Theology Thursday: A Godly Heritage
Grandma and Grandpa
My Grandfather died this week. I never really knew my Dad's parents, and actually don't have any memories of his father. But this Grandpa I knew. He lived in Anchorage when I was little, and I have many memories of those years, even if they're somewhat scattered and indistinct. They're mostly just images.
Riding in a car with him.
Watching him do these funny gymnastics with his hands.
Listening to him talk about something I found boring (boxing, usually), but finding it interesting because of the way he talked.
Almond Roca.
Listening to the funny Mexican songs he'd sing.
Being in awe of how our completely untrained dog treated him like The Master.
Feeling somewhat the same as my dog with regard to his authority.
Listening to him reading the second chapter of Luke on Christmas Eve.
Hearing him bless the food at Thanksgiving dinner.
A few years ago, at our huge family reunion, I spent some time talking with him, listening to his stories of his years with the Forestry Service. I wish I'd recorded the conversation. There was a hilarious one I remember involving plumbing and enormous toads. He must've spent twenty minutes telling me the difference between frogs and toads. I ate it up. I wish I had more memories like that.
We'll be traveling for his memorial. It's not really that long of a trip, and he's a man worth celebrating. I say he is because I believe in the Resurrection, and I believe he is even now with the Lord, waiting for the rest of us. And because, if we live on in our children, he's far from gone. He and Grandma raised nine children (my mom is number three -- like me). It would take me quite some time to calculate how many cousins I have, and even then I'd probably forget a few.
Grandpa was a living embodiment of the Psalmist's perspective on children:
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
5 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them;
I don't know the total count of Grandpa's children and grandchildren (and great-grands). I just know that at our reunion in '05, there were more than sixty of us, and the roster was not complete.
Most, but not all, of the clan
And Grandpa passed on more than genes. He passed on Faith. Oh, not all of his descendants are believers, but a substantial portion of us are, and that's a great tribute to him.
When last I saw him, Grandpa was still strong. Not, perhaps, the way I remember him from those days in Anchorage, but he was lively. In a way, I'm glad I didn't see him as he faded. I'll always remember him as strong, as indeed I believe he now is. Paul's words fill me with excitement for what Grandpa is experiencing now and will experience later at the Resurrection:
I hope to one day pass on a Godly heritage the way Grandpa did. It's the best way I can honor his memory.
Foney Fridays: It Happens to All of Us
As heard on late-night talk radio:
Men, maybe you're like me. For years I tried to downplay my problem. Sure, every now and again I'd have trouble remembering which way I'd been going in the mall before turning in to a store. And maybe I'd occasionally have trouble finding my car in the parking lot, or forget which entrance I came in. Actually, I didn't really spend that much time at the mall, but you understand I'm just giving examples, right? How about this? I'd get off the freeway at a rest stop, then accidentally go back the way I came. Roadtrip, right? That's manlier than shopping at the mall, isn't it?
Anyway, it started happening more and more, and I got worried. So I talked to my doctor, and he diagnosed me with Directile Dysfunction. I have to tell you, it was hard hearing those words, but strangely liberating, because I knew I wasn't the only one. When I asked him what could be done, my doctor prescribed Ciatlas (see-at-lass). I've got to tell you, my life has changed. Now I know I can be ready when I'm in the driver's seat, and have confidence that I'll get where I want to go. There's even a Daily Dose pill I can take to battle my D.D. How awesome is that? D.D. to help with my D.D.
Guys, admitting your problem is just the first step. Don't feel like you're less of a man because you need a prescription for Ciatlas (TM). Just think of me! I still like a good guy movie as much as the next guy. Okay, so I have a slight man crush on Jason Statham. And Robert DeNiro. And Gene Hackman. But that's all!! Okay, Mike Rowe, too. But they're Man Crushes, and that's manly, right? I even watch football when I absolutely have to.
Get the pill. Take the pill. And you, too, can be ready to go the right way when the moment is right. Unless the way is left...but I think you get my meaning.
