American Vice: Mapping the Seven Deadly Sins

A study from Kansas State University:GREED-- Average income compared with number of people living below the poverty line.

ENVY-- Total thefts (robbery, burglary, larceny, and grand theft auto) per capita.

WRATH-- Number of violent crimes (murder, assault, and rape) per capita.

SLOTH-- Expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared with employment.

GLUTTONY-- Number of fast-food restaurants per capita.

LUST-- Number of STD cases reported per capita.

PRIDE-- Aggregate of the other six offenses—because pride is the root of all sin.

---

Comments on the above are welcome

+ + + + + + +

HT: Dave Black

Reflections on Revelation #1: Reading in Context

Yesterday I began teaching a Sunday school class on the Book of Revelation. Over the next weeks I will be posting some reflections on portions of our class discussions.

One of the things we talked about yesterday is the importance of reading texts in their context. Now, this might seem like an obvious observation, but it not at all clear when it concerns the last book of the Bible. In fact, popular interpretation of Revelation in the United States basically rejects the significance of the context in which the book was written and instead preferences the current context of the twenty-first century. So, instead of asking what the various visions and symbols might have meant to the first hearers, people today ask what the visions and symbols reveal about the divine unfolding of current events. It is the present world that determines the meaning of the passage, not the world in which the passage was written.

It is this greatly flawed hermeneutical approach that has made the Book of Revelation one of the most misused and abused books of the New Testament. While the document is definitely a word from the Lord to us today, that word cannot be understood if it is separated from the word it was to the original audience. Moreover, when we approach Revelation as a way to map the present and the future in reference to what visions refer to contemporary events, we miss the message that the book has for Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century. In other words, the eschatological weather forecasting approach to the Book of Revelation is a misreading of the document that hinders the church from understanding the powerful message that emerges from between its pages to us today.

More to follow... stay tuned...

Opinion Central Poll 2009.40: Final Results

Did you watch the president's address to Congress on health care?

A Prayer for the Fifth Sunday in Kingdomtide

Father, we are your people, chosen by you. As we meet together in worship, help us to listen, to understand and to remember. Make us aware that we are meeting not simply with one another, but with you. Let your presence be real to each of us. As we pray, may it be just like speaking with you. As we listen, help us so concentrate, so that we really hear your word, and help us to take in and retain all that we hear in this place, see and experience this day. Hear our confessions of those things we have done. Hear our confessions of those things which we ought not to have done. Now hear our confessions of what we could or should have done in a different way to better reflect who you are in us. Hear now our praise and thanksgivings for your blessings and unearned grace give to us. It is in the name of Jesus, your beloved Son, that we pray. Amen.

God Will Provide

A young woman brought her fiance home to meet her parents.After dinner, her mother told her father to find out about the young man.

The father invited the fiance to his study for a talk.

"So what are your plans?" the father asked the young man.

"I am a biblical scholar," he replied.

"A Biblical scholar... Hmmm," the father said. "Admirable,but what will you do to provide a nice house for my daughter to live in?"

"I will study," the young man replied, "and God will provide for us."

"And how will you buy her a beautiful engagement ring,such as she deserves?" asked the father.

"I will concentrate on my studies," the young man replied,"God will provide for us."

"And children?" asked the father. "How will you support children?"

"Don't worry, sir, God will provide," replied the fiance.

The conversation proceeded like this, and each time the father questioned, the young idealist insisted that God

would provide.

Later, the mother asked, "How did it go, Honey?"

The father answered, "He has no job and no plans, and he thinks I'm God."

Political Visions and Illusions: Preface

Every Friday for the next several weeks, I am going to post on David Koyzis' book, Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey of Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies. It is not a new book (published in 2003), but I have been reading it once again as I work on a manuscript for Energion Publications entitled, The Politics of Witness: The Character of the Church in the World.

Koyzis' book is quite fascinating and thought provoking. After laying out the issues and definitions, each chapter is devoted to five major political ideologies-- liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, democracy, and socialism. Near the end of his book Koyzis will explore the possibility of, what he calls, "transcending the ideologies."

In the Preface of the book, Koyzis puts forward one critical claim that he will attempt to substantiate in its pages. The main thesis of the book is that all political ideologies, for all their conflicts with each other, are a "subspecies" of the larger concept of idolatry. In what way are these ideologies idolatrous? Koyzis writes, "By failing to distinguish creational structure from spiritual direction, the followers of these ideologies tend to assume that salvation is to be found in freeing humanity from some facet of God's creation and in putting one's ultimate trust in some other facet" (p. 9).

What makes Koyzis' thesis so intriguing as that the Christian proponents of these ideologies tend to point out the idolatries of the others while exempting or minimizing the idolatrous aspects of their own. Koyzis is asking us to consider that all ideologies are in fact the birth-children of their mother named "Idolatry" which, among other things "has distorting effects on our life in this world" (p. 9).

Koyzis will make the case for the ideology/idolatry connection in Chapter One: "Introduction: Ideology, Religion and Idolatry." We will have at his argument in more detail next Friday.

Are We Being Too Clever By Half?

Tuesday's online edition of USA Today carried a story that finds the number of people who do not identify themselves with a religion is on the rise. The study, released by Trinity College, revealed that 22% of adults 18-29 hold to no particular religious group, which comes to 15% of all adults. If the projections are sound that percentage will increase to 20% in twenty years.

None of this is really a surprise, what I did find quite interesting, however, is the makeup of the "Nones." Researcher Barry Kosmin states, "There are so many misconceptions about who the Nones are. They're not New Age searchers or spiritual or even hardened atheists."

Kosmin continues: "They're a stew of agnostics, deists, and rationalists. They sound more like Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine. Their very interesting enlightenment approach is like the Founding Fathers kind: Skeptical about organized religion and clerics while still holding to an idea of God."

Ten years ago, my District Superintendent at the time asked me to go to different Church Conferences to give a PowerPoint presentation on generational differences and their implications for ministry. I had spent a great deal of time on the matter and felt that it was important to make the church folk sensitive to the truth that Millennials were not Boomers and Gen-Xers were not Builders. I still believe it is important that we recognize such differences, but the more I have continued to think about it over these ten years, the more I have come to believe that we have over analyzed and over interpreted those distinctives.

