Good-bye

Well, this will by my last post on Blogspot. I'm moving on to greater pastures ( I think) at the following address: http://warwickfuller.wordpress.com/

I hope you will follow me there!

Merry Christmas!

My favorite Christmas Album

Ah, Ella. This is my favorite Christmas Album. Can there be a better way to bring in the holidays than Ella's soulful voice singing the classics? The answer is "No".

Unless you got a better one.

What's your favorite Christmas album?

The Problem with Postmoderns is...

The Problem with Postmoderns is...

we were taught too well to trust no one by the previous two generations (our teachers and parents). Including ourselves and our own judgement.

So, of course, we have a problem with truth.

I wanna be smart, two. I mean, tow. I mean, as well.

Lewis' birthday is coming up soon. Of course I was not thinking about him but on my preaching paper, when I thought of this: "How many times was Lewis in that toolshed, or standing by a beam of the sun before this thought struck him?"

"I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it.

Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

But this is only a very simple example of the difference between looking at and looking along. A young man meets a girl. The whole world looks different when he sees her. Her voice reminds him of something he has been trying to remember all his life, and ten minutes casual chat with her is more precious than all the favours that all other women in the world could grant. lie is, as they say, “in love”. Now comes a scientist and describes this young man's experience from the outside. For him it is all an affair of the young man's genes and a recognised biological stimulus. That is the dif- ference between looking along the sexual impulse and looking at it.

When you have got into the habit of making this distinction you will find examples of it all day long. The mathematician sits thinking, and to him it seems that he is contemplating timeless and spaceless truths about quantity. But the cerebral physiologist, if he could look inside the mathematician's head, would find nothing timeless and spaceless there - only tiny movements in the grey matter. The savage dances in ecstasy at midnight before Nyonga and feels with every muscle that his dance is helping to bring the new green crops and the spring rain and the babies. The anthropologist, observing that savage, records that he is performing a fertility ritual of the type so- and-so. The girl cries over her broken doll and feels that she has lost a real friend; the psychologist says that her nascent maternal instinct has been temporarily lavished on a bit of shaped and coloured wax.

As soon as you have grasped this simple distinction, it raises a question. You get one experience of a thing when you look along it and another when you look at it. Which is the “true” or “valid” experience? Which tells you most about the thing? And you can hardly ask that question without noticing that for the last fifty years or so everyone has been taking the answer for granted. It has been assumed without discussion that if you want the true account of religion you must go, not to religious people, but to anthropologists; that if you want the true account of sexual love you must go, not to lovers, but to psychologists; that if you want to understand some “ideology” (such as medieval chivalry or the nineteenth-century idea of a “gentleman”), you must listen not to those who lived inside it, but to sociologists.

The people who look at things have had it all their own way; the people who look along things have simply been brow-beaten. It has even come to be taken for granted that the external account of a thing somehow refutes or “debunks” the account given from inside. “All these moral ideals which look so transcendental and beautiful from inside”, says the wiseacre, “are really only a mass of biological instincts and inherited taboos.” And no one plays the game the other way round by replying, “If you will only step inside, the things that look to you like instincts and taboos will suddenly reveal their real and transcendental nature.”

1That, in fact, is the whole basis of the specifically “modern” type of thought. And is it not, you will ask, a very sensible basis? For, after all, we are often deceived by things from the inside. For example, the girl who looks so wonderful while we're in love, may really be a very plain, stupid, and disagreeable person. The savage's dance to Nyonga does not really cause the crops to grow. Having been so often deceived by looking along, are we not well advised to trust only to looking at? in fact to discount all these inside experiences?

Well, no. There are two fatal objections to discounting them all. And the first is this. You discount them in order to think more accurately. But you can't think at all - and therefore, of course, can't think accurately - if you have nothing to think about. A physiologist, for example, can study pain and find out that it “is” (whatever is means) such and such neural events. But the word pain would have no meaning for him unless he had “been inside” by actually suffering. If he had never looked along pain he simply wouldn't know what he was looking at. The very subject for his inquiries from outside exists for him only because he has, at least once, been inside.

This case is not likely to occur, because every man has felt pain. But it is perfectly easy to go on all your life giving explanations of religion, love, morality, honour, and the like, without having been inside any of them. And if you do that, you are simply playing with counters. You go on explaining a thing without knowing what it is. That is why a great deal of contemporary thought is, strictly speaking, thought about nothing - all the apparatus of thought busily working in a vacuum.

The other objection is this: let us go back to the toolshed. I might have discounted what I saw when looking along the beam (i.e., the leaves moving and the sun) on the ground that it was “really only a strip of dusty light in a dark shed”. That is, I might have set up as “true” my “side vision” of the beam. But then that side vision is itself an instance of the activity we call seeing. And this new instance could also be looked at from outside. I could allow a scientist to tell me that what seemed to be a beam of light in a shed was “really only an agitation of my own optic nerves”. And that would be just as good (or as bad) a bit of debunking as the previous one. The picture of the beam in the toolshed would now have to be discounted just as the previous picture of the trees and the sun had been discounted. And then, where are you?

In other words, you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always misled. The cerebral physiologist may say, if he chooses, that the mathematician's thought is “only” tiny physical movements of the grey matter. But then what about the cerebral physiologist's own thought at that very moment? A second physiologist, looking at it, could pronounce it also to be only tiny physical movements in the first physiologist's skull. Where is the rot to end?