- O.Handwasher (a real person's pen name)
Ciatlas(TM) should not be taken by men who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or are nursing is safe and has few side effects. The most common side effects include dry mouth, constipation, decreased desire for human contact, and difficulty sleeping. In the end, really not that dissimilar from the effects of the Atkin's Diet. Talk to your doctor and ask whether you're healthy enough to be driving at all. Men in Oregon should not drive until they learn to do so properly.
Foney Fridays: One Giant Leap for Lost-Time-Incidents
EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS
Dear Employees,
Apparently, our last communication wasn't entirely effective. When we announced the new policy requiring helmets to be worn when descending the stairs, we thought it would be understood that this policy was for your safety, and not merely to inconvenience you or to encourage reckless behavior.
As you may recall, the policy was put in place after careful consideration of the recent and alarming increase in the rate of stairwell injuries. But, seeing as how the math didn't seem to add up to the results we wanted, allow me to review.
Last year, we had precisely one stairway injury at our sites. This year, the rate of injury has climbed by a full one-hundred percent. Yes, the injuries were sustained by one man. And both injuries occurred in one incident. And both were minor and didn't require medical attention. And he probably shouldn't have been trying to carry that many boxes up the stairs at once (in his defense, the elevators were out-of-order at the time). But still, statistics don't lie. Doubled!!! The rate has doubled!!! We had to do something!
We at Corporate want to keep you safe. And yet, some of you evidently think we came up with the new policy on a lark. We certainly never imagined that wearing a helmet would give you people a false sense of invincibility. And we absolutely did not intend for anyone to attempt to descend the handrails on roller-blades.
The policy is going to stay in place. Seeing as how the injury rate has jumped by a nearly unheard-of seven-thousand percent in the last week, we feel it's a no-brainer. Helmets save lives, if not productivity.
Regards,
Your Corporate Safety Officer
Source: O.Handwasher, current holder of the third-to-first-floor sprint title (just under seven seconds).
Foney Fridays: A Sticking Point
Ballot Measure G fails
HOME DEPOT, US - Ballot Measure G, which attempted to redefine epoxy, has failed. Supporters of the measure hoped that 2-part bonding-agent-only and 2-part resin-only adhesives could be sold as 2-part epoxies.
An epoxy, of course, is a thermosetting epoxide polymer that cures (polymerizes and crosslinks) when mixed with a catalyzing agent or hardener. Without the catalyzing agent, the epoxy resin does not cure. This was the crucial point for detractors of the ballot measure.
"You can't call something an epoxy if it doesn't stick." said Elmer Sklew, a spokesperson for "Sticking up for Epoxy," a non-profit defense-of-adhesives organization.
Supporters of the measure have said repeatedly that it is unfair and discriminatory to exclude resin-resin and catalyzer-catalyzer pairings as less valuable to society. Unfortunately for the supporters of the measure, their bumper stickers kept slipping off cars.
Source: O.Handwasher
Theology Thursday: Spirits in Prison
Since I read 1 Peter this week, I thought I'd muse a bit on one of the more enigmatic passages you're likely to read anywhere in the Scriptures.
the just for the unjust,
to bring you to God,
by being put to death in the flesh
but by being made alive in the spirit.
19 In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water.
I'll tell you right off the bat here that I don't really know what this passage means. I know of a few theories, and I know which one I favor, but I'm open to a new and better interpretation if I find it.
By the way, I'm going for informative here, not boring, but I fear the bore-meter may spike a bit. So if you're not up for it, I'll understand.
How about if I introduce the three interpretations I'm familiar with, then give their pros and cons?
The Harrowing of Hell:
First, we have the Harrowing of Hell idea. By the way, "Hell" here has the same sense as it has in much of the King James Bible (and the Apostles' Creed). That is, it means "Hades" or the undifferentiated Place of the Dead ("Sheol" in the OT). Don't picture flames and such (if you even believe in the flames and such, which I increasingly don't).
