Opinion Central Poll 2010.3: Final Results

Does God determine every event in life?

A Passage of Scripture Not Meant for Weddings Only

Today's audio sermon from 1 Corinthians 12:27-13:13.

No MBWR Again This Weekend

There is just no time. I plan to post the Weekly Roundup next Saturday.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2010.3

Man torches car battling frost

Wed Jan 27, 2:40 pm ET

BERLIN (Reuters) – A 76-year-old German man trying to thaw out his car incinerated it instead when he decided to speed things up by putting a blow heater under the hood.

"He burned the vehicle out completely," said a spokesman for police in the western city of Hildesheim. Police said the man left the heater on next to the frozen windshield washer tank and returned indoors. Shortly afterwards he heard two explosions and returned to find the car ablaze.

He alerted fire services, who arrived in time to prevent the flames from destroying his house. Including charring of the building, total damages were estimated at 40,000 euros ($56,240).

(Reporting by Dave Graham; Editing by Steve Addison)

Opinion Central Poll 2010.2: Final Results

Now that the holidays are over, have you started making plans for summer vacation?

What Gives You Joy? What Is Your Character?

When my children were young I loved taking them fishing. I would bait their hooks and I would take the fish off their hooks. When they got their line tangled in the bushes or in the branch of a tree, I would untangle it for them. They caught most of the fish because I was so busy attending to them that I hardly had time to put my own line in the water. And yet, I enjoyed every minute of it. I experienced more joy in watching them catch fish, than in catching fish myself. I received more joy in watching them eat their catch (which I had cleaned), than in eating it myself. I suppose in fishing with my children, I experienced some vicarious moments.

What gives us joy? When a co-worker gets a promotion are we truly happy for her or are we envious that we didn't get what she received? When a friend finds his dream job, are we truly thrilled for him or are we jealous that our dream employment has never come to fruition? When we find out that our next door neighbors will become grandparents for the first time, do we truly celebrate with them, or are we depressed that we have yet to become grandparents? When the church down the street starts a wonderful new ministry that brings new folks into the kingdom, do we truly rejoice thanking God for his work in their midst, or do we feel a sense of competition because our church has no such ministry?

What gives us joy? I dare say that is a good test of our character. Do we truly rejoice in the good fortunes of others or are we jealous, envying what they have that we don't?

Jesus says that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than in ninety-nine righteous folk who need no repentance. If that repentant sinner is found among the Baptists, should we Methodists be angry? If that repentant sinner comes to the altar in the Presbyterian Church, should the Pentecostals be unhappy?

What gives you joy? What is your character?

On Disclaiming Disclaimers

We all have seen them-- statements reminding readers and listeners that the following comments are the opinions of the persons expressing them only and not of any other persons or organizations the individual is affiliated with. There are bloggers as well who feel the need to let their readers know that their views are not necessarily endorsed by their church or their denomination or anyone else.

I understand why some bloggers feel that it is important to publish disclaimers. I have heard of some blogging pastors who get in trouble because some intellectually insecure parishioner doesn't like a view expressed by the pastor and doesn't want to have to deal with "guilt by association," or they don't want to have a pastor who is "liberal" or "conservative." I am sure there are other scenarios where that kind of thing has happened, so bloggers have to state the obvious in order to enlighten a small handful of their ignorant readers. I get it.

However, I do not have a disclaimer on my blog, and I have several reasons why I will not post one:

First, it should be obvious that my views are my own and are not necessarily endorsed by the congregation I serve as pastor, the seminary where I teach, the denomination in which I serve, and the family I live with who loves me. Nor are my views always the same as my friends, some of whom regularly post comments on this blog in disagreement. Anyone who thinks my views must reflect the views of those with whom I am associated has unresolved issues, and I am not of a mind to enlighten them out of their ignorance.

Second, while I treasure the differing views of others for the sake of discovering the truth and having the significant discussions we must have as people in community, I have no concern what may happen to me because someone doesn't like my doctrine or politics or the positions I take on controversial issues-- and that includes people who have authority over me. I have great respect for those individuals, but if they don't like what I say, they can fire me.

Third, I do not want anyone in the blogosphere hindered when it comes to expressing serious opinions. (I feel the same way about stupid opinions, even though they are not worth consideration.) I regularly read bloggers with whom I consistently disagree. I am glad they are blogging. They help me to think, even when, and especially since I do not agree. I wouldn't have it any other way. They don't need a disclaimer as far as I am concerned, so neither do I.

Fourth, I do not post a disclaimer on this blog because I don't want to and no one is going to make me.

Special Note: The views of this post are not necessarily those of First UMC in Cambridge, Ohio or the United Methodist Church, Ashland Theological Seminary, my family (and the dog I had as a boy), the City of Cambridge, the State of Ohio, the United States of America, North America, the Western Hemisphere, the world, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Universe (just in case there is a Multiverse) and any companies I have previously worked for and anyone whom I have known in my life, but have forgotten about because I haven't seen them in twenty years.

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution #3: Galileo's Method

Galileo used the telescope to study the heavens. He began in 1609. In March of 1610, he published a pamphlet entitled, The Starry Messenger. In the pamphlet, Galileo described his use of the telescope and how he had developed it to the point where he could see objects a thousand times larger than with the naked eye. He announced that his observation of the moon revealed that it was not smooth and spherical, as previously thought, but rough, much like the surface of the earth. This was no minor correction of a few facts. Because of the belief that heavenly bodies were made of a more perfect substance, the notion that the moon was rough and not round undermined the idea of its perfection. What Galileo effectively did was to question a whole way of understanding the universe and, by logical conclusion, a way of life.

