You win J. McDropout*

realmen

     Well, it has taken me quite some time, but after an incredibly long hiatus from the blog-o-sphericals,  I have regrettably come to the conclusion, with some finality, I might add, that J is right and I am wrong. I have done the hard work and I have come to find, based on his sound reasoning, compelling logic, and his eye for cogency, that my arguments are flimsy, and my illustrations flail in circularity. My pre-enlightenment caveman-ish worldview has been bereft of the ability to give an adequate answer to the difficult questions surrounding the transmission of meaning. He has poked holes in all my illustrations, took the wind out of my sails, you might say, and shown that, by the rules of logic, my world view lies fraught with inconsistency, and that I fill in the gaps with, dare I say, magic. So, here’s to you Mr. ‘I have no explanation or justification for the rules of logic and intelligibility so I posit the ability to reason and recognize circularity without giving an adequate explanation as to why there is reason circularity or intelligibility to begin with.’ I admit The name is a bit much, but why don’t we just call you Mr. I.  I really must commend you; way to go with taking the gracious gifts of God and pointing them back in His face like a loaded revolver.

And, there in lies the problem, you ultimately are the judge and jury over all information with your innate ability to apply reasoning to said data. When (and by ‘when’ I mean ‘the time that will never come’) you are able to justify logic, then by all means feel free to shred me a new one. But, without a justification for the foundation of logic all I have really heard you say is ‘bicyclefart hehdyjk tuck ewwklal stew.’

Anarchists take respectability to a whole new level!

Image

Not only does an anarchist’s bomb ripping through a printing press “magically” produce 22 volumes of the oxford english dictionary, but apparently it can be used to create love out of a soap bubble as well. This “respectable” scientist (I just threw up in my mouth a little bit) goes on to make the cogent argument that Elvis is still alive in a parallel universe. I wish I was making this stuff up.

To all the Universalists who just don’t like the label!

336499_10150623600049180_785984551_o
Antipathy towards biblical doctrine really isn’t disgust towards a particular brand of theology, it is nausea brought on from the consideration of the very nature of God himself.  It’s uncomfortable to meditate on hard truth, but that discomfort doesn’t prove the non-existances of the truth itself, any more than indigestion disproves the meat lovers pizza fermenting in my intestines (Incase my wife reads this… I am still on my diet, there has been no pizza involved, just an analogy).
If God reveals himself as wrathful against sin he will then be wrathful towards sinners who do not find shelter in Jesus. This doesn’t smack in the face of ‘God is love.’  1 Thessalonians 1:10 doesn’t say ‘Jesus, who by his death on the cross, eliminated all need for wrath towards sin.’ It says, ‘Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.’  There is still sin in the world, it still needs to be dealt with, and it will be dealt with in finality and ultimacy, either in the body of Christ on the cross or in everlasting torment in the bodies of individual sinners.
I want to be very clear here. There is a day coming when Christ will return to settle accounts (Matthew 25), and there will be wrath and fury for those who do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness. But, for those who have escaped to Jesus, who (in this life) have thrown there whole trust on him and his work on the cross, who are no longer content with there own ability to shovel lime stone over the rotting corpse of their soul, for those who have once and for all stepped from death to life (John 5:24) there is NO punishment for past, present, or future sins (Romans 8:1). Jesus is the only hope of eternal life both in this life and the real life to come. To walk apart from relationship with Jesus Christ in this life is to commit not one suicide, but everlasting suicide.
The cross is so much more than any of us have ever dared to imagine, but don’t make the mistake of making it something that it is not. It is not universal atonement.
Image

Anarchist cheese burgers and Christian bonfires

Image

Anarchist cheese burgers and Christian bonfires 

In a repost of a repost of a repost hitchens67 re-re-re-posted the below filthy drivel.