Anyhow, the Harrowing of Hell idea is that Christ descended into the place of the dead, where everyone who had previously died was. Among them, of course, were the Old Testament Saints, like Abraham, Moses, David and John the Baptist. Why should they be in Hades instead of Heaven? Well, traditionally, Heaven wasn't opened until Christ was resurrected or ascended, depending on who you ask (the source passage for this idea is generally Ephesians 4:8-9). By that logic, even the righteous who died before Christ were just in Hades (or Limbo) until Christ came. (BTW, the First Circle of Dante's Inferno may have a tie-in here.)
So, Christ preached to them, and those who were looking for him were then taken to Heaven.
Something to do with those troublesome Nephilim:
The next idea involves Genesis 6, that wonderful passage that speaks of the "Sons of God" and the fact that they took wives of the "daughters of men" and had families. This position requires that the Sons of God were angels who took on flesh, then spawned half-demonic children who became giants known as the Nephilim. In this interpretation, Jesus went and preached to the fallen angels or "Spirits in prison."
Christ preaching through Noah:
Lastly, we have the interpretation that doesn't require any particular supernatural travel by Christ. By this way of thinking, the "made alive in the Spirit" isn't the key. Rather, it's the "In it he went" that's the key. That is, it should be read like this: "Christ was made alive in the Spirit. This is the same Spirit through whom Christ previously had preached to Noah's generation." And how did Christ preach to Noah's generation? Through the Spirit, and through Noah.
Analysis:
So, what do these have going for them or against them?
The major problem with the Harrowing of Hell idea is that the passage says that whatever preaching was done was aimed at the "disobedient," which certainly wouldn't bring to mind Abraham and Moses or any of the OT Saints. It's also explicitly stated that the particular disobedient folks lived before the Flood. To my mind, if the Harrowing of Hell is to be believed, it needs to be believed on other grounds than Peter's writing.
The Nephilim interpretation rests on what I think is an erroneous interpretation of Genesis 6. I won't go into the whole explanation here because I've dealt with it before. To sum up, though, there's no reason to assume that the Nephilim were a unique production of demonic/human pairings. Why? Well, because then we'd have to believe they were destroyed in the Flood. Since they show up in the Bible again after the Flood, that just doesn't work. So, I have a really hard time with this explanation. In fact, I can find nothing to recommend it other than its matching better with the idea of Christ preaching to the disobedient. Besides, it attempts to explain an enigmatic passage by reference to another enigma. In fact, I think this may be why many theologians hold to it.
So, we come to the final explanation, whereby Noah preached to his generation through the same Spirit who raised Christ. Now, Noah, if he preached at all (and he did according to 2 Peter), wasn't very effective since his generation apparently didn't respond. But basically what this explanation has going for it is that it shows that Noah's generation was without excuse for their behavior and, ultimately, their destruction. If Christ truly preached through them through Noah, that ends the discussion as far as their guilt.
Conclusion:
If you hadn't guessed, I favor the Noah interpretation. To me, it's the simplest explanation, and I dig simple. What do you think?
Foney Fridays: Dry Smarter, Not Harder
24-Oct-2008
EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS
Dear Valued Employee,
Perhaps you've noticed that our high-tech yet unreliable automatic paper towel dispensers have been even less reliable lately. Please do not assume this is accidental. We at Corporate found that employees have simply been relying too much on paper towels for their hand-drying needs.
As a result, Corporate has mandated that the towel dispensers only dispense lengths of 1.5 to 3.5 inches. While this may not seem adequate for completely drying your hands, we think you will find that things will go just fine for you if you just try to dry smarter, not harder.
In addition, the towel dispensers will be calibrated over the next few weeks to both maximize cost savings and minimize environmental impact. Part of the calibration process will include installation of biometric scanners which will prevent employees from using more towels than their allotted quota.
