MM: Camping, Fall Ball, Football
Last week, we went camping with a bunch of other homeschoolers at Fort Stevens. It’s really quite lovely to go on vacation right when everybody else goes back to school, and we even got pretty good weather. (Much better than the rain the weekend campers evidently got.)
We got to use our new tent (used twice for backyard camping, but now officially broken in), new camp stove (Ramen, Grilled Cheese and Canned Soup – Lentil, and Pancakes were cooked thereon), and all that other New Stuff we got specifically for this trip.
And now it’s all inventoried and packed away in the garage for our next trip, which we feel will involve less equipment acquisition. We have the stuff, and it’s ready to get thrown in the back of the van.
Ethan had an absolute blast playing with his friends and sleeping in the tent (we even got upgraded to one of the Yurt sites for one night!).
Of course, camping at Fort Stevens isn’t exactly roughing it, as there’s plenty of drinkable (if less-than-tasty) water and bathrooms and showers. But it still counts as camping, and I didn’t shave or anything, so that makes it more realerer, right?
--- - --- - --- - ---
After Ethan finished his Coach Pitch Baseball experience, we discovered the existence of Reedville Fall Baseball, also known as Fall Ball. The conversation with Ethan went something like this: 
Us: "Ethan, we might be able to get you into Fall Baseball. Would you rather do soccer again or…"
Ethan: “Baseball!”
Well, he had his first Fall Ball game on Sunday, and he was the starting pitcher. We figured he might be nervous, but he absolutely ate it up. The first inning wasn’t so great, as our team didn’t record an out before the bad guys scored their maximum per-inning total of five runs.
But Ethan put the ball over the plate quite a bit and even induced a ground ball that might’ve been turned into an out.
The second inning was another story, though. He allowed another ground ball to second. Alas, it didn’t turn into an out, and the runner eventually came around to score on a passed ball (pretty much all baserunners steal second, third, and home).
But Ethan’s line for the inning was this, in baseballese: 1 IP, 0H, R, 2K
Now allow me to translate: one inning pitched, no hits (the one groundball would go as an error rather than a hit), one run, two strikeouts. (I won’t reproduce the line for the first inning because it wasn’t as pretty.)
But the best part was how the inning ended. With two out and nobody on, the batter swung at the first pitch and hit a popup between home and first. And Ethan snagged it for the third out, then ran back to the dugout. Here’s the video of his performance:
The Reds (Ethan’s team) did end up on the losing side (either 8-4 or 8-5), but that one inning was awesome. And our team only allowed the five-run-max one time.
The hitting didn’t go exactly according to plan, Ethan ending up with a walk and a strikeout (but it was swinging, which is better than looking). But we’ll work on that.
--- - --- - --- - ---
I’ve written before of my general dislike of football. Nonetheless, I’ve consented to participate in a Fantasy Football League with some family members. I have not consented to really get into it. In fact, I’m still not sure how the whole thing works, and I didn’t watch any substantive amount of football over the weekend.
I watched tennis and baseball instead. I feel no remorse over this.
But I must rant a bit about football and how greedy it is: It can’t even finish on time. And it’s a game with a CLOCK!!! At least baseball has that excuse. No clock, no real way to predict how long a game will take. Football games have ONE HOUR of clock time to run down, and they still manage to overrun their three hour television slot. With regularity.
This isn’t limited to professional football, of course, and my rant is actually somewhat more targeted at College Football (which is an even bigger mystery to me than the NFL), which impacted my baseball viewing. This is unacceptable.
The NFL did run over and impact my tennis viewing. This is a problem that needs fixin’. But at least I know football will be done by early next year. That’s something. So here it is, the first week of football, and I’m ready for it to be over.
Though I’ll admit I was still glad the Seahawks won.
--- - --- - --- - ---
Theology Thursday Book Review: The Revelation of Jesus Christ
Perhaps you've noticed I haven't been blogging much in the last week or so. I actually didn't feel like writing humor, so I've stuck to theology and book reviews. Humor will come back soon. But for today, it's a Super-Sized Theology Thursday Book Review. I'm just telling you right now that this post is about four pages long. Eighteen hundred words or so. So you might want to hit the restroom first. If you're interested at all, of course. And now, the review...
