Genesis 1.1 and Work

I have finally got around to beginning some notes on Work. It's been a busy couple of weeks here in Nebraska, but I have a weekend at home this week. We shall begin with a contemplation of Genesis 1, but it seems wise to start with a look at Luke 10, in order to put some of the rather polemical themes of my thinking into proper perspective.

In Luke 10:40-42, Jesus speaks to Martha about Mary:

Luk 10:40-42
(40) But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me."
(41) But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things,
(42) but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."

The tendency of many sermons I have heard from this passage is to treat with this word from Christ as a general principle: it is better to "sit at Jesus' feet" than to work. Or, true worship is best expressed in a meditative experience of quiet introspection of the Jesus within... that might be overstating things slightly. However, I think that it is plain that, for many, 'work' has become the antonym of 'worship'. Genesis 1 ought to color our interpretation, methinks.

Gen 1:1
(1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

God, in creating the world, shows that, though he was glorious without any material creation and perfectly happy in Triune fellowship, yet he glorified himself in creating. Mere contemplation of his own excellencies was now complemented by the beauty and might of his deeds in the creation. Matthew Henry articulates six aspects of the glory of God's creative acts in his commentary:

In the visible world it is easy to observe,
[1.] Great variety, several sorts of beings vastly differing in their nature and constitution from each other. Lord, how manifold are thy works, and all good!
[2.] Great beauty. The azure sky and verdant earth are charming to the eye of the curious spectator, much more the ornaments of both. How transcendent then must the beauty of the Creator be!
[3.] Great exactness and accuracy. To those that, with the help of microscopes, narrowly look into the works of nature, they appear far more fine than any of the works of art.
[4.] Great power. It is not a lump of dead and inactive matter, but there is virtue, more or less, in every creature: the earth itself has a magnetic power.
[5.] Great order, a mutual dependence of beings, an exact harmony of motions, and an admirable chain and connection of causes.
[6.] Great mystery. There are phenomena in nature which cannot be solved, secrets which cannot be fathomed nor accounted for. But from what we see of heaven and earth we may easily enough infer the eternal power and Godhead of the great Creator, and may furnish ourselves with abundant matter for his praises.

So, God's work in creation is seen to be a means of glorifying himself. In fact, it is eventually one of the chief means of furnishing his creatures' minds with “matter for his praises.” God did not think it unbecoming of himself to start making the heavens and the earth; he did not think that such work was mere busy distraction, and choose instead to stop and think about himself. He chose to create, and glorified himself in that creation.
To bring this back to the "Work vs. Worship" discussion, we see that it is wrong to think that work is meant only to provide our most basic needs, as a radical Stoic might profess. It is wrong to think that work is a means merely to keep us alive in order to worship at Jesus' feet more fervently. Rather, God, who needs nothing, glorifies himself in this awesome work of creation.

As Mike Rowe might say, "Work is not the enemy."

Christians in the Workplace

I have been thinking a lot about Christians and their vocations, and I will start by examining some of the texts that I find relevant and throw in some topical discussions based on it. Are there any particular passages or topics that ought to be covered? I was planning to hit up at least the following:

• Genesis 1 - 3
• The story of Joseph
• The Law and its teaching on property and slavery
• The promises in the Pentateuch and the work required in them
• Jesus' teaching on masters and slaves
• Masters and slaves in Ephesians and Colossians
• Service to masters and government in Peter's epistles

So, those are the places to which I am particularly eager to turn, but maybe there are some other such and such as it comes up. I had a list of the topics, but I set it down somewhere and I will have to find it.

Lewis on "new" interpretations

From "Why I Am Not a Pacifist":

If Our Lord's words are taken in the unqualified sense which the Pacifist demands, we shall be forced to the conclusion that Christ's true meaning, concealed from those who lived in the same time and spoke the same language, and whom He Himself chose to be His messengers to the world, as well as from all their successors, has at last been discovered in our own time. I know there are people who will not find this sort of thing difficult to believe, just as there are people ready to maintain that the true meaning of Plato or Shakespeare, oddly concealed from their contemporaries and immediate successors, has preserved its virginity for the daring embraces of one or two modern professors. But I cannot apply to divine matters a method of exegesis which I have already rejected with contempt in my profane studies. Any theory which bases itself on a supposed "historical Jesus" to be dug out of the Gospels and then set up in opposition to Christian teaching is suspect. There have been too many historical Jesuses - a liberal Jesus, a pneumatic Jesus, a Barthian Jesus, a Marxist Jesus. They are a cheap crop of each publisher's list, like the new Napoleons and the new Queen Victorias. It is not to such phantoms that I look for my faith and my salvation.

Kung Fu Panda and progressive sanctification

A few weeks ago, I watched Kung Fu Panda with six lttle Hajdas and Amelia at the Tiffany Theatre in Broken Bow for $4. That was quite an adventure. While Kids' Movie Day was primarily an oasis of activity in a desert week of babysitting, I was actually taken in a bit by the film, particularly one scene.
It was when Chifu, emboldened by his conversation with Master Ugwe, approached Po and told him that he would train him to defeat Tai Lan. Po's response communicated the deepest lesson that the movie had to offer. He asked of Chifu, "How are you gonna change *me* into the Dragon Warrior?" He pressed his point, demanding, "How?" three times. Finally Chifu admits, "I don't know." I could not help comparing this to the Christian's walk of faith.