“The only church that illuminates is a burning church.” – Buenaventura Durutti

I have a very sardonic love of irony. My wife wishes I had a sardonic love of ironing, but that would seem to be another matter entirely. Buenaventura Durutti, the most famous anarchist organizer was shot and killed per chance when one of his compatriots broke the most simple rule of engagement… don’t shoot guys on your own team. But, what can you expect from guys with contempt for the rules, right? I certainly wouldn’t expect a cogent commentary on the state of the church. I wouldn’t even expect him to get my sandwich right at the drive through. I will give this to hitchens67 though, when the time finally comes for atheists to burn christians in the street, and the time will come most certainly, we will provide the world with the most gracious and loving light of heaven.

Anarchist cheese burgers and Christian bonfires

theshanehull:

189_1bacon_cheese_burger_stroke

Anarchist cheese burgers and Christian bonfires

In a repost of a repost of a repost hitchens67 re-re-re-posted the below filthy drivel.

“The only church that illuminates is a burning church.” – Buenaventura Durutti

I have a very sardonic love of irony. My wife wishes I had a sardonic love of ironing, but that would seem to be another matter entirely. Buenaventura Durutti, the most famous anarchist organizer was shot and killed per chance when one of his compatriots broke the most simple rule of engagement… don’t shoot guys on your own team. But, what can you expect from guys with contempt for the rules, right? I certainly wouldn’t expect a cogent commentary on the state of the church. I wouldn’t even expect him to get my sandwich right at the drive through. I will give this to hitchens67 though, when the time finally comes for atheists to burn christians in the street, and the time will come most certainly, we will provide the world with the most gracious and loving light of heaven.

Originally posted on 60spunk:

The only church that illuminates is a burning church.

– Buenaventura Durutti

View original

You asked for it, you got it, Toyota! or ‘a keeping the pimp hand strong’ on J. Mcdropout

Image

       So… the slow motion cage fight has finally dispensed with the dancing about in tights (I’m not in tights, and I make no particular assumptions about you either) and gotten to the real juicy stuff! For me, at this particular point, to run a reductio ad of your reductio ad of my reductio ad would border on some serious absurdum-ness; emphasis on dum… but I digress. The real heart of the matter has always been, only, one issue – Are humans truly and finally autonomous.
       J. Mcdropout has the under lying assumption that humans, no matter what form they have taken over the spectrum of time*, have the ability of comparative analysis, and I whole hardily agree. The point at which we part ways is over the basis or foundation for our ability to come to a conclusion over the data sampled. It has always been my understanding that J’s conclusion on this matter is that a relative certainty can be had given enough sampling of information to compare. This leads me to believe that he is not a full blown Deconstructionist because he is laboring his point on behalf of meaning. If he is a Deconstructionist… well then, even he doesn’t understand what he’s been talking about. I personally do not see that the mantra of ‘man is the measure of all things’ answers the question in play. Because if I am the ultimate standard by which I am able to understand J, and J is the ultimate standard by which he is able to understand me, then regardless of the amount of data thrown into the soup, we aren’t really going to be able to figure each other out. I firstly don’t have a basis for understanding the experiences of Canadians, especially their affectionate use of the letter ‘Aye’, and secondly he hasn’t the technical knowledge in Reformed Theology to fill in the gaps of what I left out of my very brief comments in the previous post (what’s that you say? You’re a Calvinist? The plot thickens), all of this aside from the simple fact that we are trading in relative meaning. What does ‘relative meaning’ even mean? (Buckle your seat belt kids! My obligatory compelling analogy, per usual, is on the way!)

 

‘Alright sport! I’ve got you blind folded and there is a picture on the wall of a donkey, I promise.  So all I want you to do is pin this little old tale on the donkey.’

 

(Steve, sport’s dad, forgets to mention that the game is being played in an active carnival tilt-a-whirl, and there is no picture of a donkey on the wall).

 

‘Alright Sport, off you go!’