We are in a postmodern era. That may indeed be true, but that does not mean modernism is dead. In fact, if this survey published in USA Today is accurate, it demonstrates that it is far from a state of rigor mortis. There are still plenty of people in American culture who think about God and religion and faith in quite modern terms, including young so-called "postmoderns."

In reference to postmoderns we say that they like Jesus but not the church, when in my experience it is more true to say that they could care less about Jesus and think the church is simply irrelevant. Both claims are true because people are very different and their views on religion are different. I always chuckle to myself when someone says, "Well, Boomers believe morality is relative." I know Boomers who are clearly not moral relativists. Or, when someone states, "Gen-Xers insist upon transparency." I know Gen-Xers who hide a lot of things from themselves and others. I have also met Gen-Xers who I suspect have taken on all the general "characteristics" of their generation because they have read on how they are supposed to be. Moreover, how often the generational analysis is positive or negative depending on who is giving the analysis. The analyzers tend to highlight the positive qualities of their generation at the expense of the others. This lends veracity to what I have been saying for some time (tongue-in-cheek, of course, but with an obvious element of truth)-- Each generation believes that all of human history has been waiting centuries for their generation to be born in order to show everyone else how to live. Every generation before has fallen short and no generation after will measure up.

What all of this means for the church and its ministry, I am not sure. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should cease our analysis of generational differences, and what it means to be postmodern as opposed to modern. It is indeed helpful. What I am considering, however, is that in the midst of our analysis perhaps we have made too much of our ability to figure this all out and to peg the differing generational groups as "this" or "that." Perhaps while reading Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault, we should at the same time delve back into Locke, Descartes, and Paine.

Perhaps a little more humility in our analysis is appropriate as it seems to me that we are often guilty of being too clever by half.

Whatever Became of Sacrifice?

When I was young I remember my grandfather (when he was alive) and my grandmother telling me stories of how everyone in the United States sacrificed for the war effort during WW II-- enduring regular and scheduled blackouts, saving tin, and making do with what had been rationed. They felt it important to sacrifice for a cause greater than themselves and their daily routine.

I highlight those memories only to ask a question: What has happened to the notion of sacrifice in America? After 9/11, when the World Trade Center lay in ruins, then Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani told us that as a people, the best way to fight terrorism was to go to the movies, and then President George W. Bush motivated us to go shopping. The way to fight terrorism it seemed was through consumerism-- greed that would put Al Qaeda back on its heels.

In reference to the current health care debate, President Barack Obama is doing exactly the same thing. He keeps promising health care for everyone that will be better than what we have currently, that will not cut medical care, that will drive down costs, and that will not cost the average consumer a dime in new taxes; and it will not raise the already out-of-control deficit. Not only does no one who has seriously studied the issue believe this, but it is the same mantra we continue to hear from politicians in both parties-- we will give you everything and it will cost nothing-- except for the rich, of course, because we hate them.

I do not entirely blame former President Bush nor President Obama for this situation of non-sacrificial politics-- as voters we better be honest and admit that is exactly what we want to hear from candidates and elected officials-- we will give you everything and you do not need to sacrifice one little bit. If George Bush had told us that the war on terror would have required a severely restricted way of life, he would not have served a second term. If President Obama were to decide to tell us that we would have to do with less in order to give basic health care to everyone (however that is achieved), he would definitely not be re-elected in 2012.

This is not a post on President Bush's foreign policy, nor is it an evaluation of President Obama's domestic policy. It is a post on why sacrifice has become such a four-letter word in American culture, and it seems by extension, the church. The church argues over whether health care is a right or a commodity, when we should be asking what each congregation can do to help someone in need of health care. It is estimated that their are 450,000 church congregations in the United States. Is it not possible for each church to decide to cover the health care of just one family inside or outside the church? Would it solve the problems of all the uninsured in America? Clearly not! But we would be able to give almost a half a million people access to health insurance, and it could and likely would impact the very debate we are having in the United States. By our actions we would be saying to Washington DC, "You would be a better empire if you provided access to health care for your people."

But only the context of sacrifice would even consider such an idea. The fact that most churches, I dare say, have not even considered the possibility betrays the lack of sacrifice, the lack of interest in embodying the sacrificial love of Christ to the world. Don't get me wrong-- it is not that churches are not generous-- they are-- they are just not reflective of what it means to be generous in a sacrificial way-- in the way that reflects the cross of Jesus Christ to the world.

After 9/11 George Bush gave me no help in suggesting how I might sacrifice for those whose lives were changed forever. Since President Obama has been in office he has given me no counsel as to how I might sacrifice for someone else who has no medical insurance. The question I must face is why should I even expect that? I believe that George Bush and Barack Obama are decent men who want what is best for the country, but they are so helplessly stuck in the midst of the Principalities and Powers that rule this world, it makes it impossible for them to convey such prophetic truth. Only the preachers, the prophets who stand before their people every Sunday, are able to proclaim such commitment; and if they won't their laity will.

Let me be clear-- I support basic and affordable health care for everyone. I am skeptical of the "public option" only because I am doubtful that the government can pull it off competently, nothing more. But in the midst of the debate over how the Principality and Power called the United States can initiate health care reform, I believe that the church should be ahead of the game and work to cover as many people as it possibly can, and thereby demonstrate a powerful witness to others concerning what is possible. The church is a sleeping giant with resources available to it, both spiritual and physical, that can shake the very foundations of every civilization, but they are under-utilized because we continue to think the nation-state is where the real action is. We continue to believe that Caesar is more effective in accomplishing tasks than the people of God brought into existence by nothing less than the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And I believe that the only thing that keeps the church from this is the individual Christian addiction to two new cars in the garage with big payments, credit card debt, and over-priced vacations to Disney World-- in other words,-- our lack of commitment to the Kingdom of God.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Opinion Central Poll 2009.39: Final Results

Should the government of Scotland have released the Pan Am bomber?

The Jesus Paradigm

"Power has ruined America. Not only on the liberal left. Now it seems to have done the same for the religious right" (p.1) With these words, David Alan Black begins the first chapter of his latest book, The Jesus Paradigm. Black minces no words. The church's desire for power and influence has compromised the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Black not only sees this compromise for power in the church's involvement in American politics, but he sees it in the very way most churches structure and organize themselves. The church is not the serving church it should be because it is structured as a top down enterprise, completely unlike the upside-down kingdom that Jesus modeled for his disciples. The mission of the church is also compromised because its bureaucracies along with its bureaucrats get in the way. Black writes, "The fight of faith to which we are committed is not a battle against Christianity. It is a battle to free Christianity from the shackles of Christendom, to smash our idols, and to establish a church that is once again characterized by poverty of spirit" (p. 3).