Po's question is similar to what Christians ask of their own lives, often while studying Galatians 5:22 or 2 Peter 1. "How?" we ask, "How do I become the sort of person the Bible says I am to be?" We, like Po, seek constantly for someone, some book, some program or class, to make us into the Dragon Warrior... or, rather, to make us Christlike, mature believers. However, the problem with our question, like Po's, is a failure to recognize ontological realities. For Po, the reality was that Chifu was not *making* him into the Dragon Warrior- he already was the master, and had only to realize what was already written in the stars for him. Similarly we can focus so hard on working to *become* like Christ that we fail to consider the change which God already worked at salvation, when he imputed our sin to Christ on the cross and imputed Christ's righteousness to us. The ontological change has already taken place in the believer's spirit, even if there are changes yet to come in his heart, soul, mind, and body.

I also mused on a later scene, when Po discovered "There is no secret ingredient." He found that there really was nothing left to do to be the Dragon Warrior, he was ready to face Tai Lan as he was, because of who he was. This reminded me of how the chastisement for our peace has already been spent on the Cross. There remains nothing for us to do to win God's favor.

A final thought came to me as I watched the video on Peter's birthday. It is especially poignant that, although Po needed to stop trying to become the Dragon Warrior and needed to just be the Dragon Warrior, that did not mean he did not have to work hard, under the discipline and training of a mentor. Thus we watch a ten-minute training montage, with Po mastering his gluttony and self-pity, becoming a strong, heroic Panda. However, this was all a result, not the cause of his position as the Dragon Warrior.
So, one can say, the christian strives to resemble Christ, not in order to become a Christian or even to become spiritually mature, but as a necessary result of his true identity. As Paul said, the believer is crucified with Christ. His identity with Christi is thus complete, and his righteousness is perfect in God's sight. However, as he continues in Galatians 2:20-3:3, Paul's point becomes even clearer.
Identifying himself as having been "crucified with Christ," Paul said,

"The life I now live I live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose."

The next few verses at the beginning of chapter 3 continue this thought, saying in essence that, if this is how justification was wrought to bring us to Christ, then this is how it will continue to work out. By grace, not by working under the law. So, do Christians live in sin, forgetting the law of God entirely? No, rather he is moved by the Holy Spirit from the inside to obey God's law (the law that the Christian obeys is another issue or two, but basically I think this is the royal law, loving your neighbor as yourself). To sum up the last couple chapters of Galatians, the seesaw of Resting in Christ versus Striving to be holy seems to be balancing on the fulcrum of the Holy Spirit's ministry in the believer's life. He bears witness in our spirits that we are the sons of God, and his presence and activity in us brings forth his fruit.

Hmmm, I that seems to have gotten more convoluted the longer I have steeped in it. What say ye?

Instant Gratification?

Splish-splosh. I'm mopping the floor at Runza again, wondering if we'll have any more customers between now and the blessed hour of 4pm when I make my way back to the coziness of Home. I glance up at the TV screen and see the headline:

Starbucks to Cash in on Billion-Dollar Instant Coffee Market

I gasp. What? Starbucks making...gulp... instant coffee? Instant coffee? My mind jumps to a few evenings prior when Steve and I were digging around in my parents' pantry for ground coffee.
"Nope, nothing," I sigh.
"Wait...what's this?" Steve reaches for a small container on a high shelf. I stop him as his hand touches the container.
"Oh, no. That's instant coffee."
Our simultaneous shuddering indicates that we would rather drink nothing at all than that...brown liquid. Now, here in Runza, I am informed that the reliable, consistent, mood-lifting Starbucks has betrayed my coffee snob sensibilities and gone over to the dark side.

As I continue my responsibility to the mop bucket, I begin to process why this is such an unpleasant development. It seems that the foremost difficulty is taste. Like a pre-packaged apple pie from a gas station, instant coffee is but a faint resemblance of the robust, warm flavor of the real deal. But the instant coffee in question is from Starbucks. Surely the taste wouldn’t be compromised.

Perhaps there is a greater issue at hand. We live in a time-oriented culture. Each day begins with an alarm clock signaling the time to rise and prepare for the day. The majority of our jobs begin and end according to a time-clock, not upon the completion of a project. Arriving late at a meeting or for church results in condescending glances. When we live as if we will pay for every moment lost, it makes sense that something like instant coffee would appeal to the masses. Who has time to stop and wait in a drive-thru while Ashley brews an espresso?

Interestingly, coffee is grown in traditionally event-oriented cultures, like South America or Africa, while popular coffee and espresso beverages have their origin in the predominantly relaxed cultures of Italy or France. Older cookbooks like The Fannie Farmer Cookbook or Irma Rombauer’s The Joy of Cooking feature extended discussions on the importance of taking the necessary time and paying the required attention to brew a good pot of coffee. Too often the enjoyment of drinking a quality beverage is thwarted by the perceived inability to simply wait.