 

“it is claimed here that the communication between a triumvirate god-head would necessarily entail a linguistic framework, and indeed, that’s what’s implied when it’s stated, ‘language wasn’t an after thought, it’s what God used to create us in the first place….”Let there be..“’ (although, as i think on it, i also have no conception of how he ‘spoke’ without an apparent medium with which manipulations (like that of vibration being applied air, or limb moved  through space)  could be transferred and recognized.  after all, a substrate would be the prerequisite for the actions described to this deity…”

 

       I am here simply pulling from a rich biblical heritage of anthropomorphic language to describe God and his actions. Anthropomorphic language is used all throughout scripture. To take me quite literal would be understandably silly and force a direct contradiction into scripture. God no more has a nose than the ground turkey my wife sneaks into her spaghetti’s meat sauce has flavor (I’m quit safe from her wrath on this point BTW, she has no patience for reading through my blogs).
       John 1:18 says, ‘No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.’ What this scripture♱ is doing is illustrating the transcendence as well as the eminence of God in it’s description of the Father and Son (Jesus is the unique one BTW). This is important for a number of reasons, but since we have limited the scope of our discussion to linguistics I will do my best to not preach you a sermon. John Calvin describes, in his magnum opus ‘The Institutes of the Christian Religion ✠’, God stooping to speak to us in a way that we can comprehend, much like a mother would hold her baby close and lightly coo. The child understands her mother, and only because the adult in the relationship has condescended immensely. To posit the same failings found in human communication in an infinitely wise being would be an unjust caricature. In my circles they would call them ‘fightin’ words’, but since we are again in said ‘slow motion cage match’ I imagine that’s what you were shooting (pun intended) for. Sadly, much of your other commentary on the opening of the book of Genesis bare the same issue as the above ‘vibration being applied air’ comment. I could address them one by one, but I feel that the bulk of your objections have been dealt with in my clarification above. If there is another point you would like me to address I would gladly do it for you, and incidentally the communication of it would be motivated in love.

 

       This brings me to my last point. I am happy that you called me out on my ‘love’ comment. I have no issue taking responsibility for the  lazy  construction of that sentence. The premise behind that assertion is resting firmly on a more specific definition or understanding of ‘love’.
       When I discipline my 8 year old son for wrapping his hands around his 6 year old brothers throat and chocking him, I am admittedly angry with him and not motivated by an emotional feeling of ‘love’. But, that anger is motivated from the guiding principle of love. While I would be feeling a number of emotions in the midst of this particular situation, love would be the defining rule that gives meaning and coherence to the actual discipline. Now, if this is the particular principle behind all the communication I have with my boys, which it is, then love would be the drive behind all that is said in my home. What was missing from my sentence in my previous post was a very simply word, ‘should.’  It’s precisely because of the inherent ‘should-ness’ that lives in all human beings that the categories of FairPlay are found in the youngest and the shortest versions of humans. We all inherently understand what ‘should’ be and what shouldn’t be. That is why lying is wrong, because you shouldn’t do it. Although communication may have hints and shades of many different emotions woven into their intent the driving principle behind communication ‘should’ be love. Anytime communication is used in a manner self-serving, vindictive, malicious, or coarse and crude we know instinctively that it shouldn’t be. So touché, and thanks for not letting me off the hook.
        It seems as if the nature of our discussion has taken a more serious turn as more and more information is betrayed by both sides. I hope I haven’t been too combative in my rebuttal, but if it has come off a bit more spunky… ‘you asked for it, you got it, Toyota!’

 

*The use of the caveman character was more a stylistic choice than an admission to their existence. I hold to a biblical view of creation, and believe the bible’s account in Genesis without reservation. I realize this makes me look like I have three heads, but from my perspective, if I look like I have three heads then I would hold that you’re more than likely drunk; focus on the ‘Shane’ in the middle.

 

♱Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:15 additional texts that deal with the same subject

 

✠great read BTW if you truly want a cogent description of Biblical Christianity, you know… for kicks.

