You can read her speech here: http://americaviaerica.blogspot.com/

It’s not a bad speech, and there is certainly reason to be critical of the way public education is structured today.  Rather than cherry-pick quotes from the speech, I’ll leave it to you to read it in its entirety.

My question is this:  what would it look like if she got her way?

What if teachers quit “teaching to the test,” and we weren’t so worried about grades, and we didn’t try to make everyone take the same subjects?  What if teachers focused on encouraging students to pursue their passions, question authority, and spend their time being creative and innovative?  What if school was less about “training” and more about “expanding the mind”?

Particularly in the context of American public education, what would that look like?

I think it would be a miserable failure.  At least in our culture of entitlement and tolerance, I do not believe this approach would work.  There would be some students who would thrive, but the overall level of education and competency would drop significantly.

When objective facts are “too restrictive,” then we are left with subjective experience.  If someone doesn’t like something, isn’t interested, or wants to do something different, then who are you to tell them otherwise?

We have a society of adolescents who want life handed to them on a platter.  Do you think they are all going to buckle down and pursue their dreams if we just stop “oppressing” them with our ideas of what they should be learning?

Developing passion, exercising creativity, and implementing creative solutions are best developed under a mentor, not via classroom instruction.  Our American public educational system is not going to abandon classroom instruction, because it cannot afford to.  You can’t hire enough teachers to spend six hours a day with a few students.  Especially when it is expected to have programs for every activity someone thinks is worthy: sports, art, music, theater, etc.  The kind of interaction that helps children develop into thinking, passionate adults comes from parents, not a teacher in the front of the classroom.

So, rather than taking Erica Goldson’s critique as an impetus for (the wrong kind of) change in our education system, look at the home, and think about the values that parents should instill in their children.

(P.S.  For extra credit, write your own essay explaining the viewpoint that Ms. Goldson expresses when she compares workers to “slaves of the system,” decries the “inhuman nonsense of corporatism and materialism,” and describes schooling as “brainwashing techniques in order to create a complacent labor force working in the interests of large corporations.”)

(P.P.S.  For even more extra credit, write another essay discussing the following questions: Are humans “basically good,” or are humans inherently lazy and selfish?  Should we expect great things from people if they are simply encouraged to develop and pursue their interests?  Should a foundational element of education be instruction in past human failures and successes, and the benefits of knowledge and diligence?)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A necessary component of developing precise definitions is understanding how people interpret the things they hear.  I’m going to make some assumptions about what people think about a “Calvinist with tension,” but the most helpful thing would be for you to tell me what you think when you hear this.

One of the things I assume people hear in this statement is a distinction from a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist or a militant Calvinist who is completely unwilling to listen to objections or arguments from another point of view and thinks non-Calvinists are either uninformed, deceived, or worse.  That sort of Calvinist does not feel any tension; instead, they are rigid in their beliefs.  I would say that this understanding is, at least in part, a proper part of what it should mean to be a “Calvinist with tension.”

It’s also possible that hearers may interpret this as saying, “I consider myself a Calvinist, but there are aspects of Calvinism that I have doubts about.”  The understanding here is that the speaker favors Calvinism over other formulations, but isn’t really satisfied that Calvinism has the right answers.  While this is probably true for some people, I do not think this is a good understanding of what I would mean if I said I was a Calvinist with tension.  I think this understanding infers that the speaker is a Calvinist “for lack of a better option.”  If someone could show them a system that relieved their “tension” (doubts about Calvinism), they would gladly accept this other system in lieu of Calvinism.

In contrast, I would not define “tension” as doubts, but as a realization that some aspects of Calvinism may be difficult to grasp (not only for others, but for myself!).  I understand why people might have objections to Calvinism, and I recognize that some of these objections stem from principles that are true.  There are not always simple, cut-and-dried explanations that are satisfying.  It’s not a matter of a simple proof-text for all issues.  The tension comes from the very real need to reconcile things that are true that seem to be at odds with each other.

I think that an intellectually honest Arminian must also be an “Arminian with tension.”  This need not mean that they are not convinced of the truth of Arminianism.  It means that they don’t see objections as smoke-screens or man-made resistance to their position.  Instead, they recognize that a human explanation of divine truth may not be satisfactory to everyone.  There is limitation on both ends, in the human who gives the explanation and the human who listens to the explanation.

I believe that Calvinist positions are faithful to what the Bible teaches, but there is a tension between two (or more) different directions someone may take on an issue, and it is not always easy to explain how everything fits together.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The series is now over, and I find myself asking, “Can you have a good story without having a good ending?”  Reading a few reviews and comments on the series finale, you find some people who are completely thrilled and satisfied with how the series ended. Others, like me, are disappointed and feel like the ending lacked a sense of meaning and resolution.  We had followed the stories of the various characters, hoping to understand the connections between various events.  We were hoping to be let in on the secret story arc that explained “why,” but we walked away empty-handed.