In a sense, Starbucks is a franchised attempt to merge an event-oriented beverage into a time-oriented culture. In purchasing coffee from Starbucks we sense that we have participated in something greater and more elite than the normal routine of grabbing a quick cup of joe from the nearest grocery store. Now the production of Starbucks instant coffee reminds that not even this is immune from the hurried state of American lives. Herein lies the great difficulty.

But who am I to ramble on in this vein? I stand in a fast-food restaurant waiting for…beep! The drive-thru signal sounds in my headset. Someone wants a cheeseburger (plain), a large fry….

Hmmm... AW Pink, in Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross, says we are to forgive only repentant sinners, citing Luke 17...

A.W. Pink on Forgiveness

Here is something I was reading in A.W. Pink this morning, from his sermon collection Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross (Pink's emphasis):

...are we not to forgive those who wrong us? This leads us to a point concerning which there is much need for instruction today. Does Scripture teach that under all circumstances we must always forgive? I answer, emphatically, it does not. The Word of God says, "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."...Here we are plainly taught that a condition must be met by the offender before we may pronounce forgiveness. The one who has wronged us must first "repent," that is, judge himself for his wrong and give evidence of his sorrow over it. But suppose the offender does not repent? Then I am not to forgive him. But let there be no misunderstanding of our meaning here. Even though the one who has wronged me does not repent, nevertheless, I must not harbor ill-feelings against him. There must be no hatred or malice cherished in the heart. Yet, on the other hand, I must not treat the offender as if he had done no wrong.

He goes on a bit, but I have to chew on that a bit, as it relates to my dealing with sin. I would often rather let something go, thinking this the noble thing, even the Christian thing to do, when a brother offends me. However, Christ's desire is for the members of his Church to be driving each other to ever-greater heights of holy living and charity.

Assignments

Today marks the beginning of a new feature on Table Stichomythia: Assignments. There are four authors with posting rights for this blog, and they will be posting more frequently on It is a little like a Freshman composition class, but hopefully this will enable our authors to constantly maintain market-fresh content. Our assignments will form under seven categories:

1. Bible
2. Theology
3. Culture
4. The World
5. Current Events
6. History
7. The Internet

Each will be ranked Easy, Medium, or Hard, and each month will hopefully feature at least one assignment from each category. I have already come up with about 90 assignments, and will add to these as needed, but I would like to extend an invitation for any readers to suggest additional topics. If you would like to suggest a topic for us to explore, send me an email or comment on this or another post to let us know. If you have an idea for how your suggested assignment would fit into the foregoing categories and difficulties, please include those in your email or comment.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Contra Cussing

As I lie in bed this morning, I think about Christians and cussing.
I work in a factory. My job is to move boxes of finished product with forklifts and conveyors and a lot of lifting and throwing, 12 hours a day, four days on, four days off. Anyone who has worked in a production environment knows that nearly all of the men and many of the women working in these places use very coarse language on a very regular basis. Though I’ve only had a year and a half of experience in production settings, it still is interesting that, out of at least a couple hundred, I can distinctly remember only one co-worker who did not cuss.
The frightening thing, which rouses me at 7:40am on my Saturday, is that many of these men and women claim to be Christians, talk about their churches, and express respect and love for the God of the Bible. Some of them pray and read their Bibles, go to church, listen to preachers from Texas and California on the radio, listen to presentations from missionaries, and run the sound board and slide projector at church. Some are younger than I am, while others have grandchildren. Yet, when a machine goes down, or a boss announces mandatory overtime, or some really big difficulties are going on at home, they talk exactly like the people who make no claim to Christ.
This is wrong. The proliferation of this language leads me to the conclusion that many Christians think it is right and acceptable to cuss or joke coarsely. Perhaps they think it is wrong, but not bad enough to worry about changing. I would like to prove that foul language is one of the key signs of spiritual immaturity by asking some questions and seeking answers from the Scriptures.

1. What are words?
2. What are bad words?
3. Doesn’t Paul cuss?
4. Wasn’t Jesus “one of the guys”, joking and talking like a normal person?
5. What is the difference between using strong and provocative language and cussing?
6. When can I cuss?

(1) What are words?
I do not have a degree in philosophy so I will try to give a basic, from-the-hip answer, based on the Bible.
God wrote the Bible. In that fact, we can see that written communication is good, that words written at one point in time can be brought into a later time and still retain their original meaning, and that an objective text of words from God is as authoritative as a personal, audible conversation with him.
Words are vessels to carry ideas. God spoke the words “Let there be light” and there was light. His desire, authority, and ability to create were expressed in those words, and the ideal creation in his mind became a physical reality. Only God’s words carry this authority, because he gives no one else the authority to create ex nihilo. God inspired men (Moses, in the case of Genesis 1) to write the Scriptures, revealing himself in perfectly chosen words through their pens.
Humans are then held responsible for taking God at his word, believing the fact that he created the world by the word of his power (Romans 1:18-20, 25; Hebrews 11:3; Second Peter 3:5-7). We can see that, as creation took place at God’s word and man is held responsible by his words, that God’s words convey truth about him accurately and carry his authority.
This is reinforced when Jesus is called the Word in John 1. He is presented as the perfect expression of the mind and character of God. This fact is important in understanding cussing: Words are meant to convey truth about God. God revealed himself to men by the words of the Bible. Those words are repeated to men throughout the whole world in the preached word of evangelism (Romans 10:14-17), which includes teaching, authoring, and translation ministries. Those men relate with God on the basis of their response to the words God has spoken. Every man will be judged by his words (Matt 12:37), and only those who by faith in Jesus Christ know God will be saved from his wrath.