In the past, I've recommended (and still heartily do) Steve Gregg's excellent Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. In it, he shows the common interpretations of Revelation from the four major historic viewpoints. When I read his book, I was already familiar with the Futurist (looking for a future Tribulation and Beast) and Preterist (looking backward to A.D.70 for much of the fulfillment) views. I also had a certain familiarity with the Historicist view (finds fulfillment through the course of Church History). The view I was most unfamiliar with was the Idealist/Spiritual approach, which finds a cycle of fulfillment of the visions in the struggle between Satan and the Kingdom of God. It applies all the visions to All Time.
By the way, I was going to go into a rather lengthy survey of what I see as the benefits (to the Church both past, present and future) of the Four Views, but I think I'll save that for when I'm actually reading Revelation. Which should be in May-ish. So remind yourself to skip it if you're not interested. I won't be looking at what Scriptural basis the Four Views have, but only giving my impression of how useful they are/have been/will be. It'll be good, I promise. Plus, I've already written most of it, and I've got several months to put the finishing touches on it.
Anyway, back to the Spiritual/Idealist position. I was pleased when a friend from the faraway past mentioned that her church was really into the Spiritual Interpretation of Revelation, particularly as espoused in Dr. Lynn Hiles' The Revelation of Jesus Christ: An Open Letter to the Church from a Modern Perspective of the Book of Revelation. I found it on InterLibrary Loan.
Unfortunately, as much as there was some interesting stuff in it, I mostly hated it. But I think I'll start with the positive. Dr. Hiles is very passionate, and we seem to agree on several major issues as regards the Book of Revelation and interpretation of Scripture in general. He favors the early date (60s A.D.) for the writing of the Apocalypse, as do I. He hits very hard on the fact that Jesus is not waiting to be crowned but is currently reigning as King (and if you can't agree on this, you need to read Acts 2 again). And he thinks that there is a benefit to reading Revelation and attempting to understand it. And he points out that, more than anything, Revelation is a revealing of Jesus Christ himself. I think that's a great point. That's all positive.
And one other thing: He has some really good things to say, even if they didn't always make sense in the context of the book (he meanders a bit, which I've been known to do). And this is where I was greatly disappointed. See, I was hoping for more of what Steve Gregg did in his book. Mr. Gregg pulled together something of a consensus of the Idealist position on each passage in Revelation. Dr. Hiles' book was just his own opinions, which is okay, I suppose, but less than authoritative. And some of his opinions were just plain strange.
My gripes with the book boil down to two things: his use of language, and his use of Scripture. And the two crossed over more than you'd probably think possible.
First, his use of language. Now, I'll admit to being something of a Word Nerd or Grammar Geek (although I don't think I'm a Grammar Snob). But when I hear or read improper uses of "and I," I cringe. And I'm aware there are folks out there who don't have any sense for how to use "and I" and "and me," so they just go for one approach, on the assumption that they'll be right half the time. But an author? Really? And an editor didn't catch them when they happened twice on the same page?
Maybe I'm just uptight about this, but wouldn't it just sound better with "and me" in both cases? Just remove the "you and" on both of them and see if I'm not right. (I'm writing now to anyone who might be in the '50% right' category. Not to you, members of my family.)
I was equally offended by Hiles' use of Scripture, because he comes up with some, er, novel interpretations. And sometimes, he mixes in a little misuse of language:
Umm...what? To me, this kind of rubbish is just appalling. The Greek here is the word for (wait for it) "to remember." That is, to recall or to think of. There's no sense in which the word could be stretched to "put back together." I almost laughed out loud when I read it. Why would Hiles take a passage in which the plain meaning was, well, plain, and try to stitch in some esoteric misinterpretation? I don't get it. And this isn't an isolated incident. For a few other examples, here's a list I've titled...