The answer is that we must never allow the rot to begin. We must, on pain of idiocy, deny from the very outset the idea that looking at is, by its own nature, intrinsically truer or better than looking along. One must look both along and at everything. In particular cases we shall find reason for regarding the one or the other vision as inferior. Thus the inside vision of rational thinking must be truer than the outside vision which sees only movements of the grey matter; for if the outside vision were the correct one all thought (including this thought itself) would be valueless, and this is self-contradictory. You cannot have a proof that no proofs matter. On the other hand, the inside vision of the savage's dance to Nyonga may be found deceptive because we find reason to believe that crops and babies are not really affected by it. In fact, we must take each case on its merits. But we must start with no prejudice for or against either kind of looking. We do not know in advance to whether the lover or the psychologist is giving the more correct account of love, or whether both accounts are equally correct in different ways, or whether both are equally wrong. We just have to find out. But the period of brow-beating has got to end."

A story from back in the day...

I'm not sure why I remembered this story this morning...

Back in the day, Pennsylvania had passed a law that all traffic should be in the right lane, making the left hand lane for passing vehicles, only. I'm pretty sure I was in college when this occurred. The PA houses had just passed the law, it was Nov, I think. It wasn't supposed to take effect until January. Not that big a deal, right? I think every other state had had this in effect all around us, and since most driving our highways are from somewhere else, on their way through, it was just the natives that had to get used to it.

I forget where I was going. I was in Angus, the blue Ford escort, this is post-Warwick mobile, and I was going through Harrisburg on Front Street. For those not in the know, Front Street is a one way, three-laned street that runs south along the river. I was in the middle lane, because, honestly, Front Street is my kryptonite. The lanes seem so narrow and it freaks me out. So, I think to myself, if I drive in the middle lane I'll be fine. Drive in the right lane, I'll hit a curb and flip down the gully and into the river where we will all drown (granted the river is only 3 feet deep in most areas). Drive in the left lane, someone will pull out in front of me and we'll all die in a fiery blaze, probably on the front lawn of Beth-El.

So, I was driving down the center lane of Front Street on the morning after the PA Legislature has passed this law. Alongside me, in the right-hand lane, comes a guy and a woman who are keeping neck and neck with me. I'm freaked out. Then he starts yelling at me. I'm really freaked, but also polite, so I roll down my window. Expecting one of my brakelights is out, or my entire bumper is missing, I look over his way with a smile and try not to end all of our lives in the river or on the lawn of Beth-El.

He yells across, "You're in the wrong lane! You're gonna get pulled over! They just passed a law saying that you need to drive in the right-hand lane!"

Several things went through my mind. How does this guy think all of Harrisburg's traffic is gonna fit just in the right hand lane? Can he be serious? CAN he really be serious?

I yelled back, "That's only on the highway."

"No," he yelled, "its for everywhere."

I rolled up my window and drove to wherever I was going.

To this day I can't figure out if the guy was alerting me out of his concern for me, or this was his way of complaining despite his ignorance. I still picture him, though, faithfully in the right hand lane driving through life, yelling, warning others of their impending doom.

(There's probably a sermon in this, somewhere...)

Rules were made to keep the right things sacred

This morning I went to hear Gordon MacDonald speak at my school. So, grabbed my Starbucks togo cup filled with London Fog and headed off to school. I went up to the balcony and took my seat. Seconds later, an usher came up to me and asked if I could finish my drink on the steps out of the chapel area.

I was kind of perturbed. My cup is really big, and I had planned ahead by bringing it. I'm not a gulper. I drink my tea. I enjoy it. And so I brought my tall red cup, so familiar to those that know me, so that i could drink it throughout the morning. And it had a lid. I'm not a spiller but am cautious.

I was thinking ahead.

But here, I was denied. I mourned for my tea, but knew that I should probably not argue or rock the boat. Perturbed, but not weighed down. Its just a cup of tea. A really good, well-looked forward to cup of Early grey with milk and just the right amount of vanilla. So, I put my tall red cup on the table outside of the chapel, and went inside.

When I came back out after the first session, I was ready for my cup. But where my cup was had been replaced by a tablecloth, and cookies and coffee pot and cups and plates and donut holes... Where was my cup?

I turned to the usher, who seemed to have been waiting for me:

"Don't worry, your cup is right here."

and she pointed at the really old antique desk that sits just outside the chapel.

It took me really by surprise. I almost want to say incredulous. My tea was barred from the chapel to make sure the chapel stayed nice looking, I'm assuming. But no one cared about the antique desk that sat with the antique Bible and the antique glass lamp that sat on it.

It seemed weird to me that they were willing to protect the carpet of the chapel on one side, but not the desk. What makes the chapel space more valuable than where someone may have studied the Word, preparing for their sermon, or just doing daily life? Maybe they were so concerned about following one rule that they could not recognize the value of something outside of their domain.

Prayer

Here is the prayer I presented last week in chapel:

Father, Holy One,

You are mighty and awesome, beyond our understanding. Infinitely above us, you have ordered all life and nature to bring you praise!

Thank you for who you are.