Employees will be asked to visit Badge & Key to submit fingerprints and retina scans for the biometric scanners. These scanners will then be able to identify individual employees and make a determination of whether to dispense a towel. Employees over their quota will be denied a towel, and there will be a limit of one towel per use.
Should you find that the petite towels are not sufficient for your drying purposes, we encourage you to get creative with alternative drying methods. You may wish to wear absorbent clothing in order to provide yourself with a backup for a little extra drying, or in case you go over your limit.
Found wet and crumpled up next to the sink in the vending/refrigerator space by O. Handwasher.
Theology Thursday: Contentment Management
Folks, I actually got a Suggest a Topic, and I'm following through on it. The topic is contentment, and the suggestion came from my wife's mother's brother's daughter. Otherwise known as Cousin H (not her real name, but part of it). I've been sitting on this topic for a couple of weeks, because I knew there was a good verse in Hebrews, so I wouldn't even have to divert from my Bible Read-Through schedule. Nice.
I must really know the Bible if I knew about one little verse on contentment in Hebrews...or could it be that Ethan had that particular memory verse in Awana last year? So really, it's just that I have a decent memory. My mom always told me to apply it to Scripture...
And what is the verse of which I speak?
This verse is on the topic of contentment, but only really insofar as contentment means happiness with those things we possess. Of course, contentment is a much larger subject (and there's no way I'm covering it all right now).
I did a quick NETBible search on content and came up mostly with verses about contention. Interesting, given that lack of contentment can easily lead to contention. The other verses (the ones I was actually looking for) broadened the topic somewhat. My favorite is from Paul:
I'm not sure what Paul's definition of abundance is, but I'm betting it's somewhere to the south of the typical American lifestyle. And yet we're not content with it. Why is that? Why can't we be content (or even happy) with our circumstances?
Dennis Prager, in his fine book Happiness is a Serious Problem, points out that in searching for happiness (which is highly compatible with contentment), we battle our nature:
We are completely satisfied with nothing.
The reason is human nature. It is insatiable-and that is why no single obstacle to happiness is greater than human nature. Whatever our nature desires-love, sex, money, attention, pleasure, food, security-cannot be supplied in sufficient quantities to satisfy it completely.
Pay attention to the order of words first spoken by a child, and you will probably notice what I did with my youngest. His first word was Mama. Then came Dada. And his third word was more. These words of a baby accurately represent our deepest urges-first for love and security and then for more-of everything.
Solomon would seem to agree:
I actually thought that a particular Veggie Tales was very insightful, when Bob the Tomato asked Larry the Cucumber how much stuff he needed to be happy. Larry responded, "I dunno. How much stuff can I have?"
Larry's answer brings up a good point Steve Gregg makes in his lecture titled "The Grace of Contentment" (available free-of-charge from digitalministries.us). He pointed out that in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had access to the entire garden and all of its trees and plants, with the exception of one tree. When the serpent came to deceive Eve, his approach was interesting. He didn't say, "Did God really say you could eat fruit from any of these trees except that one?", which focused on the generosity of God in providing so much. Instead, he focused his attack toward pointing out the negative. "Did God really say you couldn't eat of any of these trees?"
The serpent knew that to get Eve to fall, he first needed to reduce her contentment. He focused her on thinking on what God had forbidden rather than what He had provided (which is a really common mistake non-religious folks make when assessing Christian beliefs, focusing on the "don'ts").
The story of Job has a tie-in here, too. After Job's great wealth was destroyed, after his possessions were obliterated and all his children killed, his wife despaired and told him to do the same. And this even after Job's earlier statement of faith.
Does this mean we should just throw up our hands and decide to be okay with whatever situation we're in? I don't think so. Job was content, but not complacent. He sought answers as to why he should suffer. But he recognized that ultimately, both blessing and cursing come from God, and all that matters is our response to it.
Maybe you're content right now in your finances, your home, your relationships, even your work. But I think it's important for all of us to examine ourselves to find out if we're content because of our circumstances or in spite of them. Are we prepared to be content with less? With a downturn in a relationship or the economy?