What Hiles Does With Scripture
- Conflates "The Lord's Day" in Revelation 1 with "The Day of the Lord" (p. 54). So, instead of Sunday, we're talking about The Last Day? Umm, no.
- Associates Jesus with the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 (p. 45). Yeah. Wow. And I know it's not what he meant, but it is what he wrote. Seriously. p. 45: "The 'He' who is to be revealed in time is the Lord Jesus Christ." Now look at the verse in question and tell me Hiles hasn't completely run aground here.
- States that the Beatitudes are "attitudes that we need to be in" (p. 98). It made me throw up a little.
- When Christ says he knows the "works" of the Ephesians (which he is plainly praising them for), Hiles thinks he's criticizing them for a "works righteousness," completely missing the pattern of the Letters to the Seven Churches (p. 103).
- Again with Ephesus, he says that when Jesus tells them to remember from "whence they have fallen," He's referring all the way back to the Garden (p. 104). I'm actually surprised Hiles doesn't think they're supposed to "put the Garden back together."
- When Jesus tells the Smyrnans to be "faithful unto death," Hiles thinks they're supposed to be faithful to Jesus' death (p. 122). The plain sense of the passage, however, is to be faithful in the face of martyrdom.
And even when he's making good points, he has a tendency to go just a bit too far with his analogies. For instance, in his chapter on Thyatira, he puts together a good analogy of dying to the Law and being united with Christ. More specifically, he presents it as being formerly married to Adam, but now to Christ. And that's fine, because Paul uses that very imagery. But then there's this:
As my wife pointed out, how exactly does this present Christ in a good light? Better than an abusive husband? Wow, what an honor! And the trouble is, he follows this tripe up with a truly profound passage:
It's a good analogy, but it's dealt a hard blow because of the outrageous lead-in.
I realize I've been somewhat verbose here, but I covered a sheet of paper with notes on this book, so I could really go on and on if I wanted to. But I won't. Again, the real bummer here is that Hiles wrote some good stuff. I think he makes some good points when he presents an alternate view of the "second death" (in which he challenges the traditional view of Hell as Eternal Torment). He also sees a different meaning to the "Last Days" mentioned by several NT writers. Different in that, unlike many contemporary scholars, he sees those Last Days as already fulfilled in events of the first century.
And, again, Hiles believes there's value in reading Revelation, because Jesus reveals himself in it.
I realized when I was most of the way through this book that Dr. Hiles is probably fantastic as a speaker. But I think he'd be one of those speakers you were really high on until you got home and started thinking about what he actually said. On the page, that process doesn't take so long. I can't tell you the number of times I said (aloud) "What? That doesn't mean that."
There's one last gripe I have. On the back cover (and somewhere inside the book), is this statement: "The Book of Revelation is not about dreadful beasts or scary monsters, ...it is an on-going revelation of Jesus Christ and God's redemptive plan."
And yet, Hiles fails to deal with any of the passages in Revelation that make reference to dreadful beasts. Now, I agree with the sentiment of his statement, but if I set out to write a book claiming that, I'd probably attempt to address those passages that seem to be about scary monsters. It's not that the Idealist position can't deal with them, either. So Hiles hurts his own cause by not addressing them.
I promise my next book review will be both shorter and more positive. And hopefully it'll be ready by next week. If you read this far, I'm very impressed. When I went back through to proofread, I got a bit weary. So raise your hand if you made it. (That means leave a comment. Even if you skipped through to the end.)
Foney Fridays: Asterisk Management
Baseball Player Fails to Hit For the PED-Denial-Cycle
MLB, US -- A well-known baseball player has failed to hit for the cycle. And no, we're not talking about hitting a single, double, triple and home run in the same game. We're talking about the other cycle: the Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) Denial Cycle. Unfortunately, it's become all too common these days for a famous player to perform this feat. Here's how it generally goes:
Single - The player moralizes about how "some guys" feel they need an edge, but he never has.
Double - Denial of ever using steroids or other PEDs.