(2) What Are Bad Words?
So, words are meant to convey truth, but, since the fall of Satan (which apparently began with words in his heart, cf. Isa 14:12f) not all words do convey truth. A bad word is a word that does not reveal or repeat truth from God.
The Bible shows that careless words (Matt 12:36f), lying (Eph 4:25), slander and clamor (Eph 4:31), worthless debates (1 Tim 1:6f), cursing (James 3:9f), empty words (Eph 5:6), wrong doctrine (Eph 4:14f), foolish talk (Eph 5:4), harsh words (Pro 15:1), murmuring (Deut 1:26, 27, & 35), blaspheming (Matt 12:31f), coarse jesting and sexually immoral speech (Eph 5:3f), and various other uses of language are bad. Conversely, preaching the gospel (Matt 28:19f), warning men of God’s coming wrath (2 Cor 5:11, Rev 14:6-12), proclaiming the cross of Christ (1 Cor 1:21-24), and condemning sin (Rev 14:8f) are all examples of good words. The issue is not the words themselves, but the heart that makes use of them.
Good words can be used as bad words, at least some times. For example the word stupid is used in Proverbs 30:2. This was inspired by the Spirit, and was obviously good. However, when I was a child and I called my brother Peter stupid, I was using a bad word. Even the best words can be used badly; a person can even use the preaching of the gospel in a sinful way. In Philippians 1:15, Paul describes evil teachers who preach the gospel “from envy and rivalry,” making their use of those good words a bad use. Paul praised God that the gospel was preached, even for false motives (Phil 1:18), but those false teachers will still be judged for the badness of their hearts in their use of words.
Now one of two interesting questions arises: If a good word can be used as a bad one, can a bad word be used as a good one? Or, Doesn’t Paul cuss?

(3) Doesn’t Paul Cuss?
In Philippians 3:8, Paul uses a Greek word which is translated into English by something like rubbish, dung, poop, crap, or even worse words. How could Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit use a bad word?
The answer is that Paul used a bad word for a bad idea. This word was the right one to convey the truth. God saved Paul, not only from nasty sins like alcoholism or pornography, but still more from the false pride of self-righteousness. Paul shows that all the “good” things that “good” people do are a bucket of feces and an offense to God. He counts them as poop “in order to gain Christ.” This was a good use of a bad word.
So, maybe we Christians should recognize that really bad words can be used to talk about really bad things, particularly when these things are being accepted by Christians. Perhaps it is time we treated with false Christianity and man-made holiness in Paul’s abrupt fashion, exposing the darkness of sin to an all-too comfortable world (Eph 5:11-13).
If this was what I heard Christians doing when they used cuss words, if they were pouring out their hearts to God in agony over their sinful pride or exposing the evil of hypocrisy, it would not be a cause for worry, but for rejoicing. The difference between what Paul was doing and the foul language that evidences spiritual immaturity is that Paul had an exact, redemptive purpose in using those strong words, while very little of the cussing which I hear from professing Christians has any purpose.
So, Paul hardly gives us an OK for using careless strong language. While we should be careful not to criticize a brother in Christ who is attempting to use bad words for bad ideas, we cannot accept the cavalier attitude of professing Christians who use language foolishly.
Another common idea is that we need to dress, joke, and talk like the world in order to be “incarnational” Christians, i.e., to be like Jesus and meet people where they are.

(4) Wasn’t Jesus “one of the guys”, telling jokes and talking like a normal person? Isn’t that why he became a man?
No. I know that it is popular to say things like, “Jesus was so likeable, everyone wanted to be around him. Even the hookers wanted a piece of him.” That is wrong. You might call it scubalon.
Jesus was not normal. He was despised and rejected by men (Isa 53:3). He was perfectly holy. Yes, he was a real man and felt hunger and pain and temptation, but he never sinned, and never could have sinned. He was wholly God and his will was entirely in tune at every moment of his life with the Father’s will. Never did he give a hint of wrong-doing to those who were with him.
Jesus did not accept sin, he died for it (this is one reason I find John 8:11 very questionable). He couldn’t have accepted sinners unless he died for them (Rom 3:24-26). Certainly he associated with prostitutes and tax collectors, but not to make them better prostitutes and richer tax collectors, but to save them from their sins. When he healed or forgave someone, he commanded “sin no more” (John 5:14). His message was, “Repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). To put it briefly, Jesus was surrounded by repentant prostitutes and other believing, repentant sinners. An unrepentant man or woman would not be able to stand being in his company, because he did not ever give in to sin. When the Pharisees berated him for eating with sinners, Jesus didn’t say, “Shut up, these are my friends,” or, “They’re not so bad,” or, “Don’t you judge them,” but rather “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He was calling these sinners out of their sin to holiness (cf. Rom 8:30; 1 Thess 4:7; 2 Tim 1:9; 1 Pet 1:15; 2:9; 2 Pet 1:3f, 10). How does this serve as a stamp of approval on unholy speech, coarse joking, cussing, and worldliness?
The Triune God has clearly called us to holiness. He has not only freed us from the law of Moses, but also from the law of sin and death (Gal 5:13ff; Romans 8:1-8, cf. 7:21-23). The fruit of the Spirit are clearly incompatible with throwaway language, rife with mediocrity and foulness. Consider a few four letter words. How do they demonstrate love? Joy? Peace? Patience? When has anyone needed to drop an f-bomb to show kindness? How has it shown goodness? Faithfulness? Gentleness? And most potently, I have never once known someone who frequently cussed to show any self-control in their language. They might have a type of control that pretends to be more holy at church than they are in their heart, but such hypocrisy is a far cry from the control wrought by the Spirit of holiness. He that has Spirit-given control does not toss around strong language needlessly.

