can get beyond their difficulty with spelling, you'll see a familiar phrase. I have certainly heard many people in my life talking about how love is not something you feel, it is something you do. I have grown up understanding that is necessary to fight off any idea that love would be something other than "doing good for another".
I digress for a moment to reference a classic debate. What role do good works play in our salvation? Catholics would argue that James and other authorities specifically teach that good works save us. Not works by themselves (this is a straw man that gets set up and torn down more times per day than the silverware on your grandmother's dinner table do in a year), but works and faith working together to produce your salvation. Protestants have often rebutted this by noting that Paul says very specifically in Ephesians that our salvation is by grace through faith alone, and....not by works. Protestants note that Paul says works are the result of saving faith, and thus will always be present in the Christian's life, but do not contribute to his salvation. Setting aside this important debate for the moment, I call your attention to this Protestant position that the works are the result of something else.
So, the Scriptures that I believe are most relevant to the question of what the love of God is, are Jesus' answer to the Pharisee who asked him what the greatest commandment was, and his great soliloquy about love in John 14. Jesus' answer to the Pharisee sets the stage for us. He says that the greatest commandment is to love God. All of us turn this on its head every day of our lives. Instead of taking Jesus' words at face value, and understanding that as a command to enjoy our creator, delight in knowing Him, and rejoice at being reconciled to Him, we see it as a an instruction that love IS keeping His commandments. Perhaps if Christ had said "the greatest commandment is to keep all the other commandments, because that is what love is", then we would be correct in taking this path. In a search for clarification, I turn to John 14. Jesus tells his disciples that "whoever loves me will keep my commandments". In yet another astounding logical error, we often mentally convert this into "whoever keeps my commandments is loving me by doing so." There are two huge problems with this inversion. The first, and the one that has caused me endless confusion throughout much of my life, is that there are many people who do not even know Christ who do a good job of keeping many of his commands. Grandparents, in general, are a good example of this. I have met many very kind, gentle, peaceful older people who do not believe that Jesus is Lord and God Almighty. If I interpret this passage backwards, no sense can be made of this. The second, enormous, problem with a backwards interpretation of this passage is that we Christians do NOT keep all of God's commandments. We simply do not. If we truly have no love for Him, then what on earth is being accomplished?
I conclude that the love of God is something that we feel. Perhaps less provocatively, I could say that it is something that comes from within. It is not, in fact, something that we perform by doing certain deeds. It is an emotion. Love often presents itself as a longing, does it not? You love a woman, and you long to be married to her. You love your child, and you long to see your child full of joy and peace. When your child is not joyous or peaceful, the love does not go away - it makes itself felt even more strongly. When your child receives joy and peace, your love is delight in the fulfillment of the longing. We were created to be in communion with our God. We ought to long for that communion, and we ought to take joy in the true communion which we now experience because the Holy Spirit lives inside us. Similar to the role of works as related to salvation, we should see the role of works with regard to our love for God not as the thing which produces love, but as a result of love. Jesus says that if we love him, we will keep his commandments. This strongly argues that love actually inspires the keeping of His commandments.
There are more things to be said, and the next post will deal specifically with certain objections. I do want to deal with one immediately, however. By saying that love comes from 'within', I am not saying that it is something we produce. Just to clarify.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Manner and Means, part three
The love of God. That is Jesus' implied 'end' (goal) for the Pharisees, as well as (by obvious further implication) for us. If we are to read Scripture, not because it simply confers grace by mystical power, but because it has the goal of helping us to love God, then how DO we understand the power that Scripture so clearly claims for itself?