 

‘So easy a caveman can do it’, or a response to j. mcdopout’s clarification

Image

       To say that my presupposition differs from yours slightly is a kin to the Titanic’s first mate informing Captain Smith, “a cold cup of water has just been spilled on the floor of the engine room,” after the hull had just been breached. To not address this matter at the outset would be indecisive on my part and lead to a situation not unlike your original objection to the presup apologist: veils, smoke, mirrors, and what not.  So, I’ll try to keep the nature of my critique rather elementary, hopefully not to the point of grunting and pointing, to ensure that my response isn’t clothed with obscure theological jargon. And, at the same time giving a fairly cogent and precise summation of my own view (which is the Orthodox Christian view).

       The reason a caveman (i enjoy that word immensely) could understand gesture in the cradle of our civilization is not found in ‘the frame work’ of a quantity of comparative analysis; meaning doesn’t gestate in the slow cooker or repetition. Meaning is born in one’s innate ability to discern quality in referential usage of image, gesture, and language.  If a particular gesture is to be associated with a particular referent, quantity of comparison doesn’t automatically equal coherence. Unless the ability to comprehend is your underlying presup.

       So we’re back at our initial outset. What gives humans the ability to be connoisseurs of meaning in world full of code and symbol, gesture or even heavy laden sighs?  The answer isn’t found in general theism any more than it is found in your ‘rational enterprise’, but something more specific: Trinitarian Theism.

       I don’t pretend to stick up for a vague notion of a ‘god’ anymore than I would pretend to enjoy my sister’s stuffing; I brought my own stuffing to thanksgiving last week, thank you very much! Her’s? Well, the kids like it.  I am a Trinitarian. That is at the bottom of my presup on this matter. Meaning, communication, and discernment are not by-products of creation like defecation is a by-product of digestion; is a by-product of eating; is a by-product of…
       Meaning, communication, discernment, and even love, are preexistent realities found in the very nature of God.  Scripture says that the Father loved the Son, even before the world was made, that they shared council with each other, that they designed a plan, and made commitments to each other, contracts if you will, prior to the existence of anything. Language wasn’t an after thought, it’s what God used to create us in the first place.

       ‘Let there be..’

       These words flew from the lips of the uncreated one, and what wasn’t then was, and was obedient to his authoritative Word.

       Definition wasn’t necessary to express the concepts of leaf, tree, fruit, disobedience, and death. Adam (our first caveman) knew and understood the plain ‘words’ of God from the out set.

       I assume that you would suggest that this proves too much. Why look into the matter at all if the answer is God made it that way? But, I would say that your thoughts on the matter don’t prove enough. I can expect, if I’ve done a decent job of expressing myself, to be understood. Why? because there is meaning that ties all the ‘atomic facts’ together; there is a thread that is sown into the fabric of all the constituent fabrics, there truly is unity in diversity. There is beauty in the expression of language; a longing that cannot be accounted for by other means. Communication is an act of love at its deepest root; I want to be understood and to understand someone else. This is a mirroring of divine communication from within the God-head. This gives a very simple answer to a more difficult question your view has no answer to, or should, if there is only a diversity of facts. Why are the parasitic forms of communication difficult to handle? Why is lying bad? If you’re right, then lying is nothing more than just another form of pointing your finger at a referent.

       Dave, the really big ugly cave man, has Steve, the not nearly as big a caveman, by the throat for whacking his lady love over the noggin. Steve gasps for air as he furiously points at Roger, the dimwitted caveman who is ignorant of the whole affair, as if to say,

       ‘He whacked your honey on the bonnet, NOT ME!’

       But alas, Dave hadn’t sufficient comparative analysis to comprehend ‘lie’. So, sorry Roger.