In my view, the letdown is primarily the result of writers who have been infected by existentialism.  Many people have bought into existentialism, whether they realize it or not. To an existentialist, existence is meaningless, outside of the meaning that you bring to your existence. The individual, and their choices, is all that really matters. It is not important for there to be “reasons” that tie the story together.¹

The biggest problem with this (from the standpoint of a compelling story) is that when the individuals pass on, so does the meaning. There is no meaning for an outside observer; the “meaning” of LOST is trapped inside the church with all the characters.

Some good stories feature a mystery that is solved, or a problem that is overcome. When the mystery is solved, we understand what transpired and why certain things happened. When the problem is overcome, we are relieved, because we understand why the problem was bad and why the solution is good.

As LOST ended, some questions were answered and some problems were solved, but there was a lack of meaning. LOST had lots of storytelling, but the overarching meta-narrative or story arc was incomplete.  The smoke monster is defeated, but it’s never quite clear why he was so evil, so powerful, or what would happen if he wasn’t defeated. The island is saved, but it’s never quite clear why that was so important, what role its unique characteristics played, or what the consequences would be if it were destroyed. The primary role of the island seems to be a plot device that generated experiences wherein the characters could interact.

It’s okay to have a character-driven story without mysteries to solve or hurdles to overcome. However, one normally expects the characters to reveal something to us about ourselves or our fellow man.

Throughout LOST, there have been references to finding deeper meaning in life, to pursuing one’s purpose, and exploring the mysteries of free will and destiny. Although we should not expect a TV show to provide satisfactory answers for all these questions, many people were hoping for some explanations that would make some sense of all that has happened on the show.

In some sense, each of the characters discover their purpose and fulfill it. But it’s a hollow purpose that doesn’t add any meaning to the story. If Jack had failed, if Hurley had not taken his place, would it have really mattered? People have experiences; they do bad things; they do good things; they end up back together again with the people they love. But there is no substance behind it. There are no reasons to explain why those experiences mattered.  It might have even been okay if it had simply ended as a battle between good and evil, where good won out.  But the ending made the actual events irrelevant.  It’s simply, “here we are, all together again, isn’t this nice.” As Richard Vine blogged, “Heaven is a Drive Shaft gig: altogether now, ‘You all, everybody!’” Or, as one commenter summarized, “Sentimentality 1, Making sense 0.”

1. Contrary to existentialism, Christianity declares that God defines human essence, He gives us our purpose, and He determines our destiny. We belong to Him, and our life is meaningful if we live according to His purposes. Read/Listen/Watch John Piper give a great explanation of this reality.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I would just like to thank you for your many years of service as a representative for our area.  While I may not have agreed with every vote you cast or decision you made, I believe that you served our area well.  I do not doubt that you honestly tried to do your best to vote according to your convictions, and I believe that your commitment to godly standards and strong families is sincere.

Thank you, too, for not seeking to deflect or minimize your sin, and for doing the right thing in stepping down from your position.

As a fellow Christian, I encourage you to not back away from your church or switch churches, but to allow your elders and friends at Emmanuel to assist you in seeking complete repentance and reconciliation.

My wife and I will keep you in our prayers.

Sincerely,

Steve Long

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some of his detractors are practically giddy. (The only thing they would like better is if it had been a homosexual affair.)  Here is a conservative, evangelical Christian; a staunch proponent of family values; if anyone should take the high road, it should be him.  Yet here he is, caught in the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I’d like to examine that hypocrisy.

Here are a couple definitions of hypocrisy:

• a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. (dictionary.com)
• a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. (merriam-webster.com)

In a sense, there are two ways in which one can be a hypocrite:
1) Saying something that you don’t really believe.
2) Doing something that is contrary to what you believe.

In a strict sense, hypocrisy mainly belongs in the first category.  As someone has written on Wikipedia, hypocrisy “is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done.”  The line between the first and second category is sometimes blurry, as our actions typically reveal our true convictions.  However, there is a difference between pretense and inconsistency.

I think Souder’s hypocrisy falls into the second category, of failing to live up to his beliefs.  I do not think that his stated convictions have been a “put on” to appeal to conservative voters.  I suspect that he truly believes in biblically-based morality.  If his affair had gone undetected, and if he continued to serve in Congress, I think he would have consistently voted for laws that affirm Judeo-Christian ethics and strong families.

The reason I’m glad Souder is resigning, is not primarily because I see him as having a hypocrisy problem.  It’s because I see him as having an integrity problem.  Many of the things Souder supported are things that I support too, and I think that his convictions were honest.  The problem is that he failed to live according to his convictions.

Somewhere along the line, Souder allowed himself to believe a lie.

Maybe he believed the lie that his situation was special, and his actions were justified.  This is possible, but I suspect he fully understood that his actions were wrong.

Maybe he believed the lie that the benefit outweighed the consequences.  I’m speculating that he thought they could keep it under wraps, and that this “one little indiscretion” would not impact his work.

This is the type of lie that I’m prone to succumb to.  I know something is wrong, but I think it’s not really THAT destructive, and the payoff is worth it.