The answer to this question seems to lie in the reality that we really only have one option left. It is not that Scripture, by itself, confers grace - it is that God uses Scripture to accomplish his ends. If His end is that you should love Him more, then Scripture is effectual in that way. If His end is that your heart should be hardened, it is effectual in that way. There is an interesting parallel in communion, which Paul carefully cautions the Corinthians against in 1 Cor. 11:27-29. We say that the Eucharist is an effectual means of grace, but we do not mean by that that it automatically confers grace upon the recipient. In fact, it seems important to note that Paul is speaking to those he calls "believers" in this passage; Paul is therefore not fencing the table against unbelievers, though they are of course included. He is fencing the table specifically against believers who are coming without having faith in Christ. I would add that I think the thrust of this fencing could be explained this way: if communion is truly a communion with Christ, then "partaking unworthily" is nothing more or less than partaking without an actual desire to commune. The preceding context is the explanation of what we are doing when we 'take communion', and that should serve to inform our understanding of why he would be fencing the table; not against certain people, but against any person who is not approaching it rightly.
At this point, I want to extend by analogy this need for a right end for every means. It is my belief that we are called to have a right end -- the right end -- in sight for all of our actions. This right end has already been identified as the love of God, which at this point I'll always put in bold text just because I like consistency. The next portion of this series will take a look at what the love of God is, and (spoiler alert!) how we strive after idols which we make to look very much like the love of God.
The answer to this question seems to lie in the reality that we really only have one option left. It is not that Scripture, by itself, confers grace - it is that God uses Scripture to accomplish his ends. If His end is that you should love Him more, then Scripture is effectual in that way. If His end is that your heart should be hardened, it is effectual in that way. There is an interesting parallel in communion, which Paul carefully cautions the Corinthians against in 1 Cor. 11:27-29. We say that the Eucharist is an effectual means of grace, but we do not mean by that that it automatically confers grace upon the recipient. In fact, it seems important to note that Paul is speaking to those he calls "believers" in this passage; Paul is therefore not fencing the table against unbelievers, though they are of course included. He is fencing the table specifically against believers who are coming without having faith in Christ. I would add that I think the thrust of this fencing could be explained this way: if communion is truly a communion with Christ, then "partaking unworthily" is nothing more or less than partaking without an actual desire to commune. The preceding context is the explanation of what we are doing when we 'take communion', and that should serve to inform our understanding of why he would be fencing the table; not against certain people, but against any person who is not approaching it rightly.
At this point, I want to extend by analogy this need for a right end for every means. It is my belief that we are called to have a right end -- the right end -- in sight for all of our actions. This right end has already been identified as the love of God, which at this point I'll always put in bold text just because I like consistency. The next portion of this series will take a look at what the love of God is, and (spoiler alert!) how we strive after idols which we make to look very much like the love of God.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Manner and Means, part two
Do the means justify the end? I will give an example. I must be careful not to base my argument on example, but I think it may be helpful. Let us imagine that I am preparing to build a house for my impoverished neighbor. I notice that Jesus tells me not to build a house on a foundation of sand, so I find a good solid rock on which to build the house. I build the house using his advice. Is this house a good work?
How about a more general example? Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible and inspired word of God? That every bit of it is profitable for your preparation to do good works? If you were to consult the Bible before you did whatever it is you are going to do next, believing that the words of Scripture are effectual and will give wisdom to the reader which surpasses the wisdom of the world - true wisdom, which is not powerless - would the actions that follow your method be good?
Let me go back to my first example. What if I told you that I am a building contractor whose grandmother read the Bible to me when I was very little. I grew up hearing the things that Jesus said, and even though I don't put much stock in those sorts of children's tales anymore, I think that he had a lot of good things to say, and I try to keep them in mind whenever they make sense. Was the house that I built a good work?
Before you think that I am setting up strawmen, let me get to the point. It is not easy to define a specific method of achieving a goal as good. I recall Jesus's condemnation of the Pharisees as having what would have otherwise seemed high praise...namely, that they tithed even their spices...and Jesus encouraged this tithe! He did not accuse them of not following correctly the pattern set for them; instead, he said that they followed the pattern, but neglected justice and mercy. Now, it is true that justice and mercy express themselves in actions which Jesus noted were absent in the lives of these men. So let us look at another thing he said about the Pharisees. He declared that they were men who diligently studied the Holy Scriptures of God. Now this, if nothing else, should be an inevitable sign of goodness, should it not? If the Scriptures are God's perfect and holy word, how could it be anything but good that they studied them day and night? Let's look at the passage from John 5:
Notice that Jesus's specific criticism of the Pharisees was that they did not have the love of God in them. Apparently He thought this even more valuable than searching the Scriptures. In fact, it seems fairly clear that Jesus was setting forth the love of God as the end for which the means of 'searching the Scriptures' had been given.