“I do the cha cha like a sissy girl. I lika do da cha cha…”

Image

Presuppositional Apologetics = meaning and rationality find their basis in the existence of God

j. mcdopout, an ably equipped anti-apologist, said in a recent post on the intra-web that,

   “all meaning… must be derived from use, not definition.  in this way, knowledge of the meaning of any word can be said to result from an internalized method of comparison and contrast, and with a little work, the methodology can be formalized and understood externally (or, at least, consciously) as well.

   gesture predates language, as the development of childhood language skills would suggest, but the meaning behind gesture is based entirely in comparison, using the commonalities between multiple objects or experiences gestured to, to determine the ‘intended’ meaning behind each gesture.  the meaning behind each gesture, taken by itself, would completely lose any temporal or spatial definition it once contained without a sufficient framework in which one could discern the movement from the stationary.

with this premise in place, the method for deriving meaning from words or actions may be said to be a rational enterprise, constantly drawing on the experiences accessible to us, and weighing this information against what is observed.

the subjective limitations of this method becomes obvious,  if the goal is an absolute knowledge regarding  the meaning intended.  certainty, in certain ways,  is not a feature comparative analysis is likely to provide us.  the relative nature of relationship and the limitations of our possible knowledge present obstacles to definitive, objective answers, but, as a method, i believe we can show at  least a rough conditional probability of meaning should be possible to ascertain.

this is nothing new to assert, but where does it  leave the inquirer when faced with nearly cartesian doubts regarding the possibility of deriving meaning from words in an absolute sense?

I like most of what this guy is saying. What I think is blue-green my wife asserts is green-blue. This is more than likely due to her earlier phase of human existence where gestures were used to signal for her drinky-drink. “You want your dolly?” “nooooooo!” (much stomping and writhing ensues) “You want your drinky-drink?” “Yeeaaaahhh!” (much laughter and dancing follows).

The part where his argument begins to unravel, as it relates to poking holes in the Presuppositional Apologetics boat, is found in the use of 2 words in the middle of the 3rd paragraph, ‘rational enterprise.’ This is an argument as old as greek lamb tacos. “Thales, can water think about water? Nope! Then you’re irrational.” The question Presuppositional Apologetics seeks to raise is this, ‘How is a rational enterprise possible without a transcendent source of rationality.’ To say rationality is, and just leave it at that, is resting your entire argument on popsicle sticks and elmer’s glue. Presup. Apologetics (that word is way to long to continue typing all the way out. I’m beginning to see why the antipathy to the concept) seeks to give an answer for the very issue that post-modern thinkers would very much like to avoid.

Meaning and certainty are difficult to transfer in language, I’ll grant you that, but it doesn’t follow from that that we can state with certainty that there is no absolute certainty. Just because we, as finite beings, can’t convey absolute truth absolutely doesn’t prove the non-existence of absolute truth any more than my inability to breath under water proves the non-existence of fish. Either meaning and rationality have a foundation in something that transcends the individual human intellect or all we’ve really accomplished is bicycle fart hehdyjk tuck ewwklal stew.

Atheistic Ministers of the Gospel?

image
   Is atheism good news? The government might think so. Recently in federal court the government weighed in with a 10 page document saying that the leaders of the atheistic movement might qualify as ‘ministers of the gospel’ and be eligible for the tax deductions set aside for the clergy’s housing allowance.
   I think it might be useful to understand what atheism seeks to accomplish, as a whole, before we try and wrap our brains around this little ditty.
   The eradication of organized religion has never been the goal of the Anti-theists. The advent of ‘pure’ science and naked reason came not as a natural progression, it was forced, like a chicken bone, down the throat of every Tom, Dick and Harry in all areas of civilization; now simply taken as a matter of fact; a societal presupposition (accepted and unchallenged truth). The systematic catechizing of our kids with fanciful tales of the cosmos’ origins, complete with big bangs, primordial goop and monkey’s uncles, in as early as 2nd and 3rd grade classes, is now an accepted part of everyday life.  And, once they were able to successfully impeach God for not being, and also being a big cosmic jerk at the same time, they never intended leaving the throne of the universe vacant. So, Bertrand Russell kicks Tom Huxley in the back of the feet and Dawkins hot-wires Hawkin’s wheel chair in the embittered ascent for the king of the hill. And then the new cosmic jerks proclaimed the good news of ‘their gospel’… the forgiveness of sins and the annihilation of shame, because there is no sin to be forgiven; and that guilt, you feel in your soul, that’s indigestion from reengineered wheat products, you know, the meat lovers pizza you had last night after 8pm. So what’s the solution for shame? Go gluten free? Vegan?
   Every religion seeks to deal with a few key elements from reality: Origins, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny.  And, the materialism of the Anti-Theist is firing on all cylinders here.