Thank you for drawing us to you, for being intimately close. Thank you for being the light in dark places, and the one who readies the soil.

We need you, and confess our need to you now.

You are Life Giver. You have heard our cries for mercy, and while we were far off you came to us. You redeemed us from hands that were too strong for us to master. You touched our limbs and from our grave, we danced. You have touched our eyes, and now we see. You have touched our lips, and now we sing. Thank you, Father.

You are our Redeemer. Ransoming us, you have called us to follow You and you have made it possible for us to do this. Thank you, Father.

Son of David, Lord Most High, Jesus, have mercy on us. You became nothing, making yourself a servant, we are humbled by such knowledge. We are silenced by such love. And by calling us, and making us alive, we run after you. As we turn our collars to the cold and damp, we turn to the reminder of the warm season that means new life, your resurrection. Let us be made radiant in You.

Consuming Fire, Holy Spirit, give us words to speak praise. Give us eyes to see where you are working. Open our stopped up ears to hear the cries of those around us in need that we may help. And give us fast limbs that swing into service and to outstretched praise.

We ask help for the needs amongst us. For those sick, may we be healed. Let us find peace in you. Let us truly understand what it means to be pursued by you.

Thank you for hearing us.

Amen.

it's been awhile...

It's been awhile since I posted on here. Guess nothing clever or witty has occurred in my life lately. hmmm.

My hair is acting goofy. Very Edward from Twilight -ish.

I can't brood or shimmer in daylight to save my life.

That's all I got. Gotta get back to my paper.

I run so others can eat

Well, it's fall and that can only mean one thing: I'm running a race of some sort.

I caught the bug two years ago when I ran the Marine Corps Marathon in DC. It's tough to shake it once you get it. I think the only sure way to break free of it would be to irreparably break my legs. And then I'd hire someone named Dragon to carry me across the line.

This year, I'm running with a group. A pack. A herd of people from Devonshire running a various assortment of distances: 1 is running the full marathon; 5 are running the half marathon; & 2 are running the 5 k. As we each finish, I'm sure we'll make our way over to cheer on the marathoner... it is a joy to see them finish. And sometimes to carry them.

Well, this year, the gaggle of us have decided that our running should be worth something. You know, you finish these things and you get your mylar blanket and your medal, and though a feeling of accomplishment is great, what has it mattered? So, we decided to run to raise money for WorldVision's efforts to dig wells in Africa.

After a race, all you want is to sit down and to have a drink of cool water. What a blessing it is for us to live a part of the world that water is abundant & CLEAN! The organization that we are raising money for uses vast resources in order to dig wells in Africa, so that the children and families there have a chance at a healthy life. They walk miles a day to get water from ditches that is not fit to be our sewage.

If you would like to sponsor us, please give here: http://www.firstgiving.com/dmcteamworldvision. If you cannot give at this time, please keep us in your prayers.

I think its weird...

I think its weird that we won't raise the Titanic to respect those who died inside, but we'll plunder the tombs of pharaoh... Is there some kind of rule about this?

No one will ever put Baby in the corner again...

Patrick Swayze may have been the first sex symbol for my graduating class. I was reflecting on Swayze's passing and thinking about when I first heard about him. I was in fourth grade, in Mr. C's class at Linglestown Elementary, and I remember Beth Ryan talking about him in ways that I don't think I had ever heard someone else my age talk about anyone, celebrity or otherwise. I did not have these feelings towards anyone, and here was Beth talking about her deep colorful love for him. Oh, and George Michael. They were both on the same level, and she would gladly makeout with either of them.

Weird.

I was just trying to figure out how to get through multiple levels of Legend of Zelda, and made sure I got to the mall to get the new Spider-Man (there was even talk of a grey Hulk!) I had no clue you could talk about adults like this. Sure, in third grade I had been in the "congregation" of many a "wedding" held on the back porch of our playground. But whenever it came time to "kiss the bride", all of our faces got tied up, like we had just eaten a lemon, and the boys ran while the girls chased. It was one of those "free-for-all/defend-yourself-to-the-last" type situations.

But fourth grade, things changed and I think Beth led the way. She seemed pretty ahead of us. At least, she talked like she did. She had seen Dirty Dancing a lot, and would continue to see it, she said, until she knew exactly what to say in case she ever did run into Mr. Swayze. I even remember for a day she wanted us to call her Mrs. Swayze!

I'm really not sure what happened to Beth Ryan, or a lot of the kids I went to elementary school with. I don;t know that she ever got her shot to talk to Patrick Swayze. She seemed so much older than us, like she actually knew what she was talking about. I had no clue about a lot of what she talked about. Maybe she just wanted to be rescued. Like Baby, maybe she was put in the corner and she saw her knight in tight jeans and rolled up t-shirt sleeves.

Or maybe she was just a fourth grader with no clue about she was talking about.

(For the record, I really thought she did, though.)

On 2nd Street last night

It was very surreal seeing Joe last night. Joe and I had been friends from kindergarten 'til about 6th grade. I was on my way to see Luke's show at Dragonfly last night when I got called over to that new Orleans themed bar by a guy I had not seen since he had a slight mental breakdown while we were in high school. I hadn't even noticed who was with him until he told me. There was Joe and another guy whom I had also not seen high school, a bully if ever there was one. Joe was surprised to see me, perhaps as mush as I was at seeing him, now confronted with one part of my past I had been unwilling to give up but was, instead, wrenched away from me.