Notice also that Jesus brought Moses into the question - Moses, the one who wrote many of the Scriptures. Moses accuses the Pharisees before God. Why does he accuse them? It is not because they do not follow his law. We know that the Pharisees did. Furthermore, we know that Paul (later) talks about the function of the Law - how it condemns those who learn it, and not those who do not know it. In fact, it seems to me that Moses accuses the Pharisees precisely because they read the Scriptures. If not this, why would Moses be their accuser at all? His status as accuser comes as a result of God's appointment as accuser, and God's appointment was not arbitrary. I believe He appointed Moses because Moses wrote the Law with a purpose, and the Pharisees were reading it without reference to that purpose.
I want to be very specific on this point: we often say that the Scriptures are a means of grace. It would probably be theologically correct to say that they are only means of grace to the elect. However, since we cannot infallibly identify the elect, we must admit that we believe that reading Scripture is, in every sense of the words, a good "means". There can be nothing evil about the reading of Scripture itself. Further, we must acknowledge that Christ portrays the reading, and indeed the studying, of Scripture as a means, not an end, and rather specifically as a means to an end.
How about a more general example? Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible and inspired word of God? That every bit of it is profitable for your preparation to do good works? If you were to consult the Bible before you did whatever it is you are going to do next, believing that the words of Scripture are effectual and will give wisdom to the reader which surpasses the wisdom of the world - true wisdom, which is not powerless - would the actions that follow your method be good?
Let me go back to my first example. What if I told you that I am a building contractor whose grandmother read the Bible to me when I was very little. I grew up hearing the things that Jesus said, and even though I don't put much stock in those sorts of children's tales anymore, I think that he had a lot of good things to say, and I try to keep them in mind whenever they make sense. Was the house that I built a good work?
Before you think that I am setting up strawmen, let me get to the point. It is not easy to define a specific method of achieving a goal as good. I recall Jesus's condemnation of the Pharisees as having what would have otherwise seemed high praise...namely, that they tithed even their spices...and Jesus encouraged this tithe! He did not accuse them of not following correctly the pattern set for them; instead, he said that they followed the pattern, but neglected justice and mercy. Now, it is true that justice and mercy express themselves in actions which Jesus noted were absent in the lives of these men. So let us look at another thing he said about the Pharisees. He declared that they were men who diligently studied the Holy Scriptures of God. Now this, if nothing else, should be an inevitable sign of goodness, should it not? If the Scriptures are God's perfect and holy word, how could it be anything but good that they studied them day and night? Let's look at the passage from John 5:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.
Notice also that Jesus brought Moses into the question - Moses, the one who wrote many of the Scriptures. Moses accuses the Pharisees before God. Why does he accuse them? It is not because they do not follow his law. We know that the Pharisees did. Furthermore, we know that Paul (later) talks about the function of the Law - how it condemns those who learn it, and not those who do not know it. In fact, it seems to me that Moses accuses the Pharisees precisely because they read the Scriptures. If not this, why would Moses be their accuser at all? His status as accuser comes as a result of God's appointment as accuser, and God's appointment was not arbitrary. I believe He appointed Moses because Moses wrote the Law with a purpose, and the Pharisees were reading it without reference to that purpose.
I want to be very specific on this point: we often say that the Scriptures are a means of grace. It would probably be theologically correct to say that they are only means of grace to the elect. However, since we cannot infallibly identify the elect, we must admit that we believe that reading Scripture is, in every sense of the words, a good "means". There can be nothing evil about the reading of Scripture itself. Further, we must acknowledge that Christ portrays the reading, and indeed the studying, of Scripture as a means, not an end, and rather specifically as a means to an end.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Manner and Means, part one
I ask for your patience as I attempt to explain something. Also, yes, I have stolen my title.