Dave's answer to the problem of the church in America is what he calls the "Jesus Paradigm." "The expression alludes to the way Jesus concluded his earthly ministry... Whenever he [Jesus] speaks about being glorified-- being 'lifted up'-- he always refers to his death... Today Jesus is calling his followers to continue his mission of radical, sacrificial love in this world" (p. 7).

Black, whose ecclesiology is radically Anabaptist, criticizes most churches for their "clericalism," where the clergy are given special sacerdotal privileges. He believes the church has also been idolatrously focused on its physical structures instead of directing its resources toward mission, and he argues that the church in America is more interested in being accepted by the society and influential in Washington DC, than in fulfilling Jesus' direct command to make disciples.

There is so much that I like about Dave's book. Many times I was cheering on his call for Christians to embody the suffering love of Jesus, and at times I was squirming at the implications of taking his argument seriously. I must admit, as we all must admit, that there is an ingrained bourgeois element in Western Christianity that we like and do not want to throw away. We are like the rich young ruler who walks away from Jesus because he refuses to give up what is so dear to him, even though it stands in the way of his entering the Kingdom. One of the best sections of the entire book is entitled, "The FDR-ing of the Church" (p. 67-69), in which Dave suggests "American Christianity has so closely allied itself with the government of the day that the transcendent Gospel has become submerged in the world's values" (p 68).

I am a Wesleyan Methodist whose ecclesiology can best be described as a hybrid between Anglican and Anabaptist theology. There are times where those two compliment each other very well; there are other times when they struggle together in tension. I felt that tension as I read The Jesus Paradigm. I find much in Dave's book to be appealing, and though I am sympathetic, I am not completely with him on his ecclesiological bent. Let's just say that my Anglican/Methodism is rearing its ugly head.

It is not my purpose to engage in a detailed critique of Dave's ecclesiology, but just let offer two matters for consideration. Throughout the book, Dave uses the political/apolitical distinction. I fundamentally agree with what Dave means when he employs that dichotomy, but I do not care for the terminology of Jesus or the Kingdom of God being "apolitical." As I have recently said on this blog, it is not a matter of whether or not Christians are involved politically; it is a matter of how Christians are involved politically. Although Dave refers to being apolitical as not falling into the Christendom trap, I am concerned that most readers will instead hear that the church is politically irrelevant. Anyone reading The Jesus Paradigm should be clear that is not what Dave means, but sometimes people latch on to one term and interpret everything through the lens of how they understand that word. This is not a critique of the substance of Dave's argument because we fundamentally agree. It is a question verbiage.

Second, as a Methodist and a believer in infant baptism, I find Dave's argument against it as something in need of a response. Without getting into the biblical issues at this point, let me say that Dave is quite right to note that infant baptism has been used historically in the practice of statecraft (as one's initiation into state citizenship) in an unfortunate way, and that in more than a few quarters the practice has degenerated into a sentimental administering of a divine life insurance policy. But it is entirely possible to give a politically subversive account of infant baptism, in which the practice itself is a not-so-subtle claim directed to the state that it cannot have the total allegiance of our children. Moreover, some have made interesting attempts to highlight the moral implications of infant baptism with, for example, the rejection of abortion. What I am suggesting is that this issue is more complex, and the answer is found (in my view) not in the rejection of the practice, but in its reform.

If one is looking to read something that will simply affirm one's faith as it is, something that will not call one to self-examination and repentance, then this is a book that is best left on the shelf. But if one is serious about what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and if one wants to follow Jesus' example and if one is willing to engage a writer who will raise thought-provoking questions, then The Jesus Paradigm is a must read.

In the book, Dave offers this prayer, "Lord, make us saltier so that we might make others thirstier" (p.136).

Amen!

A Constantinian Bishop: St. Ambrose of Milan

In the anthology God, Truth, and Witness, church historian Robert Wilkens argues that Constantinianism was not a program engineered from the halls of power, but rather it was a grass roots movement from the people of the Roman Empire. In making his case, he gives an account of the episcopacy of Ambrose of Milan, who lived a generation after the death of Constantine I. He contrasts Ambrose's episcopacy with that of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who lived a century before Ambrose. As bishop Cyprian's dealings were exclusively with the church he over sought. The church in Carthage was "a city within a city-- whose life moved by its own rhythms independent of the society at large: regular worship, caring for the poor, widows, orphans, the sick; burying the dead; visiting prisoners; welcoming Christian visitors; the inevitable petty squabbles of a small community" (p. 76). Those involved in the political machine of Carthage knew Cyprian, but the only encounter he had with the authorities was when the emperor decreed that all Christians who refused to offer sacrifices to the gods were to be executed, bishops first.

In contrast, Ambrose found himself in a situation where bishops, to quote Harold Drake, "became players in the game of empire" (p. 73). In 300, the Emperor Maximian moved his imperial court to Milan. By the time of Ambrose Milan was an important imperial town, and after the emperor, Ambrose found himself "the most important public figure in the city. This was the new role for a Christian bishop" (p. 76).

Wilkens points out that Ambrose was quite supportive of the emperor, but he did not hesitate to oppose him in ecclesiastical matters that Ambrose believed were out of the jurisdiction of Caesar. At this point the bishops did not officially function as officers of the state. The empire had no say in the selection of those who served in the episcopacy; but as Wilkens notes, "the emperors did exercise control, and one of the central story lines of the fourth century is how Christian emperors-- beginning with Constantine, followed by his sons, who succeeded him in office-- were able, often with great success, to dominate the affairs of the church" (p. 80).

Nevertheless, Ambrose was able to navigate these potentially treacherous waters with courage and conviction. In 385, when Ambrose was told that he would have to give the Basilica of Portius (a church building just outside the walls of Milan) to the Arians, he refused saying, "A bishop cannot give up the temple of God" (p. 82). When the emperor insisted that the utilization of religious buildings were in the purview of the the imperial court, Ambrose responded, "If the emperor asked of me anything of my own, "my estates, my money, everything that is mine, I would not refuse him, but the things of God are not subject to the authority of the emperor" (p. 82). Even when Ambrose found the basilica surrounded by the military, Ambrose refused to hand over control of the basilica, "I cannot surrender the basilica, but I must not fight" (p. 82). The emperor relented. What must be noted, as Wilkens points out, is that it was not only Ambrose's courage that must be seen as critical in the resolution of the tension, but in the support that Ambrose had from the population of Milan. Things may have turned out differently had the people of the city not been supportive of the bishop, or at the very least, uninterested in the situation.