Joe and I grew up in similar sets of circumstances. We were those kids who were never out of each other's sights. For 5 straight summers we alternated between each other's houses for sleepovers. He went down one path, and I went another. I might eb bold enough to say that he went down a path I was not allowed to go down.

I remember the first time I was offered a cigarette. Joe and I were walking with two guys through the old neighborhood. Actually, the guy who was with him last night, was the one who offered me my first cigarette. Joe grabbed it out of his hand before I could even answer and said "No" for me. I didn't know it at the time but Joe had already been smoking for about a month.

For whatever reason he wouldn't let me join him.

As we went through school I barely saw him in junior high or high school. Our schedules separated us, as I took harder and harder classes, and Joe ended up playing catch up. We were friendly, but his new friends kept offering him new things, things I didn't want to be a part of. Not because I was better or stronger in any way. I was scared of those things and their consequences.

I never saw Joe scared.

Except for that one time when we were gonna spend the night in his backyard in the tent until we saw the bat. We slept inside that night.

It was surreal seeing him there under the gaudy lights. They related stories that they had heard about me, that I was married, but they didn't know for how long, thinking it had just occurred. Or that I had two girls.

There was so much I wanted to ask him. Where had he been? I had heard stories, were they true? What about that job I got for you, but that you never showed up to for training? Given the chance, I would've sat down all night and just listened as he told me where he had been, and what he had been doing.

I don't think he owes me an explanation - I'm just curious.

What happens to the kids that didn't fear consequences? What happens to the boys who weren't aware that they were growing up while they made their decisions?

If I ever had the sense of Peter Pan's Lost Boys, I met three of them last night.

I admire

I admire those parents, and would-be parents, who have such lofty goals as to how they are going to raise their children. They have determined in finite ways what their child will be exposed to. And that is commendable.

However, I think its more commendable to extend grace. We do not know what lies ahead for our kids. We can plan and furrow our brows and set to the chalk board many a scheme. So maybe this brings us back to a problem I've mentioned before about American sense of Democracy... you're free to do whatever as long as we choose it for you.

Anyway, I've just finished talking to two other guys and they have commendable goals for their kids. Their children will not read certain books, for instance. Again, commendable. But I wonder where it stops. The books in question, which have to do with a certain young wizard and friends, have some questionable stuff (like how the hero is constantly lying), but is it able to be cut away? Will their children instead be ok if allowed to read Dostovesky (Crime and Punishment, after all is about a murder). Or what about Lewis' Narnia series? There is magic in there, of the same sort of Potter's, and perhaps a bit more otherworldly as Potter's is Latin, and Narnia's is deeper still.

And, I know what you're thinking, as I'm thinking it too: It's all about the author's intent! Are they Christians?

Well, have you read Andrew Peterson's books? Honestly, I've only read the first one, but it was pretty dark, and I did not find Jesus in it.

And Hugo, whom I love, was Catholic. (I know, I know).

And Dostovesky was Orthodox.

And Lewis was Anglican; Tolkein was Catholic (I know, I know).

So, which Christians are you allowed to read?

Hmmm.... what is the major concern? Is it, perhaps, that our kids will come to us with questions we don't have answers for? And what good are we if we don't have the answers?

Or is it something else?

I'm not saying that I want my kids to listen to Black Sabbath or read Palahniuk, or even Rowling. But I hope that when they do hear it, they will be able to discern the truth from the lie in all things, from the book spine to the pulpit. And this doesn't necessarily mean that I plan on exposing them to all kinds of stuff. I just want them to be prepared, and to know the truth and to be ready to give an answer for what they believe.

What do you say?

"Trace the shape of my heart"

"Imagine I take a blind test in which my task is to identify the genuine follower of Jesus Christ. My choices are an unregenerate individual and you.

I'm given two reports detailing conversations, Internet activity, manner of dress, iPod playlists, television choices, hobbies, leisure time, financial transactions, thoughts, passions, dreams.

The question is: Would I be able to tell you apart? Would I discern a difference between you and your unconverted neighbor, coworker, classmate, or friend?"

-CJ Mahaney, 24 Worldliness

What stirs my heart and captures my mind? Is it all things put under the submission of Christ to the glory of the Father? Or, is it for my own elevation and security? Whose glory am I seeking in my walk and life?

What is the shape of my heart? If opened what will spill out? What can break it?

The truth of the matter is that I am the worst judge of my own character and walk with Christ. I need my church, my small group, my brothers and sisters (of which I am blessed that my wife is a part of such a group) to make this evaluation. In my own eyes, I err on judgement, the king of sinners in my own eyes. I am too aware of my sin, its ever-presence. But within the context of His community, I am made more aware of God's mercy, His grace, His acceptance, His call on my life, His Lordship over a people redeemed for His glory - True Sovereign of the world!

Jesus commanded His disciples to love one another as a reflection of their love for Him (John 15:10). We cannot think of this love as secondary to how much we love those outside the body. Can the hand be effective without the foot? Evangelism is first the edification of the body. We need to tell and encourage each other first the good news and how we have been effected by it. How has the good news awed us and put us in wonder, humbled us and changed our life?