I'm a fairly naturally content person. I don't get impatient with many things except other drivers. But it's really easy for me to slip from contentment into complacency. There are deficiencies in my life that need work, and it's wrong for me to, in the name of contentment, not work on them. In fact, I think many of the deficiencies arose due to complacency. I can't say, "Well, I got myself into this situation, so I guess I'll just have to settle in and hope it improves." No, I need to determine if there's something I can do to improve the situation, all the while not allowing the current state of things to rob me of joy/happiness/contentment.
Well, I've managed to ramble a thousand words or so about this. Any thoughts? Are you content? Complacent? Any other verses or wisdom you'd like to share? Don't let me monopolize my own blog here...
Theology Thursday: Action Items
The seed for this edition of Theology Thursday was planted Sunday morning when Pastor Ron had us all take five minutes to journal about Proverbs 2.
raise your voice for understanding
4 if you seek it like silver,
and search for it like hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand how to fear the Lord,
and you will discover knowledge about God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom,
and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding.
The passage is convicting for me due to the prominence of action words, as Ron rightly pointed out. Obviously, Solomon was telling us that gaining in the knowledge and understanding of God takes effort. This flies in the face of the "feed me", consumer mentality of much of the modern church.
Here's my problem: I don't consider myself a consumer. I'm a self-feeder. I've been doing the Bible read-through every year for the past five years or so, and I've found it enormously beneficial. I've definitely gained in knowledge of the Bible, but have I truly gained in my understanding of God? In wisdom? I'm not so sure.
See, doing the Bible reading, and even journaling (which I consider I'm doing right now) is not what I'd call extra-effort for me. I love to read. I love to read the Scriptures. I love to write. So, what for another person (one, perhaps, who struggles with keeping up with the read-through) might be extra-effort, for me is just the minimum. I'm doing the minimum. And I expect God to do His best on my behalf.
I need to pray more. This is a huge struggle for me, because I'm actually a bit shy. I really don't like to pray aloud in front of others. It's completely outside my comfort zone. I should pray with my wife, but it's so hard for me that I completely neglect that practice. Of course, Jesus encouraged Secret Prayer, but I'm not really doing that, either. When I pray before meals, I feel like a complete hypocrite. I don't consider praying before meals to be a necessary thing, but it seems like it's a healthy practice. But it shouldn't be the only praying I do.
My solution? Read books about it, of course!!! Done that. Still not praying. I need to just man-up here. Somehow I find 20 minutes to do my HundredPushups.com thing. Can I not squeeze in five minutes to pray? When I look back at this post, I'm ashamed of myself. More than that, I know I'm short-changing myself.
This is getting wordy. Sorry. It's Pastor Ron's fault.
I thought of a tie-in in Jesus' teachings. Check this out:
Again, the focus is on the individual to actually put forth effort. And both passages also tell of the reward of the effort. Good stuff.
If I've somehow managed to come off as boastful (the "reading the Bible is easy for me" thing) while confessing that I'm less of a Christian than I should be, keep this in mind:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD.
There's no place for boasting. I don't know the Lord as I should.
Foney Fridays #16: Unnecessary Dumbness
NFL Defensive Lineman REALLY Proud of Tackle
LOWBROW, USA - A Defensive Lineman for a prominent NFL team is really, really proud of a play he made in last weekend's game. He wants it made clear that he's just really, really pumped that he was able to break free from the other big, fat "athlete" on the Offensive Line, and get to the ball-carrier and perform a precision move known as a "tackle."
A tackle occurs when one big, fat guy grabs and either throws to the ground or jumps on top of another guy. It's a rare move, happening only approximately 100 times per game. Over the course of the regular season, there are 256 games played. In a typical game, there are approximately 125 plays. Allowing for 10 scoring plays and 15 out-of-bounds plays, that leaves approximately 100 tackles per game. The season total, therefore, is around 25,000 tackles.