(5) What is the difference between using strong and provocative language and cussing?
So, seeing Paul’s example of language next to the great clamor for holiness found throughout the word of God, we come to an important conclusion: There is a difference between intentionally using strong language (including bad words) for a purpose, and using strong or coarse words meaninglessly and mindlessly (i.e., cussing). The difference is in the mind and heart. Using strong language like Paul, the prophets, and Luther did is right and occasionally necessary. Cussing is never right. This is because at its core, cussing is simply the overflow of a dirty heart, which is left unchecked by a lazy mind.
The holy, wise man will engage his mind in the pursuit of good and wise ways of conducting every area of life (Prov 1-4). God’s Word particularly emphasizes the place of words in showing our heart (Matt 12:33f). It is clear that God has placed considerable weight on the words we use. It is also clear that we will be held accountable for those words, and we cannot say “I think, I must speak,” as if that excuses our carelessness (cp. Matt 12:36f). We are expected to engage our minds before we open our mouths, control our tongues, and glorify God in our every word and motive. Of course, this is only possible through the enabling of the Spirit, for “no man can tame the tongue” (James 3:8). No man, but God can, Jesus did, and the Spirit will help us to do so.
No living Christian is done growing in this area, since God has chosen to gradually and progressively change us into his image throughout our lives. He is constantly making us holier, if we are Christians; conversely, if he is not making us holier at all, we have no reason to think that we are Christians. That is why holiness is vital to a Christian’s assurance of salvation (John 15:1-11; Heb 12:5-8; 2 Pet 1:8-10; 1 John 2:3-6). So, if you struggle with taming your tongue, know that this is one sin that every single Christian has struggled with (James 3!), that you can rest in the fact that God is the one who promises to make you holy (Jude 24), that he can and will cleanse your dirty heart (Isa 30:21f; Jer 17:9f; 31:33f; Eze 36:22ff; John 4:13-15; 2 Cor 3:7-18; 1 John 1:7). Bad language is indeed a sign of spiritual immaturity, but the Christian who is challenged by the Scriptures may be confident that the Holy Spirit will enable him become a mature believer. As he grows, he will look forward to that day when he will be totally freed from the snares of sin, and can “Go, and sin no more.”

(6) When Can I Cuss?
Never.
Inasmuch as cussing means throwing away words by vulgar, worthless talking, you should never, ever cuss. The Christian’s goal should be to always have a godly purpose for every word he says. His goal in every use of language is to build the temple of God. He may be seeking the conviction of sin with a nonbeliever, even in mundane conversations. It amazes nonbelievers when you demonstrate how watching TV or learning to cook can be done to the glory of God. A Christian might be encouraging a fellow-believer and building him up (Ephesians and James), or he might be simply expressing praise to God by enjoying out loud his love, grace, wrath, or other attributes.
Christians ought to exemplify the fruit of the Spirit in their words. They should actively or passively worship God in their every utterance. They should use the enormous flexibility and creative supply of their heart language and any additional languages they have been blessed with learning to show the holy Lamb of God to the world. This leaves no room for cussing, and no reason to desire it.

If Paul meant in first Corinthians that we should not refer to ourselves as 'Calvinists', wouldn't it also be wrong to be 'Christians'?

I think I am starting to think a little differently about ministry and my own person in ministerial realms.

Today I an thinking about birth control. Besides all the medical and bioethical discussions and everything, is there any great reason for

Some kind of creepy gargoyle thing makes me think about carrying crosses

A word to future, married me: One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.

Was Lot more like Mark Driscoll, or Jerry Fallwell?

A man holds a lantern in a desperate dark place. I peer at the dark prospect of trying to process a mountain of school these next couple days

The day is dawning on some Eastern shoreline. It is like the many times I've thought of Christ coming in clouds over the ocean.

A girl sits amd stands in half a dozen places at once, looking a lot like my nervous preschooler self as I try to read Kant.

A fella walks on a campus of some institute of higher education. I have nine regular schooldays til I walk off mine.

A very pleasant looking family makes me think about buying a house.

A flower. It is a very pretty flower. I am reminded of how I would feel if my pretty bride to be was as adulterous as my heart.

There is a door closed. What would open it, I wonder? I ought to think about where the doors in my life are, if I will find which are open

The made-up eye of a tired looking lady. I feel kind of tired, but I don't wear makeup

A spider with a fly in his web makes me think about the end of the semester. Yikes...

A telephone in the dark. How funny. I'm on a telephone in the dark talking to Amelia.