Triple - In the face of an apparent positive test, denial of ever "knowingly" taking PEDs.
Home Run - Admission of taking something, with emphasis on it being back when "young and stupid."
There's a certain amount of mixing up that can go on. Optionally, between the Single and Double, the player could go before Congress (a body specifically convened to watchdog baseball and not other such trivialities as running the actual government). He could wag his finger at the committee and say that he had never taken steroids. "Not ever!" could even be added for emphasis. To add emphasis to the Triple, the player could perhaps accuse some of his former teammates of "slipping" him something.
The MLB Players' Union has expressed disappointment in the player for skipping from Double to Homerun, passing over Triple altogether.
"It really just shows what a selfish player he is," said D. Nigh, a spokesperson for the union. "He's all about padding his interview stats. You really hope that a guy of his caliber will take one for the league and play his part. Instead, he just went straight for the admission."
Asked to respond to this, the unnamed player said, "You know, you've just gotta take it one interview at a time. I just want to go out there and do my best, put a good quote on the page and let the interview come to me." He then added, "And I'm not getting any respect here, anyway. I mean, yeah, I went for the Homer, but how about some props for the whole 'I'm not sure what I tested positive for' stuff? It's that kind of intangible stuff nobody ever notices."
Source: O.Handwasher, who knowingly uses Wordpress.org to get a boost in Blogging Performance
Foney Fridays: The Wrong of Way
Dear Sir,
I recognize that we arrived at this four-way-stop at almost the same instant. However, you are on my right, which means you get to go first. Actually, as I read the Rules of the Road, you are required to go first. I insist. Really.
And yes, I can see that you're trying to act polite by giving me the wave. But really what you're doing is trying to cover your own ignorance of the right-of-way. That kind of thing just isn't going to fly with me.
Perhaps you didn't notice that as we approached the stop, I slowed down just an extra bit to allow you to go first without putting any strain on your conscience. I also hit the brakes just a little extra hard so you could see that I'd stopped after you. And how am I rewarded? By having you give me The Wave. Really, I'm not sure what else I could have done. Frankly, I think you should have gotten this right without any help from me.
So for the moment, I'm not going anywhere. And I'm not going to give you The Wave. You're a big boy, and you can figure it out yourself. It's the only way you'll learn.
Sincerely,
O. Handwasher
P.S. I don't think I'm a better driver than you. It's just an indisputable fact.
Foney Fridays: Duh-ficiency
17-OCT-2008
EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS
Dear Employee,
In the interest of improving our workforce's productivity, the Board of Directors, in cooperation with the CEO, COO, CFO, and CMO of Incorporated Corporation Corp, Inc., have decided on a plan of action. New tools for source code management, documentation, and defect tracking will be rolled out company-wide.
The new tools, bought at great expense from a competing company, will be deployed across all work groups starting this month. The process of deployment will take approximately three years. At that time, we will reassess to find out if there is another set of tools which would better suit our needs.
During deployment, all employees of the targeted organization will be asked to attend mandatory training (five employees at a time) for three continuous weeks, including weekends. Employees will be encouraged not to leave company property for the duration of the training. Some consideration will be given to short breaks for meals and personal hygiene.
Prior to the training roll-out, employees and work groups will be asked to end-of-life all current systems for source code management, documentation and defect tracking. No additional working on source code or documentation will be permitted during the switchover to the new system. This should dovetail nicely with the total restriction on entering new defects against source code or documentation during the roll-out.
Some employees may balk at these policies, preferring to do, as they would say, "Real, actual work." The officers of the board and the chief operating officers of this corporation would like to respond to this sentiment. To that end, there are building maps attached to this memo, detailing where the doors are.
The next three years will be difficult, as all employees are asked to stop using the tools they are familiar with and start using new ones arbitrarily chosen by higher-ups who do not understand the kind of work they do. But, in the end, the company will be more efficient for having taken this time to move toward more efficiency.
Managers, please forward this memo to all your direct reports. Admins, please forward out to your entire department. Managers, upon receipt of the forwarded memos from your admins, please forward out again to your direct reports, but with "FYI" at the top of the message. This is the first step toward greater efficiency.