But that should not diminish the accomplishment the Defensive Lineman feels. In fact, he was so excited about the tackle that he broke into a spontaneous display of emotion and exuberance. He was even joined by several teammates in the celebration.
The tackle occurred at two minutes and thirteen seconds into the second quarter, on first down, stopping the running back from making a first down. That potential first down could have resulted in a long drive resulting in a touchdown or field goal. The other team scored on the next play. But that also should not diminish the rare accomplishment of the Defensive Lineman doing exactly what he's paid for.
Source: O.Handwasher
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Mr. Handwasher does not like football. His views should not be considered representative of anyone but himself and all the contributors to this site. His views are his own and should not be taken as anything but completely correct.
Theology Thursday: Carrying the Name
As I mentioned in my Monday Morning Musings this week, I've long suspected that exclaiming "Oh, my God!" does not constitute a violation of the 3rd Commandment, which states (in the NASB):
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
If not for the corpus of built-up interpretation that equates "OMG" with "taking the name in vain," how might we view this? By the way, check out the Message on this:
No using the name of GOD, your God, in curses or silly banter; GOD won't put up with the irreverent use of his name.
Is this rendering even close to the real meaning? I don't really think so (not that I'm surprised...it is The Message, after all). But, I didn't want to be hasty, so I looked up the word translated "take" in Strong's (courtesy NETBible). Here's what I got:
1) to lift, bear up, carry, take
1a1) to lift, lift up
1a2) to bear, carry, support, sustain, endure
So, take is in there. But in the context of the other definitions, it seems to mean more "take up" than "use." So what's it mean? Dennis Prager, a radio talk show host who also teaches Old Testament, has said on many occasions that it means, "committing evil while acting religious."
Which justifies the thought I had back in the 80s, when David Duke (former-KKK-white-supremecist-pond-scum, the last adjective of which is totally redundant) said on national television, "I claim Jesus Christ as my personal savior," that he was taking the name of Christ in vain. Likewise for any who do evil in Christ's name (Fred "God hates fags" Phelps, you there?) or in God's name (Al Quaeda?).
All that to say that I don't believe "misusing" God's name is a specific violation of the 3rd Commandment. But is it okay? I personally flinch whenever I hear anything approaching "OMG," which includes "Gosh". I once heard Ethan's Sunday School teacher use it while doing the Bible Story of the day. I wanted to throw something at her. I don't want my son using such language. Am I overreacting?
And yet, you'll catch me saying "Geez!" What? How about, "Oh, my word!" or "My goodness!"? Aren't they all derivatives? How about "Crikey!" and "Cripes!" and "For Pete's Sake!"? How far do I take this?
Here's another angle. How about if you put your husband/wife into the position of God in the statement. What would people think if you said, "Oh my wife, it's hot out here?" Isn't it a bit silly? Does using her in that kind of speech lift her up or cheapen her? Not sure you could argue the former.
What about darn, dang, and drat? Why not just go with damn? Aren't they the same? While researching the various varieties of variations, I discovered the term "minced oaths" from Wikipedia, the locus of all knowledge we take other people's word for (BTW, that link contains some naughty language).
I guess, for me, even though I don't think many of these are specifically forbidden for Christian folks to do, they're not a good thing. Any of them. Specifically, the uses of "OMG" and it's forms. They've been so long associated with "taking the name in vain" - even in popular (secular) culture - that they now rise to that level. As Christians, we should try to move as far from that as possible. As for some of the minced oaths, I can see it two ways. To be completely consistent, we'd have to nix all of them. On the other hand, it shows a certain innocence to stay away from the more crass terms and use something "nicer" (even if it really isn't nicer). That alone could be the thing someone notices, which causes them to ask you what makes you different.
I'm curious about others' opinions on this. If you use OMG (or OMGosh), is it just habit? Do you think it's good/bad/indifferent? Now you have a topic. Discuss...