Perhaps the most interesting demonstration of Ambrose's episcopal courage was when the bishop insisted that the Emperor Theodosius do penance for a bloody massacre in the city of Thessalonica, insisting to the emperor that he would not receive the Eucharist until he did so. This act by Ambrose is clearly reminiscent of recent events in which some Catholic bishops have said the Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should not be served the mass. There is historical precedent for their words.

What intrigues me about Wilken's excellent account is two-fold: First, that the support Ambrose had among the people of Milan was clearly instrumental in the success he had in staring down the imperial authorities on several occasions. In one sense the population of Milan was acting subversively in their support of Ambrose over the emperor, but in another sense, in the short generation from Constantine to Theodosius, from the century between Cyprian and Ambrose, the Christian population of the Roman Empire had already shifted from just hoping the Empire would leave them alone, to supporting the Empire outright. A century earlier, Origen insisted that Christians refuse public office saying the way Christians served the public good was through prayer and a virtuous way of life. By the time of Ambrose, Christians were being thrust into public life in an official capacity; and Christians no longer prayed for the conversion of the emperor; they prayed for his health and success.

The second thing I find interesting is that Ambrose confronts the emperor, not on his own accord, but only in responding to actions first taken by the imperial court. Had the emperor not made some of the decisions he did that affected the church, Ambrose might have been content to serve as a bishop in Cyprian-like fashion, even though he still would have carried, by his office, public respect and authority. It is almost as if, while favored by the empire, Christians did not have, as yet, enough of a stake in the empire to initiate influence. That, of course, would change.

How Ambrose helps Christians navigate the world of Christendom in the twenty-first century, something of their own making, and something that has grown out of their control as well, is a good question. But like Ambrose we find that, after all these centuries, the church has to navigate between the waters of bearing witness to the gospel to the powers that be without being co-opted by the state for its own purposes.

Those waters, then and now, are quite treacherous.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

A Prayer for the Fourth Sunday in Kingdomtide

Thank you for your promises, Lord God, which clearly tell us that those who are faithful to your call will be given all the wisdom, knowledge and strength they need to accomplish what they are called to do. Turn our hearts away from our own selfish desires and re-focus your Body with a pure and holy motivation that helps them to see clearly. Protect your Body from the slings and arrows of Satan as he surely recognizes the emerging Body of Christ that will no longer be a sleeping lukewarm church, but will now become a "Force of God" that will not be defeated. Amen.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.25.204

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

IMPORTANT NOTE: There will be no MBWR next weekend. The Weekly Roundup will return the first weekend in October.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

Dave Nichols offers advice for when we are depressed.

Andrew Thompson is thinking about death.

John Montgomery posts on health care and in memory of Debbie Rickey.

Does God accidently call us? Bishop Robert Schnase reflects on the matter.

Bishop William Willimon writes on the church renewal as theological recovery.

When it comes to Massachusetts and the Senate, John Battern notes that if you don't like the rules, then change them.

Dave Camphouse on getting out of the way.

Dave Perry has received an award for best Christian blog. Congratulations Dave!

Sally Coleman posts ten things she believes.

Some thoughts on three levels of forgiveness from Shane Raynor.

Mark Winter is celebrating a Frost-y Jubilee.

Andy Bryan issues a follow up to the appeal.

Olive Morgan attended the hospital open day.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on 1 Kings 22:29-45, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:15, and Matthew 5:1-10.

You ever wonder who cuts the barber's hair? Read Tony Mitchell.

Kim Matthews writes on choosing joy.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on 2 Corinthians 8:7.

Steve Heyduck ponders growing up.

One word will indeed do-- Read Dorothy Brucks.

Matt Kelley has written an essay in a new book. Congratulations Matt!

Questing Parson narrates on believing again. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Did you know that the church is full of hypocrites? Ken Hagler knows and has something to say about it.

John Meunier share his thoughts on symphonic Scripture.

Lorna Koskela is re-prioritising-- Sounds like good advice for all of us.

Richard Heyduck writes a letter to a pilgrim.

Reflections from Daniel Hixon on a scientist's case for God.

Jay Voorhees wonders what's up in worship.

Ponderments on preaching from the pulpit from Joseph Yoo.

Is low church evangelicalism Protestant? Henry Neufeld asks the question.

Angela Shier-Jones has heard the sound of prayer.

Chris Roberts writes that the GBCS is at it again.

Near-miss evangelism according to Dan Dick. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Joseph Yoo reports that The Mission Society is celebrating twenty-five years.

Dave Warnock is drowning in excitement.

Bill McAllily ponders being centered in Christ.

Kevin Watson reminds us that one thing is needful.

Let's start singing! A tribute to Mary Travers by Rick Mang.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.20

NC doctor removes plastic fragment lodged in lung

By Barbara Rodriguez, Associated Press Writer

Thu Sep 17, 9:24 pm ET

RALEIGH, N.C. – Doctors say a North Carolina man who was plagued with coughing fits should be OK now that they have removed a 1-inch piece of plastic from his lung, where it had rested since he apparently inhaled it nearly two years ago while sucking down a soft drink at a Wendy's restaurant.

Doctors at Duke University Medical Center say the plastic fragment of an eating utensil — with the Wendy's logo still legible on the side — was likely to blame for the coughing, fatigue and pneumonia spells that plagued John Manley for almost two years.

They pulled the fast-food foreign object from Manley's left lung during a Sept. 10 surgery. The 50-year-old Wilmington resident said he probably inhaled it while gulping a drink from Wendy's.

"I like to take big gulps of drink," the former home remodeler said. "I don't know of any other ways of it getting in there."

Manley said he and his wife were puzzled by his bouts of illness after moving to the North Carolina coastal city from Queens, N.Y., about two years ago. He met with multiple doctors, who eventually determined there was a foreign object in his left lung. But they couldn't figure out what it was or the best way to remove it.