So, how do I know if I'm following Him and loving Him? I need to look at how I treat the family of God. Am I amazed by our stories, and the God who saves? Am I being broken by the world and full of compassion for those outside of Him? Does my concern of my sin stem from a concern for how it effects the whole body, my family, my kids, my wife?

Sorry to mislead, and disappoint

Ok, so there is something hatching in my head. I just wanted to leave a blurb that am down at WorshipGod 09 and so I may not be able to put all my thoughts on here from a recent excursion God has lead me on. But I will drop it here soon. Promise.

Two ideals, one goal

I'm more and more convinced that it is becoming increasingly harder to be a Christian in the US. Not because of any type of persecution, but because we've been convinced that we can be a Christian in America. We are maintaining our ideals in an ever increasing Democratically free-state, a state that only pushes against who we are and what we believe.

And we've bought into it. We have been told that our rights are guaranteed and that we can live how we want, worship how we want, and yet we do not feel these rights apply to anyone who would think or believe otherwise.

And its not just Christians. This core belief has been the real battle ground of politics for, well, forever. Everyone wants their guaranteed rights, and may their be vengeance on anyone who wants their own rights that some how conflict with my ability to be free. "Keep your laws off my body" is a cry for inalienable rights, a pursuit of happiness. How can we as Christians show a way contrary to this very worldly, very un-Christian mindset if we keep struggling for our own government guaranteed "rights"?

Yesterday was the anniversary of the case that got rid of the definition of the "obscene". And today, while reading CNN's website (I know that I have said that I would never again go to these websites, but I was bored at work today), I came across the story about a small town in Wisconsin which wants to remove some books from their library. On one side are the librarians who do not feel that the nature of the books in question harm the integrity of the other books in the library or their patrons. Then there is the other side, who want the books removed because of the harm they can do to young adults who may read them.

Again, it really comes down to whose "rights" win? Who has the more "right"?

The more ironic part of the discussion is this quote, given by one of the leaders of the group that wants the books removed: "We want parents to decide whether they want their children to have access to these books ... and we want the library's help in identifying [them through labeling and moving]," Maziarka said. "It's just common sense."

It all comes back to one main issue: parents. Parents are the ones who need to be the ones guiding and instructing their children. To rely on government, no matter how very much elected, is to put reliance on the world. As we live and grapple in this American Democratic Society, our task is going to be hard as we grapple and struggle for what is rightfully ours... which makes it hard to live a life of submission and humility to our Lord, and a keen understanding of who should be raising our children.

While it is important to be active and to be a voice, we can not get frustrated at the world for being the world. Nor should we be relying on the world and its means to keep our children safe and to instruct them how to make "good" (read Godly) decisions.

So, please don't burn books. Parents, teach your kids how to write and enjoy books that will be a better example and give off more light than any pile of books lit ablaze. And teach them, show them, how to love and pray for their political leaders, while not seeing them as their leaders. And show them, with the example and exhortation of Christ, Paul, and Peter, how to properly submit to the world without being influenced by it. Show them how to be salt that flavors. Because by what right and by whose authority do we cling to anything of this world.

Obscenity was made permissable today

Today, whether you are aware of it or not, is a big day in our nation's history. 50 years ago today, the matter was settled as far as to what the federal and state govt's could determine as obscene. The Supreme court overturned a previous decision which would then allow books like "Lady Chatterly's Lover" to be published uncensored.

It's a pretty big day.

This is the case that would help further question the parameters, or lack of, for the First Amendment Rights cases. It was also a case which showed the turn of the courts, and the American culture towards a more "liberal" mindset. (Which plays against a largely Conservative belief that judges are more umpires than markers of social change).

There are two questions that revolved around this case and these are questions we should ask often. What influences us, and does it matter what form it takes? The main question the lawyer for the bookseller had argued was that “A novel, no matter how much devoted to the act of sex,” he said, “can hardly add to the constant sexual prodding with which our environment assails us.” In other words, what does it matter that there is one more screaming voice in the throng? It's a bit like asking which bullet did the real damage in the riddle of a man's body?

Where there are foodies, I guess I am a bookie (?), or maybe a bibliophile (really, I think we need a better more masculine term). I generally shy away from censorship. I don't know that I've ever not read a book because of a general outcry against it. I will admit that one of the reasons I started reading Harry Potter was because I was so curious as to how this little book was causing so many to "fall away from Godliness". Same goes for why I read the "Davinci Code", which lead me to "Angels and Demons". I don't look for the offensive ones and head that-a-way. I'm not a fan of Vonnegut, who I think is offensive sometimes for the sake of being offensive, but I do read Palahniuk and appreciate his view of society.

It comes to the point of asking whether or not we are listening to the mob to help us decide the norms and the appropriate ways to behave. Paul has said that "to the pure all things are pure", and this is a warning that to those who are innocent in mind, there is innocence in motive and action, and in how we are able to discern the motives of others. Judgement relies on that.

I've been moved by the thought made by Wright recently that one of the solid aims of Christianity is to allow Christ to speak to and critique society, and allow Him to inform our opinions and actions towards the world. So, amidst this thronging mass, there is one who speaks truth to it, calling us to rest in the true definition of what he created us to be, and that should be the voice we listen to.