Related posts:

1. Who should get Evan Bayh’s job? In a little more than a month (May 4), Indiana...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If you’re wondering who will be on the ballot, here’s a list of the Indiana primary candidates for all offices.

One of the most significant races is for the Senate seat that Evan Bayh will be vacating.  Bayh announced his resignation too late for anyone else to get on the primary ballot as a Democrat, so the party leaders get to pick the candidate who will be on the ballot in November.  Although it’s not official yet, the Democratic candidate is expected to be Brad Ellsworth, who is currently representing the 8th District in Congress.

On the Republican side, there are five candidates vying for the chance to go up against Ellsworth.

1.  Don Bates, Jr., who currently works in the banking industry.
2.  Richard Behney, who currently owns a plumbing business.
3.  Dan Coats, who was the 4th District Congressman from 1981 to 1989, Senator from 1989 to 1999, and Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005.
4.  John Hostettler, who was the 8th District Congressman from 1995 to 2007, when he was defeated by Brad Ellsworth.
5.  Marlin Stutzman, who is currently an Indiana State Senator (District 13), and was a State Representative previously.

I know very little about any of these candidates.

Coats certainly has the most experience, and was generally held in high regard for his previous service.  He is more conservative than either Bayh or Lugar, but probably not as socially conservative as some of the other candidates.

Neither Bates nor Behney has much name-recognition, which doesn’t mean they couldn’t go a good job, but it does make it unlikely that they will be able to get a lot of votes.   Nor does either candidate have any political or legislative experience of any kind.  Being a political newcomer isn’t always a bad thing, but a US Senator is the highest legislative office in the country; I think some kind of prior experience ought to be a prerequisite.

Hostettler and Stutzman are similar in a lot of ways, although they come from opposite ends of the state.  Hostettler has more experience and recognition, having been a US Congressman.  As a farmer, Stutzman may have more in common with the average Hoosier.  Stutzman has been endorsed by the majority of his Republican colleagues in the Indiana House and Senate, which speaks well to his character and effectiveness.

I’m not sure who I’ll vote for, but there’s a lot to like about Marlin Stutzman.  I’d like to see either Stutzman, Hostettler, or Coats take over Bayh’s seat, then I’d like for Lugar to retire and one of the other two to take his seat.

Mark Souder is also being challenged for his 3rd District Congressional seat.  Tom Hayhurst is running on the Democratic ticket, but there is also someone named Thomas Schrader.  I think it’s safe to assume that Hayhurst will be the Democratic candidate.  What’s not so sure is whether Souder will be the Republican candidate.  I’m guessing that he will, but there are three other Republicans who think they can do a better job:  Greg Dickman, Bob Thomas, and Phil Troyer.

Related posts:

1. The Mark Souder Affair Yesterday it was revealed that Representative Mark Souder has been...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It probably comes as no surprise that a Unitarian Universalist has no real grasp on the gospel.  However, it may surprise some people that an atheist is actually closer to the truth than someone who considers themselves a “Christian.”  I found it interesting to compare and contrast the views of atheist Christopher Hitchens and Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell in this interview between the two.

A few interesting exchanges are highlighted:

Sewell:

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens:

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Sewell:

Let me go someplace else. [continues with next question...]

While Hitchens rejects God and the gospel, at least he understands what the gospel message is.  Sewell thinks you can have “Christianity” without the gospel, and doesn’t really want to talk about the gospel.

Sewell:

…I agree with almost everything that you say. But I still consider myself a Christian and a person of faith.

Hitchens:

Do you mind if I ask you a question? Faith in what? Faith in the resurrection?

Sewell:

The way I believe in the resurrection is I believe that one can go from a death in this life, in the sense of being dead to the world and dead to other people, and can be resurrected to new life. When I preach about Easter and the resurrection, it’s in a metaphorical sense.

Hitchens rejects faith (in anything outside himself, at least) as a basis for a reasonable worldview, but he recognizes that faith requires an object.  “Faith” by itself is meaningless.  We must have faith in something or someone.

Sewell:

Times change and, you know, people’s beliefs change. I don’t believe that you have to be fundamentalist and literalist to be a Christian. You do: You’re something of a fundamentalist, actually.

Hitchens:

Well, I’m sorry, fundamentalist simply means those who think that the Bible is a serious book and should be taken seriously.

Sewell:

I take it very seriously. I have my grandmother’s Bible and I still read it, but I don’t take it as literal truth. I take it as metaphorical truth. The stories, the narrative, are what’s important.

I wish more people understood Hitchens’ definition of a fundamentalist, rather than seeing it is an epithet  for stodgy narrow-minded people who think everyone should think and act just like them.  Sewell betrays that she really doesn’t take the Bible seriously, despite her claim to the contrary.  If truth is only revealed in metaphors, then each individual can decide for themselves what the metaphors really mean.  Truth is then simply what you make it, so the Bible is irrelevant.  If you only use the Bible to illustrate truths that you determine independently, you could just as well use the Koran, Mother Goose, or Dr. Seuss.