A great many pots and paints- I have a plate now!

Just hit highway 2, stopped for gas.

An elderly pair walking to some tram in loose-fitting clothes reminds me of the beauty of being in love with a person worth getting old with.

Today a green lizard biting the hand that carries him reminds me of the green stuff filling my sinuses all this day... Time to write some papers.

Today is a picture of a man dancing in the rain. He is wearing flip-flops. I see he has a long lumberjack beard. I can identify with that

The picture for today was a little piece of chain-link fence with razor wire, reflecting my mind as it was held down in the prison of my sinuses.

So, I begin to read Hume's ''Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' and realize I should have spent a lot more time reading this thing b

Quality of Life

So I don't know if Steve will post any time soon but here a question that I and a bunch of college kids were asked on college retreat last weekend. "What is the quality of life?"
We didn't have much time for Bible study, but we broke up into groups and talked about the "Quality of Life." We talked about what it meant to each of us, and I just want y'all to put in your input.

<3

Sorry I've been a little slow to post.

I got engaged at about 1am Saturday morning to Amelia Hajda... and I haven't been able to think of much else for a little while.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Directions and Definition

Praise the LORD! Oh Give thanks to the LORD for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! Who can utter the mighty deeds of the LORD, or declare all his praise? - Psalm 106:1-2

I have been thinking about the poll above these posts, which gives some idea about the form our discussions should take. We seem to be favoring an historical approach to theological issues, about half of the voters have voted that way, but another half have split between topical and book-by-book approaches to Scripture, two options which pull away from theological concerns and instead plunge directly into the Word.
Since there is a 50/50 split between Biblical and Historical-Theological emphases, I am trying to think of a way to pursue both goals together. The reason is that I So, I am thinking about a few different solutions, and wonder if anyone has an opinion on them:

• Talk about history one month, the Bible the next.
• Talk about history one week, the Bible the next.
• Have some historical and some Bible discussion each week, more or less related to each other. Perhaps the discussions could even be led by two different people.
• In an historical survey, use the conflicts and biographical portraits as a means of discussing big issues, diving into the Scriptures to develop our own views on the issues.
• In a book-by-book biblical discussion, emphasize the historical aspects of issues arising from the passage we approach for the week.
• Something else. I am not sure if these really lay out the best ideas for guiding our path.

So, any thoughts about the above or anything else?

Ten Followas

So, we aren't bringing down the blogger servers, but we are up to ten members, thanks to Mark ''Markus à Kempis'' Doering! Excitement!

Evangelicalism?

Contemporary Theology always makes for an interesting Tuesday morning. Today we discussed Evangelicalism and its relationship to Fundamentalism in America. As the class ended, we the students tried to deal with the question, "What am I?" Here are some important aspects of the consideration:

1. Does it matter what I am called?
2. If it does, should I be in either of these camps?
3. If I am neither Fundy nor Evangelicalisticist, what am I?
4. What is the historical context of the question?
5. How do the camps differ theologically?
6. How do the camps differ culturally?
7. How does my choice of a camp affect my continued ministry?

We discussed some different names. Jake said he'd create the Modern Moravian Mission Movement, but thought that the four Ms might appear too cultic. Otherwise, I am game.

What do you think?

Oh! That was it!

So, I remembered what I was supposed to be doing, and will start doing it now. I have to get ready for tonight's practice for Annie Get Your Gun. If you want to know more about the dramatic feast which will hit the southern Kansas City area this March, cruise on over to Calvary Bible College's website, calvary.edu, for more info. You can even buy tickets there!


I am going to play Frank Butler, if that means anything to anyone. We'll see how it goes. For now, the play's the thing catching my conscience. Ciao!

I must be forgetting something...

It's getting obvious when I ought to be working on something, because those are the times when I play with my format and layout and such. Such is today! Goodbye, "Scribe" Layout, hello... whatever this is called!

Don't Lick the Polls...

So, there is a poll above here.
It is not a totally arbitrary and nonsensical poll right now, rather, I'd really like to know- how would you like to go about studying the Word and life? While this is Table Stichomythia needs to "keep true to its DNA," as Alton Brown said, it still would be nice to have a direction to steer its blogging course (it's like when The Blob jogs...).
So, let me know!

Faith Bible Church Online

For those who are anxious for studying historical and biblical theology, I figured I should throw out a link to Faith Bible Church in Springfield, IL. I learned about this church at a conference they held last year featuring their pastor, Dr. Curt Daniel, and noted pastor and speaker Paul Washer, who teaches in Muscle Shoals, AL.
While at Faith, I picked up a number of sermons and pamphlets from the two speakers and others who had visited the church or who taught similarly to Dr. Daniel. I learned there about the 75-lesson series Daniel has recorded on The History and Theology of Calvinism. It is certainly a one-sided presentation, but still gives a very thorough introduction to many of the topics with which scholars and preachers have been defined themselves for hundreds of years. Many other sermons, including the inspiring messages we heard at the conference last year, can be found at www.faithbibleonline.net.

Alright, happy Sunday, y'all!

Prepare ye the way...

So, to recall what I left on my own mind when I posted earlier this week, we were looking at three questions. Here goes...

Road Construction Ahead...