"One doctor said they could remove my lung," Manley said. "I said no way. That was the easiest way for them, and I said I didn't think so."

Manley's case eventually came to the attention of Dr. Momen Wahidi, director of interventional pulmonology at Duke. Wahidi, who mostly works with cancer patients to remove tumors from their lung airways, told Manley he would try extracting the object using a rigid bronchoscope. The procedure would allow Wahidi to insert a camera and other instruments to examine and remove the mystery object.

Wahidi said he still remembers his staff's amazement in the operating room when they pulled it out.

"We're looking at it and realizing that there are letters on it ... We started reading out loud, 'A-M-B-U-R-G-E-R,' and realized it spelled, 'hamburgers.'"

"Everybody was shocked. We had no clue why something that said, 'hamburgers' would be in someone's lung," he said.

They had read a side of the plastic that spelled Wendy's motto of "Old Fashioned Hamburgers."

Wahidi said foreign objects in the lungs are much more common in children, but he's extracted false teeth, nails, and even a peanut from adults who have held the items in their mouth and accidentally sucked them in. Patients often don't realize there's a problem until their bodies begin to react.

But Wahidi said the piece of plastic was a first.

"It's definitely one of the weirdest things I've removed in my career," he said.

Manley said he's unsure if he will contact officials from Wendy's, based in Dublin, Ohio. Wendy's spokesman Denny Lynch said he has never heard of a situation like this in his 29 years with the company. He said company officials would contact Manley at the appropriate time.

"We're as quizzed by the whole situation as everyone else is," he said. "This is quite a surprise that this could even happen."

Manley said there's a huge difference in his quality of life days after the surgery.

"I can breathe now," the father of three adult daughters said of his recovery. "I can get up and walk my dog. I couldn't do that before. I was pretty much house-ridden."

Wahidi said he will meet with Manley in a month for a checkup, but he expects a full recovery.

"The body has an amazing ability to heal," Wahidi said. "Now that the object is out, his body should be able to recover and his airways should be back to normal."

Justice and Fairness on God's Terms

Matthew 20:1-16

We want justice; we want fairness. When justice is not served and when fairness is not implemented, we feel that something is clearly amiss. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard is about justice and fairness, but on God's terms.

A landowner had a large vineyard and it was harvest time. He went out early in the morning to the marketplace to hire workers. The marketplace, which the Greeks and Romans called the "agora," was the center of activity from the smallest town to the largest city. The marketplace was where all kinds of things could be purchased, most importantly food, but clothing and other necessities of life and perhaps some luxuries were available as well. It was the place where the women would come early in the morning to draw water from the town well for the day's use; and as they filled their jars, they socialized. The men would gather at the agora to talk about the latest news, including politics. The marketplace was also the default employment agency. Laborers went to the marketplace to be hired and those needing laborers went to the agora to hire them.

The landowner of Jesus' parable goes to the marketplace at 6:00 a.m. The average workday in Jesus' world lasted from sunup to sundown. The landowner hires workers and in return for their labor he will pay them the usual daily wage, which was a small coin called a denarius. Most people in Jesus' day lived hand to mouth. In exchange for a day's work, they received basically what they and their families could live on for a day. So, after one day's work, if there was no work the next day, they went hungry. Sometimes someone was lucky enough to make a little more than a day's wage at a job, and if that worker was smart he would stash away the remainder for leaner times, but in general in Jesus' day there really was no middle class-- there were the few who had wealth, and everyone else who looked forward only to their daily bread.

The landowner discovers that he has not hired enough workers, so he returns to the marketplace at 9:00 a.m. and hires more workers telling them he will pay them "what is right." The landowners perhaps realizing that he has underestimated his bumper crop of grapes returns to the marketplace at noon and then again at 3:00. Finally at 5:00 p.m., one hour before quitting time, he comes upon men still at the agora waiting to be hired. He cannot understand how it is that they are still unemployed from the day's work. No one has hired them. Perhaps they were the kind of people no one wants to hire. Possible they are the kind of people we see wandering around the streets of our cities. The landowner hires them for one hour of work.

When quitting time arrives, so does payday. For some unknown reason the landowner wants the last workers to be paid first. When workers who worked only for one hour received a denarius, a daily wage, those who had worked all day assumed they were going make big bucks that day. If the landowner would pay them what is fair, he would give them twelve times the daily wage. Almost two weeks worth of wages for one day's work! Who would not be excited about that? But much to their shock, disappointment, and anger, they receive the very same wage as those who worked only one hour.

They appeal to the landowner and his sense of fairness. "How can you pay those of us who have labored and sweat in the sun all day the same wage that you paid those who worked only one hour?" Is there anyone who cannot understand the complaint? But the all day laborers were looking at justice and fairness only through lens of that they thought they were owed; they were not looking at what was fair for those one-hour laborers and their families.

The landowner reminds his tired and sweaty workers of two important things. The first is that they agreed to work for the usual daily wage; the landowner had done no wrong to them. He fulfilled the agreement they had made early in the day.

Many years ago, I knew a young man who justified stealing from his employer because the company didn't pay him what he thought was fair. In the midst of conversation about it, I asked him if he agreed to the wage he was being paid. He answered affirmatively. I responded that he had accepted what was offered and there was no justification for stealing as a way to make up what he thought he deserved. If he wanted a pay raise, he needed to approach his employer.

We human beings can rationalize all kinds of bad behavior when we have not received what we think we deserve. We agree to something, but think we should get more, so we take more when we can get it using the stinginess of others as an excuse. The landowner was making good on his agreement with his all day laborers. They had nothing to complain about.

Secondly, the landowner reminds the workers that what he has to give is his and if he chooses to be generous with his one hour workers, that was is his prerogative. The all day laborers were so self-focused on what they thought they deserved, they could not see that the landowner was being generous to those who worked late because they too needed to support their families. It was not as if these last workers wandered into the marketplace late. They had been there all day waiting to be hired. Their children were not going to be any less hungry than the guys who worked from sunup to sundown. What good would one twelfth of a day's wage do for a man with a family to feed? The landowner did not cheat the all day laborers, he showed his generosity to those who came late.

Some folks spend too much time being worried about what everyone else has. They are more worried about what their co-workers are being paid than whether or not they are working hard. They are more interested in all the things the neighbor has that they don't instead of being grateful for the blessings they have received. Persons who have a "me first" mentality lack gratitude because they are focused only on themselves whining about being treated unfairly, instead of looking to others who have needs as well.