Hitchens:

[Some people think] that “faith” is an automatically good word. I think it’s not. When people say, “I am a person of faith,” they expect applause for it as we see in every election cycle. If I could make one change in the culture it would be to withhold that applause, to say, “Wait a minute, you just told me you’re prepared to accept an enormous amount on no evidence whatsoever.

Hitchens recognizes that faith must have an object, but he apparently thinks that such faith is always a “leap” with no rational basis.  That is not true of Christian faith.  Our faith in God is rational.  The Bible is worthy of trust.  A Biblical worldview is cohesive and is the only worldview that can consistently make sense of the world in which we live.

Sewell:

I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place.  . . .  I don’t believe that God intervenes to give me goodies if I ask for them.

God is a mystery to me. I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself. That thing larger than myself, I call God, but it’s a metaphor. That God is an emptiness out of which everything comes. Perhaps I would say “ reality” or “what is” because we’re trying to describe the infinite with language of the finite. My faith is that I put all that I am and all that I have on the line for that which I do not know.

The God of the Bible describes Himself to us, and calls us to know Him.  Praise God that we don’t have to waste our lives pursuing that which we do not know.

I’m not sure why Sewell holds on to the Christian label; she certainly rejects everything that makes Christianity unique.  Hitchens sees through the facade that Sewell tries to portray as authentic faith.  For his part, Hitchens recognizes that humans are different than animals and that there is more to life than just the material world around us, but he can’t reconcile this with his rejection of the supernatural and a higher authority.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Related posts:

1. Is Postmodernism for real? [D]on’t we live in a postmodern culture in which…appeals to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When I think about this topic, I always recall Dale Ahlquist’s description of G.K. Chesterton in his book Common Sense 101: Lessons from G.K. Chesterton.

He seems so frivolous and so careless, but he gives money to beggars, not frivolously or carelessly, but because he believes in giving money to beggars, and giving it to them “where they stand”.

He says he knows perfectly well all the arguments against giving money to beggars. But he finds those to be precisely the arguments for giving money to them. If beggars are lazy or deceptive or wanting a drink, he knows only too well his own lack of motivation, his own dishonesty, his own thirst.

He doesn’t believe in “scientific charity” because that is too easy, as easy as writing a check. He believes in “promiscuous charity” because that is really difficult. “It means the most dark and terrible of all human actions—talking to a man. In fact, I know of nothing more difficult than really talking to the poor men we meet.”  (pp. 13-14)

I have given money to someone with a sob story, and afterwards concluded that I was scammed.  I have given a few bucks to someone in need, and afterwards regretted that I didn’t do more.  I have spurned a beggar’s request, and wondered if I did the right thing.

The thoughts from Jon Bloom and the example of Chesterton convict me that it is better to give than to worry about analyzing the situation and attempting to predict the outcome.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

[D]on’t we live in a postmodern culture in which…appeals to traditional apologetic arguments are no longer effective?  Since postmodernists reject the traditional canons of logic, rationality, and truth, rational arguments for the truth of Christianity no longer work!  Rather in today’s culture we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.”

William Lane Craig responds:

In my opinion, this sort of thinking could not be more mistaken.  The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable.  Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison.  If you’ve got a headache, you’d better believe that texts have objective meaning!  People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they’re relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics.  But that’s not postmodernism; that’s modernism!  That’s just old-line Positivism and Verificationism, which held that anything you can’t prove with your five senses is just a matter of individual taste and emotive expression.  We live in a cultural milieu which remains deeply modernist.  People who think that we live in a postmodern culture have thus seriously misread our cultural situation.

Indeed, I think that getting people to believe that we live in a postmodern culture is one of the craftiest deceptions that Satan has yet devised.  “Modernism is passe,” he tells us.  “You needn’t worry about it any longer.  So forget about it!  It’s dead and buried.”  Meanwhile, modernism, pretending to be dead, comes around again in the fancy new dress of postmodernism, masquerading as a new challenger.  “Your old arguments and apologetics are no longer effective against this new arrival,” we’re told.  “Lay them aside; they’re of no use.  Just share your narrative!”  Indeed, some, weary of the long battles with modernism, actually welcome the new visitor with relief.  And so Satan deceives us into voluntarily laying aside our best weapons of logic and evidence, thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us.  If we adopt this suicidal course of action, the consequences for the church in the next generation will be catastrophic.  Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality, while scientific naturalism shapes our culture’s view of how the world really is. (emphasis added)

from Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

Related posts:

1. An Atheist and a Unitarian Universalist They’re really not that far apart. It probably comes as...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If you’re looking for a starting point, the author of the site has provided a 49-page “book” that he says, “weaves together most of my favorite ideas on personal finance and a lot of other goodies into one document.” It starts out with a single page covering “Everything You Ever Really Needed to Know About Personal Finance,” then explores the basic concepts throughout the other pages.