Is life more like a highway, or an urban grid, or a winding country road, or something else?

I don't know what that first question was driving at (it is going to be a pun-filled weekend, I fear), but I will subjectively interpret it and try to give an answer.

To see life as a highway would give the idea that the traveler is going in one direction. His choices would be off-ramps, where he can stay faithful to that direction or get off-course and exit the highway. I suppose other, lesser choices might be called lane-changes, where the driver keeps going forward, just in a slightly different track or at a different speed. Some of these may not be optional, as when a driver avoids a hazard in the road.
The urban grid seems to see life more more on a 2-dimensional field in which our choices take us here or there, running errands, meeting people, acting in many different activities, and not really getting anywhere in particular. The only progress would be made inside the vehicle- all the choices on where to go or what to do would be merely for the purpose of increasing the driver's own quality of life. this is beginning to sound kind of like what I once read about a certain Christian philosopher. He supposedly taught that the great choices swirling about us have no great meaning in themselves: rather, choice was exercised in the realm of absurdity, and the only true benefit was to be found in the chooser. As far as I got in understanding it, his was an interesting approach to whole perception/substance tree-in-the-forest discussion.
The country roads (take me home!) would, in my mind, represent the view that the way we travel upon is not always a clear matter. On the highway, we have signs warning us the choices we will have to make, and we know that, whatever happens, we need only stay on the highway and we are going in the right direction. The country road (take me... oh. sorry) may wind around hills and through forests to unmarked intersections and lonely wastes. Rather than marked out with signs and mile markers, the road is marked by ambiguity. There is not much information as to which way a driver should go, though some people seem to have a knack at traveling, they tend to pick the right path where others get lost for hours.

Soapbox, Anyone?
To answer the question, "How should we see life?" we should examine the next two questions.

What is the place of God's sovereignty in our choice-making?

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the biggest deficiency in much of the preaching and teaching that American Christians have heard is in the doctrine of God's sovereignty in all aspects of life. When approaching Scripture and how it hits practical life, why do we so often forget about what God is doing? Why do we approach decisions as free agents, entities with perfect ability to exercise their free choice? Why oh why are we so infatuated with "free will"?
Anyway, it seems like our paths may need to be understood in the light of the great God who controls all things according to the counsel of his will. The choices that are given us are directed by him. The end that we progress toward is determined by him. The rightness or wrongness of any decision is measured according to its proximity to his Person. God -the personal God who revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ and the Bible- is the great and ultimate reality. He alone allows for anything we are or do to have a purpose.
Now, when I am driving on this path, I find that the idea of a totally free cruise around the city grids seems not to jive with the fact that God is working all things together for good to those who love him. When I think about those mysterious country roads, I find that hard to set next to the fact that God has chosen to reveal himself to mankind. God has indwelt the believer, and provided him with a new heart. The Holy Spirit is seen actively guiding the believer into the good works which were foreordained for him. Therefore, the way is not a mysterious road without road signs, it is clearly marked out in the Bible.
I begin to wonder, though, if we really can exit the highway. Can a man choose to defy God Almighty and leave the path laid out for him? Or, was he locked into his life in its every detail from before time began? Is life like a car on a highway, or a train on its tracks? This is the difficulty of understanding how God's sovereign control of all things can be reconciled with man's responsibility for his actions. I will say that, as far as I can tell, the two will not be reconciled. However, that may not be a very important problem. It is true that God is sovereign, and evidently that extends over our choices. It is true that we are responsible for our actions, for how we use our choices. These two are not meant to be resolved, but rather trusted and acted upon, like any other truth taught in Scripture.

So... Logically... If she weighs the same as a duck...
So, when addressing the final question,

If we are not supposed to balance these competing values, how then are we to decide how to spend our time? Does it matter?

We find that our use of time does matter, because we are held responsible for it, but we may trust that, rather than balancing a good value against another good value, we are to trust God and follow him in whatever good thing he lays before us to do. As we follow, he evidently will continue to lead us from one thing to another, giving signs indicating where we are going. Inside the car, we will grow, outside the car, we will progress toward our destination. The burden of our choices is not ours alone. If God gives me two good options (say, study the word this afternoon or spend time with friends), I can trust him to guide me and just pick, so long as I use my choice to serve him in accordance to his Word. I can trust that I won't be getting off-track with him or getting myself lost in the wastes of life as long as I stay on the path he has lit by his Word.

Pencils Down.
So, we live. There are times in the LA fast lane, times in rush hour traffic, times alone on the Bonneville flats, and so on. God's taking us each on a trip. The scenery is worth seeing, but the destination is what is important. Now to him who is able to keep us from stumbling from here to the end...

So, I just spent 20 minutes responding to a very simple question from my sister. I am beginning to wonder if it really is always necessary to trace the historical development of every theological discussion...

''You were ever present to me, mercifully angry.'' - Augustine

Life is a Highway...