G.C. Chesterton stated, "Gratitude is the mother of all virtues." Instead of wanting birthday presents every year, Chesterton said that all human beings ought to thankful for the one, great birthday present of being born. An attitude of gratitude in those all day workers would have elicited thankfulness that they earned money to feed their families for one more day, and that all the workers in the vineyard could go home that day and provide daily bread for their families.

Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven reflect the attitude of gratitude because they know that what they have receive from God is purely by grace; therefore they are not envious when God shows that same grace to others.

Are we genuinely concerned that others receive what is fair for them and what is truly just for them; or do we only compare their fairness and their justice with what we think we are owed. If we do the latter, not only will we walk through life feeling like we have been treated unfairly, but we will not be able to rejoice in the gifts that those around us receive.

That is not the way of God’s Kingdom citizens.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.38: Final Results

Did you watch the funeral for Senator Ted Kennedy?

On Why The Church in America Cannot Speak Truth to Power

There are many political catch-phrases that have become useless in modern politics-- phrases like "the politics of fear," "the politicizing of whatever," "the culture of corruption." But perhaps the most useless political phrase of all is the high-sounding but irrelevant phraseology of "speaking truth to power."

Many years ago, philosopher Alasdair McIntyre wrote the wonderful book, Whose Justice, Which Rationality, in which he argued that all conceptions of justice and rationality presuppose a tradition that give them definition. Likewise, the notions of "truth" and "power" are not universal terms which everyone understands; rather they too presuppose a tradition, a context, a narrative, that make them intelligible.

So, why is it that the church in America today cannot speak truth to power? The reasons are two-fold: First, the vast majority of Christians in America have accepted the Constantinian notion that the primary political task of the church is to rule, to be in charge. What that means at the very least is that Christians are to play a prophetic role in the political court of Washington DC. Second, it means that most Christians have accepted the modern dichotomies of left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican.

In accepting these two "truths" the problem becomes clear. As Christians, instead of identifying ourselves as primarily kingdom citizens, we see ourselves first and foremost as Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals. The Sermon on the Mount gets eclipsed by the political platforms of the DNC and the RNC. We like to say that we transcend such earthly contrived political conventions, but we can point to very little evidence to show that this is indeed the case. James Dobson is clearly a conservative Republican and Jim Wallis is obviously a liberal Democrat. The only truth they speak to power is their own Republican or Democratic truth to the power of the other party. The criticism of their own is basically absent or woefully inadequate at best. It appears that both men desire to play the role of Nathan in David's court, but they find they only have influence in that court when "David" is part of their own party; and then their prophetic denunciations are reserved only for the opposition outside the court and not those who are in power. They have very little of a prophetic nature to say to the king from their own party whom they serve. In other words, the church cannot speak truth to power because the church itself is up to its armpits in power and, therefore, has a stake in such power.

In cosying up to the principalities and powers, Christians on the left and the right have chosen the politics of power over the politics of witness; indeed, they cannot even imagine, in spite of what they say, what the politics of the Kingdom of God might look like apart from the politics of left and right. Take the recent health care debate as an example-- Christians on the left argue that health care is a right and Christians on the right proffer that health care is a commodity-- and neither side bothers to consider the possibility that both "rights" and "commodities" are notions not found in Scripture and that both concepts are theologically problematic.

In accepting the above named two-fold presuppositions, Christians speak the same language as everyone else thus making it far from clear why Christianity even matters in the public sphere. And suggesting that what makes an argument Christian is that is shows concern for the poor and the outcast does not make an argument specifically Christian. For Christians to be concerned for the poor, the outcasts, and those on the fringes of society is a given. The problem is that it is not always clear how Christians should care for such persons. Christians are oriented in theology and ethics not in their concern for the poor, but in how the world has now been changed and redefined in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And therein is the heart of the problem. That most Christians in America believe that the church's primary role is to affect policy in Washington DC betrays the mistaken belief that the primary political action in this world is to be found in the White House and on Capitol Hill, when the New Testament clearly indicates that the primary agency of politics is located in nothing less than the community of faith known as the church. In order for the church to speak truth to power it must recover its unique polity apart from the earthly polity known as the nation state; for it is God and not the nations who rules the world.

My great concern is that when Christians in America want to play the role of prophet in Pharaoh's court, they end up looking, not like the wise sage, but the court jester that gets used by the king for his or her own comical and unsavory purposes.

The people of God have been co-opted; it is time for the church to recover the politics of witness.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

What's your Obsession?

Ob-ses-sion: the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.

What's your obsession? We all have one. We are told that obsessions are bad; that we need to be well-rounded people, that is, we need to live life in a balanced way. (Actually I always wanted to be one of those pointy conehead people on SNL, but that's another post for another time.) Now I am all for balance in life depending on how it is defined, but when I read the New Testament, I have trouble finding balance being commended in its pages. Instead I read statements like:

Jesus said, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." -Matthew 12:30

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." -Matthew 16:24

At that very time there were some present who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did." -Luke 13:1-5

Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. -Philippians 2:7-11

These are not exactly instructions to live a well-rounded life as far as our commitments. Actually, it sounds more like obsession.

Most people are actually obsessed with something. Some are obsessed with making money, other are obsessed with a hobby or two, and still others are obsessed with not being obsessed about anything important; those last persons are obsessed with living a non-productive life sitting on the couch and watching old reruns. I know some persons who obsess over the weekend. Monday through Friday are days of purgatory that will give way to the party that begins on Friday night. There are others who are so obsessed with sports that they will take off their shirts, paint their chests with their team colors, and sit in a football stadium in below freezing temperatures. "Fan" is short for "fanatic."

Much has been and is being made over the decline of the church in the West. Any pastor looking for a book on congregational redevelopment and growth will find more information than she or he can possibly assimilate. We read about techniques and strategies and how to understand generational differences in order to reach, in particular the young folks (which I am coming to see as being greatly overblown). I am sure these things have their place, but what is really missing in all of this is the church's lack of obsession with the Great Commission Jesus has given to his people (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus says to seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. Too many folks in the pews are not obsessed with the Great Commission because too many pastors are not so obsessed and they fail to pass that obsession on to their flock; and too many seminary professors are not obsessed with Jesus' last earthly charge to his disciples, and they pass their lack of obsession on to the pastors they train.