Click below to get it:

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/onepage/

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Eight years ago when Shadow and I moved from my parent’s house into a house of my own, my mom went through a similar adjustment to life without Shadow around. The words she wrote then still ring true today. Here they are:

I never thought I’d miss him so much… that big, black dog who shed all over my house, who had to go out in rain or snow and then be cleaned up after.  I thought I’d enjoy the loss of those jobs.  But, oh, how I miss that “BBD,” (ed: Shadow’s occasional nickname, standing for “Big Black Dog”) my “Shadow!”

He was often waiting at the threshold of my bedroom door in the morning for the first sound or movement that would clue him that I was awake.  (Our bedroom was one of his “off-limits” rooms.)  As soon as I would stir, he would be right at my bedside.  (My bed IS right by the door, so it wasn’t TOO much of a violation!)  As soon as he got his morning greeting he would go into the room next to our bedroom while I showered and dressed.  Sometimes he would be right outside the bathroom door when I came out.

Next came breakfast.  If I were eating cereal, I’d usually eat standing up to save my sitting time for things that really require sitting.  Whether I was standing or sitting, Shadow would be right at my feet… just in case I dropped something or decided to share something with him!

After breakfast we would head for my sewing room/office where I read my Bible every morning.  He’d be lying near my chair. If it were a washday, I’d be popping up and down changing loads, folding clothes, etc.  If I was gone for too long, he would come to the room off the kitchen, “his” room, and lie there while I folded clothes.  Then we’d be back to the sewing room/office.  If I had ironing to do, as soon as I set up the ironing board, he would lie under it…on MY side!  I’d always have to send him to the end of the board so I had a place to stand to do the ironing!

If there were anyone around the house that didn’t belong, he would go off barking…a car or truck he didn’t recognize the sound of, a deliveryman, meter-reader, mailman, etc.  One day, two Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door.    Shadow met them at the door with his ferocious, protective bark!   The youngest “witness” was off to the end of the porch in the blink of an eye!  He left his braver partner near the door to talk and offer me the usual booklet.  I decided Shadow was a great way to filter out salespeople and solicitors who weren’t brave enough to endure the challenge!  It wasn’t unusual for me to go to the door and find people in the middle of the porch waiting to talk to me!  They didn’t dare stand too close to the door!  I don’t always hear the doorbell or things going on around the house, so Shadow would “hear” for me.

Lunch would find us in the kitchen with him again at my feet…just in case, you know!  Sometimes I DO drop things or get full before I finish my sandwich.  And he loves to share my cheese, apples and grapes!  Good stuff!  Healthy for both of us, right?

Sometimes, right after lunch, I might sit and read for a while.   If I sat too long, he would whine at me, not to go outside, but to come into “his” room and lie on the bed to read so that he could lie next to me!  He was only allowed on one bed, Stephen’s, and only by invitation!  When I’d had the maximum amount of sitting I could take for a time, I established the habit of lying on Stephen’s bed to read, so Shadow could lie next to me.  He liked it!  What can I say?  We enjoyed each other’s company.  I’d say, “You want to go to your room, right?”  And off he’d go!

We usually walked a mile a day.  When it was really hot, we might walk before breakfast; otherwise we walked when I needed a break from sitting later in the morning.  As soon as I put on my walking shoes or went for my key, he knew it was walking time and headed for the door!

Supper preparation again found us in the kitchen with Shadow at my feet…just in case!  He knows the sound of the cellophane wrapper on the cheese and was up in a second when he heard that!  (He also knows the sound of my stirring homemade granola while it’s cooling, another of his favorite things!  That brought him to his feet, as well, and he’d get a nice chunk!)

One morning while doing my exercises, I was lying on my back in a room where he could come, and before I knew it I had the legs and chest of a 75-pound dog across me.  Try to do your exercises like that!  He just had to be a part of everything!

If Stephen was home in the evening, Shadow might stay with Stephen (he IS Stephen’s dog) or come in by me if I was working at my desk.  If Stephen was NOT home, Shadow would stay with me for a while, but then whine until we’d go to his room to read!

When our granddaughter arrived on the scene, Shadow began showing extreme jealousy whenever I was holding Alethea.  He would whine at me until I’d pet him, or tried to get his body or head between her and me!  He has shown no aggression toward her… just wants his share of the attention!

What a dog!  I find myself looking for him around every corner, expecting him to greet me every time I return home from somewhere and open the front door.  He sure won my heart in his five years of life!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Shadow was my first dog.  Although I got him shortly before my actual birthday, he was my 20th birthday present.  We had a German Shepherd-Collie Mix, Major, growing up, but he was Nathan’s dog, and being an outdoor dog he didn’t get as well integrated into the family as Shadow did.  I had a cat, Sunshine, when I was very young, but Sunshine got out and was hit by a car while he was still a kitten.  Shadow has been a part of my life for nearly 13 years.