I would guess that most people, if you asked them to say whether they believed that the end ever justifies the means, would say that it does not. I could be wrong. I do know that most Christians would certainly say that the end never justifies sinful means.
Here is, to me, a more interesting question: do means justify the end? Maybe that is confusing. I'll preface by restating what everyone knows - in the language of Scripture, "justify" means to "consider righteous". Not, particularly, to make righteous, but to consider (the word "count" is also often used) righteous. Whatever is justified is considered to be righteous. There are a ton of good quotes here, but I'll just grab one of many from Romans: "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."
So, to reword the question: can we correctly say that, if something is by the right means, that the end should be counted as righteous? Again...do the means ever justify the end? I will propose an answer to the question in following posts, and an application (or two?) as well. I invite you to think about it. One note of caution, however: I do not intend that my explanation of justification is to be taken as the beginning of an analogy.
I would guess that most people, if you asked them to say whether they believed that the end ever justifies the means, would say that it does not. I could be wrong. I do know that most Christians would certainly say that the end never justifies sinful means.
Here is, to me, a more interesting question: do means justify the end? Maybe that is confusing. I'll preface by restating what everyone knows - in the language of Scripture, "justify" means to "consider righteous". Not, particularly, to make righteous, but to consider (the word "count" is also often used) righteous. Whatever is justified is considered to be righteous. There are a ton of good quotes here, but I'll just grab one of many from Romans: "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."
So, to reword the question: can we correctly say that, if something is by the right means, that the end should be counted as righteous? Again...do the means ever justify the end? I will propose an answer to the question in following posts, and an application (or two?) as well. I invite you to think about it. One note of caution, however: I do not intend that my explanation of justification is to be taken as the beginning of an analogy.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
I humbly ask
I just remembered what it was I was intending to add to my previous post. Since it really had nothing to do with green, other than there's no green in this picture, I am making this a separate post.
Please, please, please. Please. Please... Please do not EVER serve me this:
Please, please, please. Please. Please... Please do not EVER serve me this:
green
Apparently I have a very forceful personality. At least, when it comes to colors. Bradley (who is about 5 years old?) and I had a conversation a few weeks ago about favorite colors. I believe his favorite was blue. I told him that green was mine, and I probably (though I do not remember for certain) told him that it was the best color. That would certainly be ironic, since his father spent a good hour (in Sunday school) talking about the difference between opinions/preferences and truth/fact. Oops. In any case, he has apparently been asking many people about their favorite colors, and generally interjecting, before giving the person a chance to answer, that "Mr. Gaultney's favorite color is green." When his mother revealed this to me, I felt both pleased and disturbed, but of course Brad (Bradley's father, weirdly enough) suggested that I write a journal entry about green. He was joking, but blogging about it came immediately to mind, and here we all are, writing and reading about green.
I was reminded today how awesome Caedmon's Call used to be. Seriously. Jeff started playing "Faith My Eyes"* on the piano downstairs, and I just had to go downstairs and sing with him, even though I was in the middle of reading the first chapter of How People Change. Which, incidentally, is a really good book, despite my mind's insistence that I don't really need to change, and that I already know how to change anyway, and that this book has a weird typeface, so it can't really be that good after all. Also, though, I think I must have read part of this book before, because the first chapter has parts that seem awfully familiar.
I am trying to finish the sushi** I bought on Thursday. I think it's fair to say that while grocery-store sushi is not the things that dreams are made of, it's also not true that I would actually enjoy 'real' sushi. I think I've had stuff that fits somewhere in between before, and that's the stuff I've actually enjoyed. This stuff mostly makes me feel fishy.
There was something else to be said, but it seems to be eluding me. (I am currently looking around the room for something to jog my memory, but apparently everything in my room holds the same belief about jogging in sub-32 F weather as I do)
* Faith My Eyes is on Caedmon's Call's "green album", called 40 Acres.
** Sushi is really just an excuse to eat wasabi, which is green. Except it really isn't, or at least, the stuff you get here in the U.S. is apparently just horseradish dyed green.