And your ear will hear a word behind you saying, "This is the way, walk in it," when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left. Isaiah 30.21

Talkin bout my generation...over coffee
There are certain tendencies in my thinking about God and his Word of late which I find less-than godly. The foremost of these is the tendency to talk incessantly about the theological, methodological, philosophical problems of the Church today, particularly the church in North America. I was rebuked on this account at Starbucks this weekend.
We were talking, Mike, James, Justin, Joe, Susan, Josh, Matt, Allison, Marcy, Ben, and I (these people came and went over the course of a few hours, mind you), about the various needs the church was facing. I was distracted several times by James. The young fiend was never satisfied to just sit and kvetch with me- he kept walking around, sitting with strangers, talking about life and Jesus and all that. When we talked about the problems of the church, people constantly brought up the Bible and God's sovereignty and the centrality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
After about 5 hours of this abuse, my arrogance began to be worn down.

You see, I don't always talk about problems in American Christendom because I care about the purity of Jesus' Bride. Maybe God has given me this time at Bible College to look into those things, but I doubt he wants me to put blinders on to block out all the dying and hurting souls along the way. As I sat in that corporate café, I found two values competing for my time, and was convicted that I had not been spending that time better. So, I began thinking about my need to find balance.

Balancing the Scales of Life
In addressing the issue of balance in the Christian life, I have to answer several questions:

1. What are the ideas that should be on the two sides? Balance is usually found when we set some value or idea on a scale against some other, opposite value or idea. Should this scale weigh Theology vs. Evangelism? Relationships vs. Study? New ideas and criticism in the church vs. Submissive service?
   
2. When I have found the opposites to be compared, what means of measurement should be used to weigh them? Snippets of Scripture that support one side or the other? Lengthy logical debate? My own tastes?
3. When one side is preferred, what happens to the idea or value on the other side? Could I safely toss aside the lesser value?

Now, to when I address the first question, I find if I must choose theology or evangelism, this indicates that one is correct and the other is incorrect. However, we find in Scripture not only ample reason for delving into its rich stores of truth, but also the need to proclaim the gospel without fanciness of speech or great demonstration of knowledge.
The means of determining the correct choice requires thought about the authority of Scripture when set alongside other authorities. If texts of Scripture say that challenging old forms ministry is good, and others say that respectful silence toward more mature believers is good, what ability or right have I to decide which texts are God's Word and which are not?
In the end, if both values are good, then neither ought to be tossed outright. Therefore, neither study of the Word nor developing relationships could go. But how then do I make a decision about how to spend my time?
The answer I find is that the Christian life is not a life of balance, at least, not in the tipping scale sense of the word.

The highway of life
The picture God uses for spiritual decision-making is of a road which we travel. This image is used constantly throughout the Scriptures, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs and the Gospels. In fact, the image of a spiritual life as a road is the basis for works of literature like The Canterbury Tales and Pilgrim's Progress, and is the basis for centuries of mystical writing.
When I think about this picture, I often think about choices in my life as forks in the road, where I can pick one path or another. Some choices, I often think, are like 5-Points in Modesto, with many options, all confusedly jumbled together with a lot of angry drivers and such (did I ever tell you about the time I drove up the one way street and cut off a guy when I pulled right onto McHenry? It was like 12.30am and there were about 6 policemen all around Denny's watching me with quizzical expressions...).
However, when I read Isaiah 30.21, it seems like the picture might be better thought of as a highway, with on-ramps and off-ramps. Rather than trying to make countless choices and constantly being presented with options and balancing acts, I am told simply not to turn right or left, not to exit, and to get back on when I get off for whatever reason.

So, that is most of where I am at in this balancing spiel. What do you think? If anyone reads this, then please study up on the way in Scripture and on how we are to make a choice. Then touch that there 'comments' button at the bottom of the post and give the fruit of that study some expression. In particular, try addressing these questions in your study:

• Is life more like a highway, or an urban grid, or a winding country road, or something else?
  
• What is the place of God's sovereignty in our choice-making?
• If we are not supposed to balance these competing values, how then are we to decide how to spend our time? Does it matter?

I'll give some time for some interaction here. What say on Thursday I bring my ideas on those questions, and everyone can shoot them down on Friday or whatever?

What's in a name?

I just now surprised myself by actually spelling "stichomythia" right on the first try. I was typing in the little box that looks at Webster's Dictionary for me, and got this result:

Greek stichomythia, from stichomythein to speak dialogue in alternate lines...especially of altercation or dispute delivered by two actors in alternating lines (as in classical Greek drama)

As with most fancy words thrown out onto the internet, this one has been yanked far away from its natural habitat. So, what does "Table Stichomythia" mean?

It begins with Martin Luther's Table Talk. This was a publication back in the 16th century of the good things Dr. Luther would say while eating (and drinking!) with friends. Luther's followers organized and published Table Talk as a guide to the practical, Bible-centered approach to everyday Christianity which was so important in the early German Reformation.

Table Stichomythia adds the Table Talk practicality to the open dialog of several voices, or stichomythia. The idea of this is to start with a steady diet of the truth contained in God's Word to show us what Christianity is. That will take the form of a weekly Bible study, led by me (I'm Stephen P. Rodgers, by the way; nice to meet you. You have such interesting eyes, I just wanted to say... oh right). When this is posted, we can start the discussion, the argument, the plans for making our lives line up with God's best, and the whatever else floats our collective boat. We'll wrap up all that at the end of the week and have a new post ready a day or so later!

Well, that there's what is that's in the name, as awkward as it is! 'Til Mercy join our paths again,


Stephen