 -Origins? Big Bang  – check

 -Meaning? There is meaning for you, for you, but not for me, for you… This one is a bit confusing I confess but it nevertheless makes sense to me, for me.  -check

 -Morality? We should all be good to each other, for mutual self interest, until it’s not in my best interest and then I shall go all William Wallace on you.  -check

 -Destiny? Admittedly, we’re a little lite here… Check back in 30,000,000 years or so and we might be back from lunch on this one. For now: eat, drink, and make much merriment.

   The key issue that all religious practice seeks to address is the problem of guilt. What do you do with it? The official word from the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins is ‘There probably is no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life.’
Do whatever the hell you want because there is no hell… I’m paraphrasing, but you get the point. Guilt is essentially eliminated, and what about shame… don’t forget shame too. But, the anti-theists can’t seem to get their story straight.
   The recently converted Christopher Hitchens said in his book ‘Letters to a young Contrarian’,
   ‘You may if you wish take on a another man’s debt, or even to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you did not commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility. So the whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral’
   So, there is no absolution and we have real personal responsibility for the stupid things that we do; to even think of robbing a man of individual responsibility (viz. guilt) is ‘positively immoral’. So enjoy your life, but responsibly. Says who? And where do they get off saying it? If there is no God then I’m doing what ever I want to, and there is nothing you can do about it. I might start with reducing the size of chicken coops, and murdering buffalo with a high powered rifle from a helicopter, you know, just to get a taste for things before I step up to the really inconsequential stuff, like the whole sale slaughter of the unborn. What’s the big deal? There is probably no God, right? Whose to say that’s not a satisfactory way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
   So the Atheistic ‘minister of the gospel’ has really good news… you are responsible for your guilt. Wow! Awesome sauce!!! Makes you want to go do something really heinous, right?
   So, for all this prattling about they want to get the same tax benefits as actual ministers of ‘real’ good news. As well they should. They’ve worked really hard for it. What’s fair is fair… for you, for you, but not for me.

Attempted Grammatical Homicide: On the Current War with Words

image   I was struck last night by Rachel Maddow’s use of language, the piling on of adjectives to link bomb throwing extremist with everyone else who opposes abortion. Now before you start wondering why I was watching MSNBC in the first place, the more import question you should ask yourself is how I had the patience to not pull the hotel lobby TV down from the wall and throw it in the hot tub. But, one endures such things and we should all be thankful that hot tubs are mostly a safe place for now.
   The congealing compost pile of words she used in her frontal assault was contrasted with the compassionate and velvety words she used to describe the practices, doctors, and so-called health care professionals who perform these atrocities. Calling opponents ‘back woods’, (I’ve never knew it was possible to say the word ‘Mississippi’ with such scorn and derision) she didn’t neglect us to tell how she really felt. All this, and more, is just a small battle in the Great War of our time on God, the church, and the His Kingdom; it’s part of the greater plan the enemy has to discredit the church.
   But, before we throw our hats in with all the naysayers, here’s the good news mix with some sour medicine. The church cannot fall or fail in its purpose because God is the power that stands behind the Gospel, and it is God’s power that will conceive, deep in the womb of the world, a radical religious transformation. This will happen not by chipping away at the Rockies one sledge hammer swing at a time, but deep in the roots of the mountain, at the very foundations of the world, wells of joy will spring. God’s word cannot and will not return void. His breath breathes life into the nostrils of the church, and the church should be fulfilling its task of breathing life into the world.