I was reminded today how awesome Caedmon's Call used to be. Seriously. Jeff started playing "Faith My Eyes"* on the piano downstairs, and I just had to go downstairs and sing with him, even though I was in the middle of reading the first chapter of How People Change. Which, incidentally, is a really good book, despite my mind's insistence that I don't really need to change, and that I already know how to change anyway, and that this book has a weird typeface, so it can't really be that good after all. Also, though, I think I must have read part of this book before, because the first chapter has parts that seem awfully familiar.
I am trying to finish the sushi** I bought on Thursday. I think it's fair to say that while grocery-store sushi is not the things that dreams are made of, it's also not true that I would actually enjoy 'real' sushi. I think I've had stuff that fits somewhere in between before, and that's the stuff I've actually enjoyed. This stuff mostly makes me feel fishy.
There was something else to be said, but it seems to be eluding me. (I am currently looking around the room for something to jog my memory, but apparently everything in my room holds the same belief about jogging in sub-32 F weather as I do)
* Faith My Eyes is on Caedmon's Call's "green album", called 40 Acres.
** Sushi is really just an excuse to eat wasabi, which is green. Except it really isn't, or at least, the stuff you get here in the U.S. is apparently just horseradish dyed green.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
sore
My heart is sore from too little praying. I have very dry soil, it would appear, because even a largish part of a day without really praying will seriously disturb my mind. I get sad, usually about very unimportant things, and I start feeling like everything is bad and miserable.
My arms are sore from too little use. Or, rather, from too much use relative to normal. I am going to admit, on the Internet, in front of the entire world, that I stole a ten-pound weight from my family. And I am going to lift it. And hopefully it will someday be the case that 30 reps with a ten pound weight will be as ridiculous as running up the stairs for daily exercise....but for the time being, it's pretty serious stuff.
My neck is sore from...being a bad neck. It will probably always be.
My arms are sore from too little use. Or, rather, from too much use relative to normal. I am going to admit, on the Internet, in front of the entire world, that I stole a ten-pound weight from my family. And I am going to lift it. And hopefully it will someday be the case that 30 reps with a ten pound weight will be as ridiculous as running up the stairs for daily exercise....but for the time being, it's pretty serious stuff.
My neck is sore from...being a bad neck. It will probably always be.
I write when I feel like it
It's funny. Tim's blog, I Write When I Feel Like It, is awesome. He only blogs maybe a few times a year, but when he does, it's always - so far ;) - worth reading. My blog, on the other hand, is not all that different. The difference is that I often feel like blogging, but don't really have anything to write about.
Firefox doesn't think I've spelled "blog" or "blogging" correctly. That's funny. More funny is the fact that it also doesn't think I've spelled "Firefox" correctly.
I'm redoing my family's Ubuntu installation. It doesn't seem to want to make sound, which is pretty sad. Maybe this will fix it, or maybe I'll spend the rest of the afternoon wrestling with it.
I'm listening to the Phantom of the Opera. =) And typing this post on my netbook. I don't much like the mouse on this guy, but otherwise, it definitely gets the job done.
Firefox doesn't think I've spelled "blog" or "blogging" correctly. That's funny. More funny is the fact that it also doesn't think I've spelled "Firefox" correctly.
I'm redoing my family's Ubuntu installation. It doesn't seem to want to make sound, which is pretty sad. Maybe this will fix it, or maybe I'll spend the rest of the afternoon wrestling with it.
I'm listening to the Phantom of the Opera. =) And typing this post on my netbook. I don't much like the mouse on this guy, but otherwise, it definitely gets the job done.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
presidential
This article is the reason for this post, but isn't really the topic. If you don't want to read it, it basically points out that the Obama administration has asked a federal judge to withhold judgment in a case that would otherwise hamper the President's ability to wiretap U.S. citizens without a court order, exactly like President Bush's administration had.