Let the world have its clamour and want of rights and liberties. I don't know that we should be opposed or as loud sometimes as we are against their want of these things. We claim it has to do with how much it affects or infects our insular bubble, but in reality it should be watched. Its from this cry we can see where they are looking for Christ (read freedom).

Please, be advised of the cops in the area. Given the chance they will ruin your family's vacation

Last night at the Hilton, two guests approached my co-worker and I at the front desk and asked us if we we knew of all the speed traps in the area. I answered that we knew that the cops were usually around. From our vantage point on top of the hill we can see flaching lights most nights as they target nearby 322.

"Well," the guest continues, "you should really warn people. My wife got pulled over down the hill here doing 55 in a 35 - it can really ruin a family vacation."

This took me by surprise. Not really sure how to respond, I apologized (kind of) by telling them that it was unfortunate. But, seriously? When do I have to remind people to follow the law? Its not my responsibilty, nor is it a kindness or a function of hospitatlity to make people aware of the places where they could get caught by not following the law. I generally do not expect people to break the law. If I told people of these traps, wouldn't it be a bit demeaning, as if I'm expecting them to break the law? Or, it would reveal my heart as someone who probably does break teh law a bit and need to point out to otheres where they could get caught.

To this gentleman, I had played a part in ruining their family vacation by not having a low expectation for their behaviour, or trusting that they could read signs along the highway. If they had known that the policeman was going to be there, they would have had the decency to slow down before they were in radar range.

Sorry, my bad, New Jersey couple. Next time, I promise not to expect too much.

Reasons I don't read the news

Here are some of the reasons I don't read the news, in ascending order, backwards:

7) Is any of this actual news? Some of these stories are no more than shocking family dramas, which are no more than gossip, really.

6) I'm not addicted, but I am. I feel drawn to it, to find out about things that preety much don't concern me.

5) I do enjoy reading the comics, but I can do that online.


4) After I read the news, I'm not happy that I did it, or do I feel that I spent my time doing something worthwhile.

3) Print is dead.

2) Is any of this really worth my attention? Pop and fuzz show the state of the culture, and though I am apart of it, I am somewhat removed. Is any of this worth my attention?

1) The world is fallen and as much as I am aware of it, being barraged by the beatings and death of children just makes me want to flee it and cry for it more than I think I can bear.

So, I'll stop reading the "news", and "Come quickly, Lord".

Upon passing a billboard somewhere in PA, on my way home...

We passed a billboard on our way home today from the UB National Conference, somewhere between Harrisburg and Clarion, PA. It had been a long van ride, and I hadn't been looking outside the van a whole lot but was rather napping. Anyway, we had just eaten at Applebee's and we had still a large part of travel time left on our way home and on the left side of the highway there appeared a billboard with clouds and fire asking this question: "Where are you going, Heaven or Hell?" And then there was a website to somewhere, but we had gone passed it before I could catch what it was.

Its a question that reveals much about the thoughts and philosophy of the church or group that posted it. Its a question that reveals the heart of the matter for this group. It reveals where they miss the mark.

Our hope is built on more than escaping Hell's fire or the comfort of Heaven - it is built on the righteousness of the Son of God and on being called by Him. What more do we have? Was Abraham or Moses ever promised a life of cool repose in a land far from the tongues of Hell? No, they were given the promise of redemption so eloquently inspired in Job: "Though my flesh may be destroyed, yet with my eyes I will see God; For I know that my Redeemer lives, and I will be standing with Him on that day!"

Cause what does it matter to gain the whole world, even escape Hell and achieve Heaven, if Christ is not there? If Jesus is in the desert, that is where I will gladly go if just to be with Him, to see His face, to hear His voice.

The Law is in my way....

Deut 6:4-9

Does the law get in my way? Is it in my focus? This thing of great value, spoken from the lips of the Father, in order to establish His ways in our wayward hearts. To challenge us, and to reveal how far we are from Him. This is no small or trivial thing.

How else can we know God? Can we even know our Saviour, let alone our need, without such a thing?

The Law must be in my focus. Knowing the person and nature of God must be my focus, must hold my attention. To make Him known, I must know Him. To have His heart, I must know His heart.

By knowing Him, I will be changed. How can I not? And from this change I will be effective in His work - as a minister, as a parent, as a man trying to be who and where my Father needs me to be - to the good and glory of God.

Quote of Wright...

"What if the resurrection, instead of (as is often imagined) legitimating a cozy, comfrotable, socially and culturally conservative form of Christianity, should turn out to be, in the twenty-first century as in the first as in the first, the most socially, culturally and politically explosive force imagineable, blasting its way through sealed tombs and locked doors of modernist epistemology and the 9now) deeply conservative social and political culture which it sustains?"

~NT Wright

The Resurrection of the Son of God, 713

Most of what I told the good people of Heidlersburg UB

Here is the majority of what I told the good people of Heidlersburg yesterday.

A Balcony in Verona

John 1:12

Juliet has wandered out onto her balcony. Tired after a party, but exhilarated after meeting a boy, she steps out to address the evening, and an empty garden. Romeo waits below, having snuck into this garden. A famous scene reenacted the whole world over. In one set of lines, she expresses the main concern and crux of the play.

Juliet: O, Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father and refuse thy name;

And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

…

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s a Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo doff thy name;

And for thy name, which is no part of thee,

Take all myself.