When I stand before God and give an accounting of my obsession in life, I hope I will have more to show for myself than my golf game (Actually, if you have ever watched me play golf, you will know that I definitely have no obsession in that respect!), I hope I will be able to say that my life in all of its aspects was about giving serious heed to the words of our Lord-- "Go and make disciples of all nations."

So... what's your obsession?

The World According to Calvin and Hobbes 2009.6

Click on the image to enlarge.

A Prayer for the Third Sunday in Kingdomtide

All-powerful and ever-living God splendor of true light, and never-ending day let the radiance of your coming banish from our minds the darkness of sin. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. Amen.

The Liturgy of the Hours

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.24.203

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere!

Dale Tedder offers a devotion on trusting, working, and becoming.

Joseph Slife writes on a Faith in Action article in which the author states that a sexual relationship outside of marriage can be moral.

Bishop Robert Schnase reflects on words and the Word.

Don't waste a good crisis, according to Dave Nichols.

Andrew Thompson posts his thoughts on a pro-vita faith and the response of grace. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Health care, the preacher, and the stessed-out reporter-- a Trinitarian meshing of events from John Carney.

When it comes to sexuality, says John Montgomery, It's complicated.

Dan Dick comments on the limits of memory.

PamBG is a legal alien.

Chris Roberts shares some thoughts about his papaw.

Cogitations on Incarnational pastoral care from Angela Shier-Jones.

Henry Neufeld reflects on the problem with revenge.

It's a Sunday in Texas with Joseph Yoo.

Jay Voorhees writes on the Nashville Book Fail.

Is health care a right? Daniel Hixon asks the question?

Richard Heyduck posts on success in ministry.

Lorna Koskela reviews the book, Finding Organic Church by Frank Viola.

Is your church a Ben Roethlisberger church? John Meunier wants to know.

Ken Hagler posts confessions of a Sunday School dropout.

"Words"-- a sermon on James 3 from Jim Parsons.

Jeremy Smith ponders infinite loops, Nintendo, and human depravity.

Question Parson narrates on the occasional isolation in ministry.

Matt Kelley offers a perspective on the health care debate from someone who knows.

Deb Spaulding will be taking medical leave from work, school, and from blogging. Please remember her in your prayers.

Gerry Charlotte Phelps will be having knee replacement surgery and may not be posting for a while. Please remember her in prayer as well.

Reflections on 9/11 eight years ago from Steve Heyduck.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Ecclesiastes 1:2.

Kim Matthews writes on telling the truth.

"The Order of Things"-- a sermon by Tony Mitchell.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on 1 Kings 18:1-19, Philippians 2:12-30, and Matthew 2:13-23.

Olive Morgan invites us to join the dance.

Andy Bryan issues an appeal to the church for our troubled times.

"Who is my Neighbor? Health Care in America"-- a sermon by Ken Carter.

Shane Raynor writes on the Bohler Principle.

Beth Quick preaches on being opened.

God's calling-- some considerations from Mark Winter.

Michael Daniel asks, "What say you, Mr. President?"

What is a missional hermeneutic? Read Brian Russell.

Sally Coleman on making promises... in the morning.

Life is teeming with meaning for Dave Perry.

"The Identity of Jesus and His disciples"-- a sermon by Dave Faulkner.

Scott McKay posts a poem for Labor Day.

Gavin Richardson on "What's in a history?" or "Transgendered Pastor Comes Out to Congregation."

Ponderments from Dave Camphouse on the vitality of the local church.

Brian Vinson reflects on the seasons of life.

Sky McCracken writes on the United Methodist Church and dividing by zero. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

John Battern says that with 33 pages of statements on social issues, the UM Social Priniciples offer more choices than a Las Vegas all-you-can-eat buffet.

Where Were You Eight Years Ago Today?

I was in the church office working when the secretary, who had the radio on, told me that a small plane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. A few minutes later it was clear that it was more devastating than that. I rushed home to see what was happening on the television.

Where were you eight years ago today? Please feel free to post a comment.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.37: Final Results

Which of the following would you choose for dessert?

Bible Translation Fundamentalism

Some are getting rather worked up one way or another over the decision to discontinue the publication of the TNIV Bible. Scot McKnight has some great thoughts on "translation tribalism" (parts 1 & 2). In one respect I suppose all the emotion is understandable; we are after all talking about the Bible and people want to read a translation they can trust, but, as Scot notes, we tend to divide up into camps and each camp over-states why translations other than their favorites are deficient.

As I traverse the worlds of scholarship and pastoral ministry, I have a dual concern when it comes to Bible translations and reading the Bible in general. As one who works in the biblical languages, I have a concern that Bible study is based on competent versions of the Bible. To say that a Bible is a version or a translation-- and there is a difference; a version is always a translation but a translation is not necessarily a version-- is to affirm that it is rendered from the biblical languages, but translators also have other things in mind as well. What is the reading level being targeted in the translation? Is the translation formally equivalent (word for word, phrase for phrase)? or dynamically equivalent (word or phrase to concept)? What is the theological bent of the translators? (It can in places make a difference.)

One of the things I do with my seminary students and with my parishioners in Bible study is to talk about versions and translations and detail the similarities and the differences between the NRSV or the NIV, for example. I encourage them to use a version for serious Bible study; and I inform them of my preferences and why, but I do not insist that one version is superior to another.

As a pastor I have another concern-- I just want people to read the Bible. I may cringe inside when I see a parishioner bring a paraphrase into Sunday School class, but I have known more than a few parishioners in churches I have served over the years, who began reading the Bible after they purchased or received a paraphrase as a gift. While, at some point, I want them to move into reading a version, I am not about to put a damper on their new-found excitement in reading God's Word now that they have a Bible they can understand. I know some pastors who are NRSV or NIV or KJV fundamentalists. No one in their churches would dare bring anything into a Bible study that is other than what the pastor insists is the only acceptable Bible. And those who are not so crassly honest about it find subtler ways to dig at parishioners who are reading a Bible other than what they have come to deem as the best in the English language.

One more thing-- pastors and scholars can tend to forget that in every church there are adults who have very different levels of reading comprehension. One size does not fit all. Some adults may find the NRSV difficult to get through, but can comprehend TEV more easily. That alone is reason enough to cast off our translation fundamentalism.