Although Shadow was a whiner (he whined when he wanted attention, he whined to go out, he whined to come in, he whined when he was excited, he whined when he was scared, he whined every inning when I was in the field the one time I took him with me to a softball game), he was a wonderful dog and a great companion.  Shadow was a definite people-dog.  Around other dogs, Shadow was timid and nervous.  He would shy away from dogs 1/4 his size.  But when anyone came to the house, Shadow was certain they were there to see him.  He won the affection of even the non-dog lovers with his sweet personality.  He loved to play tug-of-war, and would tire out anyone willing to take him on.

Shadow also loved to go for rides, and he loved to swim.   My first car was perfect for him, because he was able to put his front paws on the center console and stick his head out the sunroof, taking in the world everywhere we went.  The very first time I introduced him to water, he wasn’t too sure about it.  However, once I led him into the water to the point where his feet were no longer touching the bottom, he realized that he could float, and off he went.  From then on, any time we went to the park he would start his whining as soon as we got into the park.  One time I made the mistake of leaving my window down and Shadow jumped over me out the driver’s side window before I even got a chance to park the car.  Last year Carrie and I took Shadow to the Indiana Dunes for the first time, and he got his first taste of Lake Michigan.  As soon as he saw the water he was carrying on and straining at the leash to get in.  His hips were already getting pretty bad from arthritis, and the waves would knock him down.  However, he would get right back up and run out into the water again.  He was bone tired the next two days, but he loved it.

By about age 10, Shadow was getting arthritis in his hips and starting to have trouble getting up.  Supplements and eventually a prescription anti-inflammatory helped quite a bit, but in the last few months his legs continued to get worse, and he was showing signs of problems in other areas of his body as well.  His behavior starting changing too.  Most of it, we just chalked up to growing old.  A few weeks ago, he lost interest in his food.  When he wouldn’t eat some of his past favorites like canned dog food, peanut butter, cottage cheese, etc., we knew something was wrong.  The vet noticed a yellow tinge to the whites of his eyes and suspected liver failure.  An ultra-sound showed what appeared to be two large tumors, one in his spleen and one in his liver.  That was eight days ago, Monday March 2.

In the past week, Carrie and I have been preparing ourselves for his approaching death, not knowing whether it would be days, weeks, or months.  However, Shadow got worse each day, not eating, rarely getting up, struggling to walk, throwing up, and not being able to eliminate normally.  We hoped that God would end his life naturally, sparing us the tough decision of putting him to sleep.  However, there was nothing wrong with Shadow’s heart, head, or lungs; his heart kept right on ticking, and he kept right on breathing.  By last night, it was finally clear to us that we couldn’t keep asking Shadow to lay around in pain, slowly starving, and struggling with the now very difficult task of getting in and out of the house.  We prayed earnestly that God would allow Shadow to take his last breath that night, but God must have thought it better that we were with Shadow when that happened, rather than waking to find him dead.  It was a tough phone call to the vet this morning, albeit a short one.  I took the afternoon off work so both Carrie and I could spend Shadow’s last few hours with him.  The vet and staff were kind, the injection painless, and the effect swift.

Carrie and I are sad to see Shadow go, and we will miss him greatly.  We know he made many friends throughout his life who will also miss him.  However, we are grateful for the immense joy that he brought to our lives, and we are relieved that he is no longer suffering through a slow, painful demise.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

(Note: Google has no results for the phrase “feels like a funeral day.” It’s about time it did.)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

That should make the liberals and “progressives” happy.

Before the conservatives and “obstinate, backward, Bible-thumping fundamentalists” (or whatever other labels are applied by the lib-progs) get all defensive, let me explain why.

First off, not only do I think “abstinence-only” programs should be eliminated, I also think the term “Sex Ed” should be eliminated. This implies that kids are being educated about the “noun,” the “act” of sex. Sexual education needs to be about the “adjective,” educating our children about everything that is sexual, every component of life that relates to our sexuality. (In this regard, I’m advocating for comprehensive sexual education, although not the way it’s presented by the lib-progs.)

Sexual education needs to be much more than just the mechanics of sexual intercourse, the pitfalls of STD’s and unexpected pregnancy, and how to minimize/avoid those pitfalls. Sexual education should teach healthy sexuality, which is a lot more than just the avoidance of disease and unwanted pregnancy. Sexual education should teach boys and girls how to be men and women, how to be husbands and wives, and how to be parents.

Sexual education should emphasize purity, not abstinence. What does it mean to be pure in your thoughts, in your actions when you’re alone, in the words that you say to others, in how you dress, and in how you relate to members of the opposite sex? These are the questions we need to help our children answer.

Does sexual purity involve abstinence? Certainly! But it’s much, much more than simply not having sex until married. (Speaking of which, the “stay pure until marriage” pledges have got to go too. What, once you’re married, purity goes out the window?)

Unfortunately, the lib-progs don’t like purity-based sexual education any better than abstinence-only. (If anything, they like it even less, because it dares to instill “values.”) Also, the proponents of abstinence-only programs really want the same things I’ve advocated.