Such a lovely bit of prose, and it expresses the peril that names use to have. Not so much anymore. We all know the last names of some pretty famous people, and their names carries some power: the Kennedy’s, or Britain’s royal family, the Hatfields, the McCoys… these names all mean something to someone. But the art of the first name has been lost to us.

Maybe for a parent there can be reasons to name a child what they are called. My youngest daughter is named Lillian Eileen, the reflexive of my grandmother’s name whom I never met. The name of my oldest is Claire Elise simply because it was the only name my wife and I could agree on… but she has lived up to her name, being : “Clear”, and “light”.

But when other’s hear her name their mind does not go right away to the meaning and how it relates to her. We, who live in the present context, put no stock in the meanings of name. Or, if we do, it’s the parent’s who are concerned, and no more. No one when they hear my name thinks, “Like a lion”, or “the dam by the dairy farm”… mostly they ask why in the world my parent’s named me what they had, being an unusual name as it is.

This is part of the cultural lapse we face when we read the Bible. Back then, in the Hebrew world, names meant something and carried great connotation. You were named what you were for a reason. Names revealed your character and the events of the day. But, again, we miss this. Paul, John, Luke, Moses, were not relating the events around them for the benefit of the ear of the 21^st century man. God was, but they were writing with one audience in mind, their present. And we must marvel at the amazing Grace of God as He attends to his present audience, and the future work of His Spirit at the same time. No after thoughts, or “lucky I did that” hindsight moments. Things were done with purpose, events unfolded deliberately, names were given to those who deserved it.

When we look at the name of Jesus, we begin to understand this lapse. Jesus was not named by accident. In fact, we were made children of God when we fully understood the power and meaning of His name! We need to understand the meaning of Jesus’ name because it affects who we are. We are a peculiar people who cling to the knowledge that God saves.

There is so much crammed into John’s prologue of his Gospel. It would take months to unload all of it from the pulpit. Even in my own private study I cannot help but marvel at what John has done. Amazing! We are only going to look at one verse this morning, and even in this one verse I’m going to do all I can to keep it to 25 minutes. Not because of time restraints, but because understanding this one verse can truly change your life, and there is no need to be stuck in here when you could be out there, living it out for the world to see!

Turn with me to John 1:12.

“But to all who receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”…

Just one verse, and yet so amazing. And it all involves the understanding of a name.

Jesus, a name like none other, and yet, not an unusual name. Yeshuha, was a very popular name at the time period that Jesus walked the earth. How do we know this? From the tombstones that still exist from that time. Jesus was a name like Michael, during the Michael Jordan days, or John was right after the JFK term of presidency.

But this name spoke a hope in the heart’s of the people. Israel, the Jewish people were constantly being taken over. They were in a perpetual state of Exile it seemed. We sometimes think that the exile was over by the time Jesus was born. But this is a misconception. The Pharisees knew this very well. The exile would not be completely over until the Spirit of God once again filled the Temple. All of those laws extra the Bible were followed so closely for this hope: that by doing the laws and by obeying the Word of the Law, the Spirit of God would return to the Temple and the Exile would be over! And this name spoke this hope.

Jesus, Yeshuha, means “God Saves”. And at this time, they were looking for God to do just that. The Jews at the time, the majority of the Jews, the Pharisees, were looking for God to rescue His people, to save them from all the powers of this world that were holding them in bondage.

And yet, He came to them and they did not know Him, that’s what John says, John 1:11.

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name…”, most of the people missed the fact that this man was not just carrying a popular name. He was the realized hope and wonder of the fact that “God saves.” And for those who believe in his name, they become the children, the heirs, of God.

“God saves”, can there be no harder concept to understand than this at times? I would say that this is the one point that keeps people from fully turning their lives over God… does he really save? Does he really want to save?

It was our own reliance on this premise that made us available to Him to come and to change us, to work that power of salvation in our lives. God saves. And how fully we believe this will affect the rest of our walk. John will come back to this name and the meaning of it throughout his gospel and the letters that we have of his. Our belief in this name and what it means will change the world, because it has changed us!

His name speaks of the character of the Father. God wants to bring us out of the pit. He longs for none to perish but to be rescued by his mighty hand! This is echoed in the very first commandment:

Exodus 20:2:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery…

And as we read His law, his wonderful, life-giving law, we see the heart and character of this God, who longs to free people from their bondage.

From here, from this vantage point we understand a bit more about the intentionality of our God. The very lips of Christ tell us in John’s gospel that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, and that whosoever would believe him would have eternal life. He has given himself, but we can only receive when we can fully understand the power and wonder of his name, that God does indeed save.

And His intentionality is written throughout Scripture. One brief passage that shows this so well is Isaiah 53: 10- 12. Do not miss this: It was the will of the Lord to crush him. God willed it, he foretold it, and He wanted it to happen, so that the true pandemic exile would be over. He wants to be with us.

As we fully see the meaning of Jesus’ name, we will be changed. As we fully understand the meaning of Jesus’ name, the world around us will be changed!

1 John 3:23 says this:

“And this is his commandment that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.”