All individual employees are encouraged to print a hard copy of this memo. In addition, you may wish to bind it on your hands and/or foreheads, to post it on the doorway into your cubicle, to talk about it when you get up and when you sit down and as you walk the hallways.
Discovered, printed, crumpled, thrown away, retrieved, pressed, and posted outside the cubicle of: O. Handwasher
Foney Fridays: Cyclic Harassment
Dear Hillsboro Driver,
Perhaps your otherwise harmonious, 32-mph commute has recently been jostled by the appearance of an annoying phenomemon: the cyclist. There has been a major uptick in the numbers of these pests, and dealing with them can be difficult. Here are a few tips for making their commute as miserable as yours:
- Take away the bike lane - Why should the cyclists get their own lane? That lane is rightfully yours to use to find out What is Going On Up There? Whenever the mood strikes, just stick your front fender out there.
- Invite collisions - There's nothing more annoying than being stuck in a long line of stationary traffic and then seeing a cyclist flying by. Why should he get to cruise while you sit? Make it more interesting for him by randomly stopping to let other cars in. You can even justify it as being kind to other drivers. Time it so the cyclist's path will intersect with the crossing driver. Grievous injury is funny.
- Four-way-stop, four ways to harass - The last thing you want to be is predictable. When you come to the four-way-stop, you're probably aware that right-of-way goes to the vehicle on the right (Oh, right, you didn't know that...Never mind). The cyclist probably does know this, and will expect you do abide by the rules. Don't. Actually, do. Sometimes. Other times, give him a wave and let him go. If he refuses, go yourself. Or give him the wave, then go, and honk at him if he tries to. I titled this "four ways to harass," but there are probably infinite permutations here.
- No bike lane, no bikey - Technically, when there's no bike lane, the cyclist is entitled to the entire lane. In such a situation, you may find yourself behind the cyclist. Don't take it sitting down. Rev your engine loudly. Even if you have an opportunity to pass, you can irritate the cyclist (and your fellow drivers) more by hanging out until the cyclist moves over. In the event you feel you need to pass, go ahead, but give the cyclist a nice blast of the horn.
- If you're wrong, honk - Sometimes you won't be consciously thinking about trying to irritate cyclists, but you'll still do something they'd refer to as "moronic." This unexpected boon can be turned into cyclist-irritant-gold. Just give him a blast of the horn. Maybe three or four seconds' worth. You did something wrong. Why not take it out on him? Just because you weren't trying to drive like an idiot doesn't mean you shouldn't admit to being one.
Following these simply guidelines will help ensure that Hillsboro is a terrible place for bike commuters. Do your part, and then get back out there and drive 32 in a 45 zone and 34 in a 25!!! Drive like a Hillsboroan!!!
Sincerely,
Maurice "I Honk, Therefore I am" Ron
Theology Thursday: Head Coverings and Greek Gripes
When I was in High School and college, I read most of the way through an NIV Bible (The Student Bible), but never finished. It wasn't until I had switched to the New American Standard that I finally finished a full read-through. And even after that, it was some time until I did a cover-to-cover reading of an entire physical Bible. At this point, I aim to read a different translation every year. So, I buy myself a cheap copy of whatever translation I'm interested in, and off I go.
This year, I decided it was finally time to go back and do the New International Version, so I've been borrowing my son's Adventure Bible. My thoughts thus far?
I really liked the New King James. Although I grew up mostly hearing the NIV in church, and many verses I know come from that translation, I just don't really appreciate it. Why? Well, I don't like the translation philosophy. It's dynamic equivalence, and I prefer formal equivalence.
Time for definitions. Dynamic equivalence means the translation committee tried to translate thought-for-thought. Formal means they tried to go word-for-word. Now, it's impossible to go word-for-word from the Greek, because word order and suchlike get in the way. But formal equivalence means they tried to do it as much as humanly possible.