My issue is really the terms of our engagement as Christians. Sometimes we try to “soften” our ideals to make them more palatable to the world.

“You don’t like our idea of ‘sexual purity’? Okay, how about ‘abstinence’?”

It’s a cheap substitute, and they’re not buying it.

You don’t like ‘creation’? Okay, how about ‘intelligent design’?”

Now the argument shifts from “is there a Creator?” to “is Intelligent Design repackaged Creationism?” I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile argument. But, that’s a topic for another time.

As Christians, we need to raise our standards. We need to define our terms appropriately, and make sure we’re pursuing the right goals. “Pro-life” is not just a positive spin on “anti-abortion.” It’s much bigger than that. “Purity” is not the same as “abstinence.” It’s much bigger than that. Let’s pursue purity, and health, and wholeness, and do so without reservation.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In fact, the article starts out asking something along the lines of the question I’ve been asking myself: “what’s a ‘redeeming’ film?” CT’s definition is “movies that include stories of redemption—sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of them literally have a character that represents a redeemer; all of them have characters who experience redemption to some degree—some quite clearly, some more subtly. Some are ‘feel-good’ movies that leave a smile on your face; some are a bit more uncomfortable to watch. But the redemptive element is there in all of these films.”

I’ve been wondering if Christians are too quick to praise a story because it’s supposedly “redemptive.” Usually these stories involve someone who did some bad thing(s), and by the end of the story they do something good. Is that really enough? Is something like The Blues Brothers really a “tale of redemption”?

If we are looking for stories that truly exemplify spiritual redemption, isn’t it necessary that there be a redeemer who takes on the burden of past sin? Should we be satisfied with stories that imply someone can redeem themselves?

If we are looking for stories that truly exemplify the state of redemption, shouldn’t we expect an admission of sin and repentance from sin? Is it possible to redeem someone if they’re not a captive? If sin is denied, how can there be redemption? Is it really redemption if it doesn’t result in repentance?

Obviously, we shouldn’t expect a story to mirror every aspect of the gospel. It’s not necessary for a story to be an allegory for it to display truth. However, I’m wondering if we should raise the bar of what it takes to reflect biblical truth. I think we should be on the lookout for “feel good” movies that are only redemptive from a humanistic, man-centered viewpoint.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Although I didn’t mention it in my previous post, another early Reformed confession is the Second Helvetic Confession, also written in the 1560′s, by Henry Bullinger, with widespread acceptance throughout Switzerland and other germanic countries.

However, probably the most widely recognized doctrinal statements of the Protestant church are the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.  These were developed in the 1640′s in England.  The historical background (aside from coming about 80 years later) is rather different, due partly to the political environment at the time.

The break of the English church from the Roman church in the 1530′s was driven more by political desires than theological differences, but it created an environment that allowed the theological moorings of the church to veer away from Roman Catholicism.  As the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer drafted the first doctrinal statements of the Anglican Church that distinguished the Church of England from the Roman church.  It took a while for the English church to find its identity (during the reign of “Bloody” Mary I, it moved back towards Catholicism), but when Queen Elizabeth I came to power in 1558, she established a church that was entirely distinct from the Roman Catholic church.  The Thirty-Nine Articles become the official doctrinal statement that defined the distinctive “middle path” (via media) of the Church of England, which was no longer Roman Catholic, but not as Lutheran or Reformed as the Reformation churches on the European continent.

With the break from the Roman Catholic church complete, the debates in the Church of England became less “Catholic vs. Reformed” and more “Episcopal vs. Puritan.”  Episcopacy retained characteristics more similar to Catholicism, while Puritanism desired further reform, and favored presbyterian or congregational polity.  The Puritan faction of Parliament attempted to enact further reforms to the Church, but found themselves stymied by King Charles I and his supporters.  Finally in 1643 (without the assent of the king), Parliament appointed the Westminster Assembly to undertake the restructuring of the Church.   Although it was intended to encompass episcopal influences as well as presbyterian, congregational, and others, the episcopalians did not participate, and the presbyterians were the majority.

Initially tasked with revising the Thirty-Nine Articles, the assignment was shifted to that of formulating the basis of a church that would be “nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and other Reformed Churches abroad.”  (The Protestant Church in Scotland, under the influence of John Knox, and the Scots Confession that he and others wrote in 1560, shared much in common with the theology of John Calvin.)

The resulting Westminster Confession, Shorter Catechism, and Larger Catechism (plus a few other documents) that the Assembly produced were adopted by the Church of England for a short period of time, being revoked in 1660.  However, they were adopted by the Church of Scotland and remain the definitive doctrinal standards for many Presbyterian denominations and other Reformed groups.

The history and content of many Christian creeds has been well documented by church historian Philip Schaff in his work, Creeds of Christendom.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This was not a good weekend to buy a generator, kerosene or propane heater, propane, lantern, or D-cell batteries. Items that would normally be in low demand were in high demand and low supply. (Time to start thinking about getting a few of these items ahead of time.)