The post is about the reality of the Presidency, the world we live in, and so forth. Matthew pointed out very recently on his blog some stuff about abortion that I think is particularly interesting to me because it reminds me that Presidents never seem to do anything about abortion. I mean, yes, partial birth abortion was...outlawed? by President Bush, but let's face it - public opinion was VERY heavily against partial birth abortion. It was a decision that had been coming down the pike for quite a while. But Presidents, no matter what you may think of their politics, are rarely anything but middle-of-the-road centrists. There's a pragmatism that seems to be forced on them by the realities of their office. Don't get me wrong, abortion, in every one of its commonly-practiced forms, is 100%, no question, wrong. And Presidential policy/executive authority should reflect this. But is there a God-given right to "privacy"? Not as far as I can see. And when a President gets into office, and he's been having top government officials finally explaining to him, for the first time (over the last several months since the election) the nature and importance of all of these various, perhaps Constitutionally-shady, programs, what does he do? He allows them to continue. Because no matter how much you might think that the Department of Defense (how I wish we still called it the Department of War....how cool would that be?!) is bloated, there are real reasons for the things that we do. Maybe we're overextended. Maybe our foreign policy is overly bellicose. But Obama obviously recognizes that we are seriously threatened by people who, no matter what olive branches we extend, DO NOT WANT peace with us. And he also obviously recognizes that our methods of garnering intelligence about threats to national security are spineless if we have to get court orders for wiretapping in every case. I hate to be the person that says this, but let's face it: have you seen the court systems? If there were a real terrorist threat against some place in Baltimore, would the Maryland courts EVER get around to making the necessary legal arrangements for allowing federal operatives to START gathering information about what was going on? Not a chance. By the time all of the bureaucrats got back from their winter vacations, we'd have a smoking crater in Dundalk. Now, I know what you're going to say, but....Dundalk is people too!
This really doesn't have anything in particular to do with wiretapping, or abortion, or anything else. It's just that it really boggles my mind how people can get so up-in-arms about what a President does or does not do, without taking even the slightest moment to consider the reality of the situation that one would face, as President. There are some things that would be incredibly distasteful to me, if I were to become President. But reality seems to be that there are other things - death, destruction, total governmental collapse - that would be even worse. I disagree with Bush's philosophical stands on a number of things....but I find myself more and more sympathetic to his choices, given the reality of the way this world, screwed up as it is, works. Maybe there are better solutions than some of the ones his administration came up with. I suspect there probably are. But the simplistic ones that I tend to hear (we should never have gone to war in Iraq, since there obviously weren't WMDs; why didn't we open better lines of communication with Hamas so that we could avoid another war in the Middle East) don't ever seem to take reality into account, nor do they make any attempt to suggest real, practical solutions (that don't implicitly assume that everyone in the world would really just get along great if we all treated each other with great respect and patience). I strongly suspect that history (not even in 30 years, but maybe in 100) will have a lot more respect for the way President Bush handled his terms in office, and a lot less fawning adulation toward President Obama and any other President (no matter what gender, race, or political party he/she may represent) whom God sees fit to give us.
The post is about the reality of the Presidency, the world we live in, and so forth. Matthew pointed out very recently on his blog some stuff about abortion that I think is particularly interesting to me because it reminds me that Presidents never seem to do anything about abortion. I mean, yes, partial birth abortion was...outlawed? by President Bush, but let's face it - public opinion was VERY heavily against partial birth abortion. It was a decision that had been coming down the pike for quite a while. But Presidents, no matter what you may think of their politics, are rarely anything but middle-of-the-road centrists. There's a pragmatism that seems to be forced on them by the realities of their office. Don't get me wrong, abortion, in every one of its commonly-practiced forms, is 100%, no question, wrong. And Presidential policy/executive authority should reflect this. But is there a God-given right to "privacy"? Not as far as I can see. And when a President gets into office, and he's been having top government officials finally explaining to him, for the first time (over the last several months since the election) the nature and importance of all of these various, perhaps Constitutionally-shady, programs, what does he do? He allows them to continue. Because no matter how much you might think that the Department of Defense (how I wish we still called it the Department of War....how cool would that be?!) is bloated, there are real reasons for the things that we do. Maybe we're overextended. Maybe our foreign policy is overly bellicose. But Obama obviously recognizes that we are seriously threatened by people who, no matter what olive branches we extend, DO NOT WANT peace with us. And he also obviously recognizes that our methods of garnering intelligence about threats to national security are spineless if we have to get court orders for wiretapping in every case. I hate to be the person that says this, but let's face it: have you seen the court systems? If there were a real terrorist threat against some place in Baltimore, would the Maryland courts EVER get around to making the necessary legal arrangements for allowing federal operatives to START gathering information about what was going on? Not a chance. By the time all of the bureaucrats got back from their winter vacations, we'd have a smoking crater in Dundalk. Now, I know what you're going to say, but....Dundalk is people too!