Because of the God we serve and because of His love and care for us, we are spurred on to love others. This love, our knowledge that God wants to save us, brings us close to the heart of the Maker, and we are drawn to love others. Our hearts become free to love others when we realize the love and the extent of the Father to us. And not for some agenda or to save them, because we know that we can do nothing to save them. We can do nothing to add or subtract from their experience with the Savior.

Again, I’m back to how amazing the prologue of John is. The greek word for receive in John 1:12 is not exactly the same word for receiving a gift. It has more to do with receiving someone and getting to know them. Like you would a guest, or a friend who comes for the weekend. Over the course of the weekend, you get to know them a little better, but there is always this sense that they will be going away to come back at another time. We begin to fully understand the Father as we spend time with the Son. As we see what the Son did when he was here on the earth, we see the heart of the Father. When we see that he willingly gave up his life, that no man could take it, but that he laid down his life, we see the Father and his love for us, that He does mean to save us from death.

We who have believed in the power of his name, have been changed, because we know this, God saves. God alone saves! At the end, when the goats and the sheep stand before the throne, there will be two groups: one group that tried to save themselves by any means possible. The other group by means of the knowledge that God saves!

When we look at the world around us, these are the two camps we see. There is a majority of people who really believe that God is distant, or that he has abandoned us. They really believe that there is a verse in the Bible that God helps those who help themselves. Or if He is present, they question His intentions. Why would God care? Why would he save? What does it mean to be rescued?

But again, we know. We live in the knowledge that God saves, that He wants us. That we were made and chosen, that we are loved, and are here on purpose.

We need to act in this confidence. Do we live as thought we really believe this – that God has taken an active interest in our lives and that he loves us in this way: that He gave His only Son for us, that we may be called the Sons of God? All of us, caught up in the name that will cause heaven and earth to shake, and by the utterance of this name, every knee will bow and tongue will confess the lordship of him who bears it.

And so, let us love one another as Jesus commanded, and by this, we demonstrate the power of the word. Let us serve each other, in the humility displayed by Christ. Let us live and love and move, no matter how contrary it is to the world. They will look, and not understand us because they have not understood the basic truth that God has come near, that He has saved, is saving, and will save us from our exile.

Because of who God is and what He has done for us, we are going to be different. Because of who Christ is, we are going to act differently. And we must display this difference, because it is how the world will experience Christ, and by our good measure, and the power of Christ others may be called to glory. Because if it is by seeing Christ that we the Father, it is by seeing us and how we act that they can see Christ and see the power that he has.

So it was, in the cool of the day, the Lord walked amongst His garden and called out for his two children. But they had not trusted in who God was, they relied upon themselves and the empty promises of a forked tongue. And because they did this, the world was changed forever.

But we who trust in the name of Jesus, know that God saves, and our world is changing. Behold, He is making all things new.

Quote of the day...

NT Wright supplies us with the quote of the day, perhaps the week:

"Resurrection is precisely concerned with the present world and its renewal, not with escaping the present world and going somewhere else..."

-RotSoG, 138

All who did receive him...

"But to all who have received him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..." (John 1:12)

I've been pondering this verse. Or I should say I've been stuck on this verse. You know the story, you read a section of verses and as much as you want to keep reading, you get stuck. And it stays for awhile. And it doesn't go away until you are through mulling it over, or God brings something else to mind for your good.

And so, I got stuck on John 1:12. Amazing, isn't it? The grace of God in being who He is, inviting us in to be in company with Him? Amazing. I've been greatly struck by the phrase "who believed in his name". Jesus.

My name is Warwick, and it has a meaning. I sometimes think I've been misnamed. I am neither a hero, nor "like a lion", nor "a dam by the dairy farm". I would like to live up to my name and its function. I envisage myself lying across a creek and a pool of water to form behind me, all this occurring somewhere in Derry Twp. I kid, of course.

I wonder if one of the biggest obstacles people have coming to faith in Christ is the idea that God saves, that God would reach down and appear in our midst, willingly, to rescue humanity. Can anyone fathom this idea that God would want to save us, and that He does, in fact, do this? Willingly? Lovingly?

Christians, those that have come to faith in Christ have been made aware of this. It is this intimate knowledge that turns people's hearts... God cares for us. He saves us.

But to not see God as the one who saves, to not believe in the premise of Jesus' name, this can only cause separation, and downfall.

You offer me....

"You offer me eternity, but why should I buy that?" sings Jars of Clay in one of their classic songs. It is a good question. What is the value of salvation if it is focused on the eternality of the hereafter? To whose good do we last forever, for own benefit, perhaps, sitting in mansions, crowns atop, sipping on the lamb's finest vintage. Is this really what God had in mind when before the foundations of the world He determined to send His Son for us?

What value do you place on salvation? Why are you saved, O Man? (Rev. 22:12)

Review: Surprised By Hope

Wright's Surprised by Hope is a book that looks at the present church's conception about heaven and questions its validity. What he really shows is that our perception of the hereafter is really the informer of who we are and what we do in our present state. What do we think Jesus meant when he said "paradise", and how does his return figure into our present work, or even what it means to be called a Christian. These are things that perhaps the church has taken for granted for a bit now, and has been mroe informed by Platonic philosophy than by Scripture. Amazing insight, and tough scholarship follows as he asks us to consider what being "saved" means, and what we have been saved from. A really good book, and I would recommend it to anyone.