We lost power around 10AM on Friday. Not much to worry about, although Carrie got a little stir crazy while I was away at work. We went out for supper, bought some ice, then came home. Since temperatures were well below freezing, we just emptied out the freezer and put everything outside, then used the ice to keep things in the refrigerator cold. No need for extra blankets on Friday night, although we had the sleeping bags on hand just in case.

Saturday morning, after 24-hours without heat, the house was still around 60°F, but it was time to start thinking about what we could do to generate some heat. A trip to the library led me to believe that an indoor-safe propane heater would be the way to go. A kerosene heater may have been more powerful, but last time I was around a kerosene heater, it wasn’t something you’d want in the house.

When I went to Menards and found a long line of people standing around waiting for various and sundry items to come in off a truck, I realized that it was going to be difficult to find much of anything. I called around various home improvement and hardware stores, but nobody had anything left. Finally, the Rural King in Decatur said they still had some propane heaters, so we went for a 20 minute drive. Turned out they didn’t have quite what we were looking for, and I hated to spend over $100 for something that we might never use again and didn’t have space for. Another truck was supposed to be on the way, so we waited. The truck was supposed to go to the Decatur store, then continue on to Van Wert, but it went to Van Wert first, so we waited some more. Finally we were able to buy the “Portable Buddy” we wanted and some propane.

Our little Buddy was sufficient to raise the temperature in the living area of the house (we closed off the bedrooms) from 56°F to 61°F before bedtime, but this time the sleeping bags came in handy. The wind was ferocious Saturday night, and several times I heard a loud bang that I was sure was a tree limb falling on the roof. Still not quite sure what caused the bangs.

After a restless night of sleep, Sunday came bringing more bitter cold and high wind. Sunday afternoon I tried to buy more propane and a battery-powered lantern. No luck on either end. Oh well, we had flashlights, a propane-powered lantern if necessary, and still enough propane to get through Monday. The temperature in the house had dropped to 54°F during the day, and the Buddy was having a little harder time chasing the cold away, managing to make it 58°F.

About 7:30PM on Sunday, wrapping up a game of Scrabble played by flashlight, we were joyously interrupted by a light coming on and the furnace starting. It was still cold in the house when we went to bed, but by morning everything was normal.

Things to be thankful for:

1. A gas hot-water heater. A hot shower, the ability to wash dishes and hands without freezing them, and the benefit of introducing additional heat into the house were welcome.

2. Freezing temperatures outside kept the frozen food from thawing out.

3. A small house that maintained its temperature fairly well without being heated.

4. No damage to our property.

5. Finding our Portable Buddy.

6. A camp stove for making hot drinks and soups.

Things that would help for next time:

1. Get the windows recaulked.

2. Have a battery powered lantern and a weather radio on hand.

3. If I had space, get a generator and figure out how to hook the furnace up to it.

As of 9AM on Monday, there are still over 43,000 AEP customers in Fort Wayne without power. The Indiana Michigan website says, “The majority of customers in Fort Wayne and Allen County should have power restored by Wednesday evening. However, it appears likely that some customers won´t be restored by Wednesday and our restoration efforts will continue through Christmas and the end of the week.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If you want to get through the world with the smallest trouble, reduce yourself to the smallest compass.

Tiny souls can dodge through life; bigger souls are blocked on every side. As soon as a person enlarges his or her life, resistances are multiplied. If you are petty and selfish and just caring about yourself, you will have no trouble; if you are interested in the agenda of Christ, your suffering will be increased on every side.”

Ellie Lefaro (Focus on the Family radio broadcast), quoting J. Henry Jowett

Her quote is apparently a paraphrase of some selections from The School of Calvary by John Henry Jowett.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here are some resources I’m looking at to inform my view on this subject:

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/credobaptism

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/whoswork.html

http://www.desiringgod.org/Search/?search=baptism

You might notice that these are primarily from the credobaptist viewpoint (with the exception of the Lutheran page). That’s mainly because that’s the view I currently hold, and I want to see the arguments for this view. If I’m going to be convinced to change my mind, I’m not going to do it lightly. When I read the arguments in favor of paedobaptism, I need to be convinced that the case is stronger than the case for credobaptism if I’m going to change my view.

At this point, it appears to me that the strongest arguments for paedobaptism are historical precedent and the framework through which one understands the Old and New Covenants. I’m sure there are other reasons, but the comparison of baptism to circumcision seems to be the primary argument, backed up by historical practice.

While not pertaining to baptism, per se, this is another link I’m perusing:

http://www.samwaldron.us/Papers.html

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Would some take umbrage at this statement? Is a “philosophy of ministry” another way of saying, “how we go about making disciples”? Isn’t making disciples more important than reciting what you believe?

Is it possible to make disciples effectively if you don’t have a solid doctrinal foundation? If you are making disciples, are they the right kind of disciples?

If you have a suitable statement of faith, shouldn’t it be a given that you intend to be making disciples?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.