This really doesn't have anything in particular to do with wiretapping, or abortion, or anything else. It's just that it really boggles my mind how people can get so up-in-arms about what a President does or does not do, without taking even the slightest moment to consider the reality of the situation that one would face, as President. There are some things that would be incredibly distasteful to me, if I were to become President. But reality seems to be that there are other things - death, destruction, total governmental collapse - that would be even worse. I disagree with Bush's philosophical stands on a number of things....but I find myself more and more sympathetic to his choices, given the reality of the way this world, screwed up as it is, works. Maybe there are better solutions than some of the ones his administration came up with. I suspect there probably are. But the simplistic ones that I tend to hear (we should never have gone to war in Iraq, since there obviously weren't WMDs; why didn't we open better lines of communication with Hamas so that we could avoid another war in the Middle East) don't ever seem to take reality into account, nor do they make any attempt to suggest real, practical solutions (that don't implicitly assume that everyone in the world would really just get along great if we all treated each other with great respect and patience). I strongly suspect that history (not even in 30 years, but maybe in 100) will have a lot more respect for the way President Bush handled his terms in office, and a lot less fawning adulation toward President Obama and any other President (no matter what gender, race, or political party he/she may represent) whom God sees fit to give us.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Going Out of Business
An Open Letter:
We opened our doors with the firm belief that what we had to offer the world would bring in business in numbers no one could have imagined. We thought, talked, planned, and in every way prepared for the onslaught of customers we KNEW we would have. To our great joy, we were correct. People from all over came to us for the jobs that only we could do; for the things no one else could supply. Things were going wonderfully...
We ran out. That was it. There was nothing else to it, really. We had nothing left. The pent-up demand was as horrendous as it had been exciting. Everyone wanted what we had been offering, and now we had nothing to give them. Nothing to show, even when they had come from miles away, expecting....KNOWING that we would be able to solve their problems. Everything had gone too well. We were not up to the task.
We regret to announce that we will be closing our doors. We simply cannot do what you want us to do. We have tried, and we have failed. We appreciate, very much, your business, over the last several months. We wish you all the best.
-- The Management
We opened our doors with the firm belief that what we had to offer the world would bring in business in numbers no one could have imagined. We thought, talked, planned, and in every way prepared for the onslaught of customers we KNEW we would have. To our great joy, we were correct. People from all over came to us for the jobs that only we could do; for the things no one else could supply. Things were going wonderfully...
We ran out. That was it. There was nothing else to it, really. We had nothing left. The pent-up demand was as horrendous as it had been exciting. Everyone wanted what we had been offering, and now we had nothing to give them. Nothing to show, even when they had come from miles away, expecting....KNOWING that we would be able to solve their problems. Everything had gone too well. We were not up to the task.
We regret to announce that we will be closing our doors. We simply cannot do what you want us to do. We have tried, and we have failed. We appreciate, very much, your business, over the last several months. We wish you all the best.
-- The Management
P.S. Christ is sufficient, where I am not. I'm 'open' again.
Monday, January 12, 2009
this one's a whopper
Bad pun.
However, check out this interesting news article about something fun to do on Facebook. I'm very tempted to do it myself...not even so much because having a free Whopper would be cool, but just because it might be a good time to prune my list of Facebook friends.
However, check out this interesting news article about something fun to do on Facebook. I'm very tempted to do it myself...not even so much because having a free Whopper would be cool, but just because it might be a good time to prune my list of Facebook friends.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Secret
This is the best book review I've read in quite a while. I'd like to thank my friends at the Rumor Forum for bringing it to my attention.