Why do I like it? Well, I like to know what the original said, and if there's a tricky turn of phrase or a Hebraism that's hard for modern readers to understand, I like to know I can go look it up. With a dynamic equivalence translation, the translator takes that task away from me. So, basically, I'm reading translation with commentary. If I want a commentary, I'll read one.
Of course, like I said, even formal equivalence doesn't mean I get word-for-word. Which is why I'm trying to learn Greek.
Now, for the most part, and for the average reader, it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans whether the translator went with dynamic or formal translation. If the translator was honest and thorough, you'll still end up with just about the same thing. But every now and again (or maybe even just once), you end up with something stinky. Example? Head coverings for women.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul discusses whether or not the women of Corinth (and by extension, all Christian women) should cover their heads during worship. He discusses the issue quite thoroughly, seeming to lay out the background of the issue.
Now, whether he intended there to be a general teaching for all Christians in perpetuity or now is up for grabs (actually, I think the "it's all cultural" argument is quite lame). My concern, though, is what he actually taught? Why? Because this is one of those areas where you can read two translations and get two different takes on it. In 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul sums up the issue like this (in the NIV):
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Cut and dried, right? Paul lays it out, then says if you don't do it his way, you're going against both his teaching and the practice of the whole Church. Strong words.
Okay, but what if that's not what he meant? Try the New King James...
But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Wait. What? No such custom, or no other custom? Obviously, both translations cannot be correct. It's either there's no other custom, or there's no such custom. Which did he mean? For this, we could compare a bunch of other translations, and we'd get a fair split on it. NASB sides with "other," as does The Message (not that it carries any weight), while NRSV goes with "other."
Here, we have to go to the Greek. I'll spare you the lexicon search, but I'll give you a link to it. I got it from the NET Bible, my new favorite site, and was surprised to see they sided with the NIV on this. Even stranger is this: there seems no warrant for it once you've read their lexicon entry (by the way, the word is toioutos):
Definition: 1) such as this, of this kind or sort
I did a search to see if this word is found anywhere else. Yeah. In 1 Corinthians alone, it's found nine times (or at least variants of it are found). Only in verse 16 of Chapter 11 is it rendered "other." Every other place (ironic I'm using other here, no?), it's rendered in the "such as" range.
Why did this happen? I'd rather not speculate, because it looks like conspiracy to me. If you didn't bring a pro-head-covering philosophy to the passage, and the word is clearly "such," why would you go with a different translation which carried no precedents?
I hope I didn't scare anybody off from reading and enjoying the NIV. It's very readable (although it lacks the style of the New King James - which is not hard to read), and it's the one found in most pew-backs in the U.S. But, I do hope I've emphasized for somebody why it's important to read more than just one translation.
Wow, did this get long. Sorry about that. Imagine my Power of Purest Boring if ever I actually learn Greek...
Theology Thursday: A Body of Bodies
I'm on vacation this week, but through the magic of Scheduled Posts, I bring you something I wrote on the 16th!!!
I recently read John Piper's analysis of the Importance of Church Membership, and I think he makes some good points. I just think his overall premise is wrong. It's natural that it should be wrong, given that the modern phenomenon of "a church of every flavor in every city" didn't exist in the New Testament, so any apparently pro-church-membership arguments found there must be weighed against what they meant in their original context.
For a summary of Piper's views, there's a good synopsis here.
Basically, it boils down to the fact that we need church membership in order for the "members" of the local church to be properly discipled and disciplined.
Rubbish. Yes, we need accountability. But it strikes me that this emphasis on "membership" in a local church denies the membership of ALL CHRISTIANS in the Universal Church.
The notion that Paul's comparison of the church to a body implies membership in a local body is just ridiculous, in my opinion. To me, that's rewriting Paul. The more we subdivide the church, the less like a body it looks.
Paul vehemently denied that the church even could be divided.
In other words, if you were in Corinth and a believer, you were a member of that church. More than that, you were a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.