   The enemy wages war, ‘words’ like fiery darts ceaselessly peel through the sky; they pile high. We are continually, round the clock, defined in someone else’s terms, and it is no accident… It’s intentional. These words are meant to make the church ineffective, to rob us of our soap box. This war waged with words is a mere trifle in the light of the Word of God, though. The abusive rhetoric, and the blasphemes that the church suffers and endures for the sake of their Christ is, in reality, less like wolves attacking sheep and more like an infestation of mosquitoes. We’ve given up our voice, abdicated our ambassadorship to the Political Parties, and in many ways stopped swatting the flies. Who’s fault is it that we are covered in welts and open sores? Who’s responsibility was it to keep the citronella candle lit? Didn’t you pack the bug spray honey?  The result is we need new life breathed into the church; we’re stinking like Lazarus. The good news is that we are good friends with the Savior and he likes coming over to our house. But, in his providence he’s delayed the trip to come see us; ensuring we really stink in the grave before he calls out our name. So, even our sin will ultimately lead to his glory. So, I guess we have no real responsibility to speak up and call spades spades? To fight this war do words with his Word? Silly silly, tsk-tsk.

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are Ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
-1 Corinthians 5:19-20
You are meant to be Moses’ stick that God used to show his wonders, you are to be the bread that was broken and feed to the 5,000, you should be the colt the master rides into Jerusalem. Humble yourself and realize you were meant to play the ass in this grand production, this story you’re involved in isn’t your story, it’s His. So stick to his script, deliver his message faithfully, speak his words not your opinions, and act as one who works to make his master pleased. His breath not only brings life but it kills the enemy too (2 Thessalonians 2:8). For those of you worried about contextualization; giving the post-moderns and millennials the proper categories to understand 2,000 year old nomadic analogies, here’s your context, ‘Normandy Invasion’, and you just lost half of your face because you were trying to load the bible app on your iPad. GOD is the power standing behind the gospel, deliver his words, present his Christ, don’t be ashamed of what anyone will say, swat those flies, then watch God move mountains from the roots and the foundations of all reality.

Cubs Commit Harry Caray

So, I am no longer a Cubs fan. This has little to do with the disappointing record they have maintained during my lifetime, or their underdog-ness. Yesterday they posted this promotion on their facebook page:Stand up against bullying and stick up for LGBT youth by going purple for spirit day 10/17. Go purple nowNow on the surface this looks very admirable, affirming and loving. This would be true if they used words and terms in the way normal people use words and terms. Nobody in there right mind would advocate singling out an individual and robbing them of their dignity: this would be disgusting and cowardly. However, when bullying is meant to include the religious expressions of both marriage and traditional gender roles i.e. Dan Cathy’s affirmation of the biblical definition of marriage which caused the outcry ‘tastes like hate’, and Louie Giglio‘s expression of the orthodox Christian view of ‘homosexual expression as sin’, bullying takes on a much broader definition, a definition that has been pushed by the LBGT community. Ultimately, they are rebelling against the bad news of the gospel; that all sin is worthy of death and the fires of hell forever. This includes perverse sexual expression in all it’s forms, but it has never been limited to that. Husbands who hide money from their wives, children who lie to their parents, employees who steal from their employers, students who fail to apply themselves and cheat, the malicious neighbor who spreads lies, the drunk old man who gets fresh with kids in the neighborhood, and the randy house wife who’s hooked on vampires all sin and they are falling so far from the line of perfection that God requires that they’re in desperate need of protection from the wrath of God that will fall against all the wickedness and unrighteousness of humanity. This is a kick in the chest because everyone who breaths stands under the judgment of God. Without the bad news there is no way to effectively share the remedy; Christ became sin (my sin) who knew no sin (he was absolutely perfect) so that we might become the very righteousness of God (we get the perfection of Christ counted to us and we are included in the perfect love the Father and the Son have for each other)

This is unbelievably good news for the whole world, and it is so far on the other side of the universe from bullying it’s almost laughable.

So my Cubs hat, that I spent $30 on, is at the bottom of a construction dumpster at the outlet mall in Hagerstown, MD if anyone cares to retrieve it.