Now, for a much more profitable read, try this post on for size.
Now, for a much more profitable read, try this post on for size.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
movie -> game -> party
I watched Wall-E all by myself today. It's a good thing I was by myself, because I was able to enjoy it a lot more. Having people around would've been embarrassing.
I managed to straighten out my suit by leaving it in the bathroom with the shower running hot water. It should be passable, but it really needs to actually be cleaned one of these days.
I am going to watch the Ravens-Tennessee game right now. I do hope the Ravens win, I suppose. And after that, I'm going to a big party. Exciting!
I managed to straighten out my suit by leaving it in the bathroom with the shower running hot water. It should be passable, but it really needs to actually be cleaned one of these days.
I am going to watch the Ravens-Tennessee game right now. I do hope the Ravens win, I suppose. And after that, I'm going to a big party. Exciting!
Sunday, January 04, 2009
so long
I hope everyone has been reading Matthew's reports of his trip to Turkey. Especially since I haven't been around to entertain you.
The Stanley family (most of us, anyway) gathered in Pennsylvania between Christmas and New Year's (largely because it is the state with the coolest name, and partly because there are some hills with snow on them up there). This was a good time, in terms of both the skiing and things that went on, and my general success in resting in Christ throughout the time. Even though I didn't have a Bible. =P
For those who wondered, the Rebel is still just as shaky as ever. But hopefully sometime this month we'll find time to try to fix it. My eyes look at new cars differently than they ever have. This is sad, but I hope to someday get back to my customary disdain for all vehicles under the age of 30.
I have a new webcam (thank you, Maria!) and microphone, so I'm about to learn all about Skype. Actually, I got them both working, finally, late last night (this morning?). If only my printer would print beautiful pictures, and the "sleep" function acted less like "vegetative state", I would have a Linux user's dream computer.
Today I handled the sound system at church for the first time. It actually went reasonably well. No horrible feedback loops, and only once or twice did I fail to bring the pastor's microphone back up in time to catch the first half of a sentence.
It is not worth noting that the Colts lost their first playoff game last night.
It is worth noting that that makes this a very, very sad year for football.
On the other hand, these lyrics put a lot of things into perspective. I mean, we all know that when sin and death are finally defeated and all things are made right, the Colts will win the Super Bowl every year. Even that, though, is not what I should be eagerly anticipating. Instead, the experience of being fully and permanently with my Savior is what should thrill me about the life which is coming:
The Stanley family (most of us, anyway) gathered in Pennsylvania between Christmas and New Year's (largely because it is the state with the coolest name, and partly because there are some hills with snow on them up there). This was a good time, in terms of both the skiing and things that went on, and my general success in resting in Christ throughout the time. Even though I didn't have a Bible. =P
For those who wondered, the Rebel is still just as shaky as ever. But hopefully sometime this month we'll find time to try to fix it. My eyes look at new cars differently than they ever have. This is sad, but I hope to someday get back to my customary disdain for all vehicles under the age of 30.
I have a new webcam (thank you, Maria!) and microphone, so I'm about to learn all about Skype. Actually, I got them both working, finally, late last night (this morning?). If only my printer would print beautiful pictures, and the "sleep" function acted less like "vegetative state", I would have a Linux user's dream computer.
Today I handled the sound system at church for the first time. It actually went reasonably well. No horrible feedback loops, and only once or twice did I fail to bring the pastor's microphone back up in time to catch the first half of a sentence.
It is not worth noting that the Colts lost their first playoff game last night.
It is worth noting that that makes this a very, very sad year for football.
On the other hand, these lyrics put a lot of things into perspective. I mean, we all know that when sin and death are finally defeated and all things are made right, the Colts will win the Super Bowl every year. Even that, though, is not what I should be eagerly anticipating. Instead, the experience of being fully and permanently with my Savior is what should thrill me about the life which is coming:
The bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear Bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory
But on my King of grace.
Not at the crown He giveth
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Emmanuel’s land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