I submit myself to my local congregation, but I feel no pull to attending the membership class. I participate in worship and fellowship and volunteer my time in that body. Do I need some recognized membership? Would anyone in the congregation, seeing me up there holding a microphone, think I wasn't a member because I haven't taken the membership class? How many people take that class and then leave the church, or at least live lives that deny their membership? Yes, the church should be there to discipline them in those cases. But it should also be there to discipline me if I go astray, member or not.
To me, we either agree with the Catholics that the Church is a monolith and has a visible organization, or we realize that the Church is an invisible entity otherwise known as the Kingdom of God. But what we cannot do is call the Church an invisible entity with a bunch of separate bodies with no connections to each other. Insisting on local church membership seems to be just that.
Now, for a bit of sanity, let me say that the idea of a church membership class is not a bad one. It's a good idea, particularly for those new to the church or Christianity, to have a vehicle for expressing the basics of Christianity or the distinctives of the particular body. But I'd also submit that if someone attending the church can't get that information by attending for a few months, the local church isn't doing its job.
Maybe I'm way off here, and maybe I've misunderstood Piper. Feel free to offer correction.
Theology Thursday: Inside or Outside?
I was thinking of doing a post on Purgatory this week, but for some reason I thought I had previously blogged about it. If I did, I can't find it. Still, what would good Protestants want to read about all that Papist claptrap for? I might save it for another week, because it's another one of those concepts that gets ignored and (mostly) misunderstood, chiefly because it's got Catholic written all over it. (By the way, just between us, I wrote a paper in college called "The Gift of Purgatory." Maybe I'll dig it out and post it.)
The real reason I was thinking of writing about Purgatory was that I happened to read the Big Purgatory Proof Text this morning. It's 1 Corinthians 3 if you're interested. But I'm moving on for now. If you're really interested in my posting about it, drop me a comment or email and I'll consider it. I'm quite willing to take requests for Theology Thursdays.
So, now that you know what I'm not posting about today, what will I actually do? How about this passage:
Ask ten people on the street what's wrong with the church, and they'll either say we're hypocrites, or we spend too much time condemning people. How did we come to this? Paul is very clear in this passage that we should diligently police our own ranks, calling out our sins and cleaning up our own acts. But where do we get off outing the purple Teletubby? Or telling the residents of New Orleans that Katrina was a consequence of Mardi Gras? Or telling gay people (outside the church) that they're not really born gay? (I'll catch it for this, I'm sure)
Paul reminds us that we're trying to pick out the world's splinters with fingers made of wood. This needs correction.
It's really more of a rant than anything theological. But I think Paul ranted now and then, too...
June 23rd Monday Morning Musings
Again on this Monday, I find my mind a virtual void. Bummer. Good thing I'm at work, where my brain is really quite unnecessary most of the time.
Funny moment from work last week. My nemesis, Evil Seth (another guy in my group named Seth), sent out his status report (he's the validation lead). Here it is, in its entirety:
No one did anything this week. And it was everything we dreamed it could be.
If you've seen Office Space, you'll get it. If not, I'm sorry.
In case you missed my Foney Fridays post, it was about Voice Response Systems, particularly those for Communications Conglomerates (which may include the following: Verizon).
This morning, I realized I had missed a key element to the annoyance of calling Verizon...they have voice-recognition software. So, instead of "To inquire about billing, press 3...", you get "To inquire about billing, say 'billing'..." Very annoying. You say, "billing", and you'll get "Sorry, I didn't get that!" or "Okay...now say something else in order to get closer to actually talking to a real person."
I finally got through and asked about the promotion Verizon had going when I signed up (they were supposed to be sending us some gift cards). The nice lady said that, yes, I did qualify for that, and she'd just transfer me over to the promotions department so we could find out where those were.
The promotions lady said there was never any such promotion. She didn't appreciate my pointing out that the other lady said there was, and the guy who signed me up said there was. She told me the promotion going back then was a free 19" TV. Now I'm calling the other lady back (not that I'll get her again, of course) so I can find out who, exactly, I need to constructively confront.
(insert the sound of ultimate anger)