I am thankful for the excellent scholars who have given us some wonderful versions and translations of the Bible. At the same time, I just want people to read the Bible. I might prefer someone read the NRSV, but if she or he has connected to the biblical world and deepened their relationship with Jesus Christ in reading The Message, I am not about to discourage them.

President Obama Is Addressing Our Children Today

Today President Obama has a message for our school children. Many school systems will carry his message, others will not. I have no problem whatsoever with the President of the United States speaking with our children and I will explain why; but first, some prior thoughts.

First, the hoopla over the President speaking to the nation's school children is just one more example of what I keep harping on time and time again-- the rank hypocrisy of the political right and the political left. When President George H.W. Bush addressed school children in 1991, the left was in a tizzy over his supposed attempt at the "brainwashing" of America's youngest. The right thought the left was being paranoid. So, here we are in September of 2009 and the roles are reversed although the script is the same.

Second, the political right needs to mellow out. The president is not going to corrupt their kids. My guess is that whatever the president says will be quite benign politically; and if something is uttered parents disagree with, so what? They are the parents-- have a discussion with your kids when they get home. In our house we talk politics all the time. If the President says something I take exception to, we will talk about it as a family. Those parents in a snit over this need to do their job as parents and see this as one more opportunity to raise their children to be serious thinkers.

Third, the political left needs to relax. They forget that they have gotten all bent out of shape in the past when they think a Republican President is going to corrupt America's youth. They need to understand that the Obama White House partially created the problem, not with the speech, but the follow up curriculum in which one of the questions to the children was, "How can you help President Obama?" One of my concerns about this Administration is their continual minor league approach to the major league of politics. The Obama White House has many young and bright personnel with great futures ahead of them, but who lack gravitas. What is needed is someone who can be the sage who understands not only how to do things, but how things might be received and understood. In other words, someone is needed who is not so starry-eyed in looking at the President that she or he can give the kind of wise counsel that, at times, seems to be missing. In addition, the fact that the White House said it would release the transcript of the speech only after the controversy erupted is further proof that this Administration lacks experience. They should have anticipated the potential problem and announced its release when it was revealed that the President was speaking to America's school children. That would have diffused much of the fireworks.

Finally, and to the point, the President has an opportunity to inspire a young generation of children. If his message is about hard work and staying in school, who would oppose that? And to have, for the first time in history, an African American President who can inspire African American children is to have an opportunity that should not be missed. Regardless of what one thinks of his politics, Barack Obama is a role model that is badly needed, and he can inspire children who think they are in hopeless situations.

I look forward to having a good discussion on the President's words with my sons when they get home from school today. And, frankly, when it comes to the analysis of the pundits, I could care less what Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck think about the President's address.

I only listen to serious thinkers.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

.

Update: I have read the President's speech. There is no reason that our children should be shielded from his comments.

The History of Labor Day, et al

What It Means to Be Chosen

Today's audio sermon from 1 Peter 2:1-10

A Prayer for the Second Sunday in Kingdomtide

Blessed be the works of your hands,
O Holy One.
Blessed be these hands that have touched life.
Blessed be these hands that have nurtured creativity.
Blessed be these hands that have held pain.
Blessed be these hands that have embraced with passion.
Blessed be these hands that have tended gardens.
Blessed be these hands that have closed in anger.
Blessed be these hands that have planted new seeds.
Blessed be these hands that have harvested ripe fields.
Blessed be these hands that have cleaned, washed, mopped, scrubbed.
Blessed be these hands that have become knotty with age.
Blessed be these hands that are wrinkled and scarred from doing justice.
Blessed be these hands that have reached out and been received.
Blessed be these hands that hold the promise of the future.
Blessed be the works of your hands.
O Holy One.

Prayer in America

No MBWR This Labor Day Weekend

There will be no MBWR this weekend. My usually hectic week was more than hectic and it has not let up. I suppose this is a laboring weekend for me.

The Weekly Roundup will return next weekend.

The Reformation Polka

HT: Andrew Hamilton

Opinion Central Poll 2009.36: Final Results

Would you care if someone forwarded one of your emails to the White House without your permission?

A Must See Interview with Scot McKnight

It has been more than a hectic week for me, so I have not been able to post anything of some substance, but here is a two-part interview with Scot McKnight you need to see. He is the editor of my monograph on Colossians for the series Recent Research in Biblical Studies.

In any case, Scot is much smarter than I am. It is worth your time.

The Quotable Jonathan Edwards

"I make it my rule to lay hold of light and embrace it, wherever I see it, though held forth by a child or an enemy."

"I am fitted for no other business but study."

"Resolved, to study the Scriptures so steadily and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in knowledge of the same."

"Such little things as Christians commonly do, will not evince much increase in grace. We must do great things for God."

"Being sensible that I am to do anything without God's help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ's sake."

"The mind having a sensibleness of the excellency of divine objects, dwells upon them with delight; and the powers of the soul are more awakened and enlivened to employ themselves in the contemplation of them, and exert themselves more fully and much more to the purpose."

"All gracious affections are broken-hearted affections."

"Holiness is the most beautiful, lovely thing."

"Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general, Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever."

"Thus love would dispose to all duties, both toward God and toward man."

"May God bless you with a faithful pastor, one that is well acquainted with his mind and will, thoroughly warning sinners, wisely and skillfully searching professors, and conducting you in the way to eternal blessedness."

"Christ, as he is a divine person, is the Lord of heaven and earth, and so one of infinite dignity, to whom our supreme respect is due; and on that account he is infinitely worthy that we should regard, not only his precepts, but example. The infinite honorableness of his person recommends his virtues, and a conformity to them as our greatest dignity and honor."

"Almost all the prosperity of a public society and civil community does, under God, depend on their rulers."

"They [ministers] should imitate the faithfulness of Christ in his ministry; in speaking whatsoever God had commanded him, and declaring the whole counsel of God."

"Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church, consecrated to Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rules."

"It is manifest, that the Scriptures speak, on all occasions, as though God made himself his end in all his works; and as though the same Being, who is the first cause of all things, were the supreme and last end of all things."

"Procure and diligently use other books which may help you to grow in this knowledge. There are many excellent books extant, which might greatly forward you in this knowledge, and afford you a very profitable and pleasant entertainment in your leisure hours."