The most revolutionary ideas were yet to come. Galileo's methodology did not included appeals to theology. Unlike Copernicus, Galileo was not concerned with theological explanations of why something was the way it was. He was simply interested in descriptions in mathematical terms through experiment and observation. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and mathematical description were the basic factors in this new approach. Philosophy and theology were avoided.

Traditional ways of employing metaphysics and theology were replaced by new methods of understanding the world. Even though Galileo was a loyal Catholic, he was being accused of undermining the church's authority and biblical authority. Galileo himself did not see it that way. He disagreed with the way the Bible was being interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities. Galileo questioned who should interpret the Scriptures in scientific matters. He did not think that the theologians were competent to apply their scriptural interpretation in matters of science. Over time, the result of Galileo's new method would be a severe limitation of the church's authority in many areas of human experience.

Gradually, God was less and less crucial in the explanations offered for how the world works. Galileo did not intend to reduce God. It was inevitable, however, that such would happen. The Aristotelian view that all things remain in motion as long as the cause continues to move the object meant that the motion of the planets and stars resulted from the direct intervention of God. Galileo's method proposed secondary causality, making the universe appear more mechanical. The rise of modern science opened the large question of how God acts in the world and in the universe.

For Some Great News from Haiti, You Must Watch This!

If this video does not bring a smile to your face and a tear to your eye, then you need to do a gut check on your humanity.

A Lesson in Biblical Anatomy

Today's audio sermon from 1 Corinthians 12:12-30

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2010.2

Sea slug surprise: It's half-plant, half-animal: Scientists aren't yet sure how animals actually appropriate genes they need

By Clara Moskowitz
updated 2:50 p.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 12, 2010

A green sea slug appears to be part animal, part plant. It's the first critter discovered to produce the plant pigment chlorophyll.

The sneaky slugs seem to have stolen the genes that enable this skill from algae that they've eaten. With their contraband genes, the slugs can carry out photosynthesis — the process plants use to convert sunlight into energy.

"They can make their energy-containing molecules without having to eat anything," said Sidney Pierce, a biologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Pierce has been studying the unique creatures, officially called Elysia chlorotica, for about 20 years. He presented his most recent findings Jan. 7 at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in Seattle. The finding was first reported by Science News.

"This is the first time that multicellar animals have been able to produce chlorophyll," Pierce told LiveScience.

The sea slugs live in salt marshes in New England and Canada. In addition to burglarizing the genes needed to make the green pigment chlorophyll, the slugs also steal tiny cell parts called chloroplasts, which they use to conduct photosynthesis. The chloroplasts use the chlorophyl to convert sunlight into energy, just as plants do, eliminating the need to eat food to gain energy.

"We collect them and we keep them in aquaria for months," Pierce said. "As long as we shine a light on them for 12 hours a day, they can survive [without food]."

The researchers used a radioactive tracer to be sure that the slugs are actually producing the chlorophyll themselves, as opposed to just stealing the ready-made pigment from algae. In fact, the slugs incorporate the genetic material so well, they pass it on to further generations of slugs.

The babies of thieving slugs retain the ability to produce their own chlorophyll, though they can't carry out photosynthesis until they've eaten enough algae to steal the necessary chloroplasts, which they can't yet produce on their own.

The slugs accomplishment is quite a feat, and scientists aren't yet sure how the animals actually appropriate the genes they need.

"It certainly is possible that DNA from one species can get into another species, as these slugs have clearly shown," Pierce said. "But the mechanisms are still unknown."

The Supreme Court, Big Money, and Freedom of Speech

Two blogging friends of mine, Country Parson and Henry Neufeld (Henry is also one of my publishers), have posted their thoughts on yesterday's Supreme Court decision easing restrictions on campaign advocacy spending by corporations and unions. Both have a different take on the decision. I invite you to read both posts and comment here (or there) that we might get a good discussion going today.

Feel free to be passionate about your view, but no one is allowed to say anything insulting about my two friends. They are both smart and thoughtful persons.

Country Parson-- A Morally Bankrupt Court

.
Henry Neufeld-- Supreme Court Favors Free Speech

No MBWR This Weekend

There will be no posting of the Weekly Roundup tomorrow. I am involved with District business all weekend.

The MBWR will return next Saturday.

Lanny Davis Has it Right on Health Care...

...in reference to how any health care bill must be bipartisan... and as usual, Ed Schultz gets it wrong.

Did Independents Perpetrate a Massacre in Massachusetts?

Yesterday's election of a Republican Senator in Massachusetts to the seat held for many years by the late Ted Kennedy has been referred to as "the shot heard round the country," and as a "kick-mass" election. Was last night's upset a massacre in Massachusetts? Hardly... but what happened last night should be an obvious warning that both Democrats and Republicans need to heed, though they probably won't.

The 2008 election that thrust Barack Obama into the presidency and gave greater majorities to the Democrats in Congress was a change election as everyone knows. Independent voters, who always decide elections, and who feel little to no loyalty to either political party, were fed up with Republican overreach in foreign policy and domestic spending. The Democrats, however, misread what change really meant for the Independent. Perceiving that the rejection of the partisan right meant an embracing of the partisan left, they set out acting in the same extreme ways that got the Republicans in trouble. Independent voters wanted change, which meant not more of the same, which is exactly what they received in the form of huge deficit spending and health care legislation that smelled of backroom deals and special perks for some states while taking away those same perks from others. What the Independent voter has been witnessing is not the routine give and take and compromise of a democracy, but bribery in its extreme form. It is one thing to give money for a bike path to a state in exchange for educational funds to another. But to take away Medicare Advantage from all seniors except those in the state of Florida in exchange for a vote, or to exempt health insurance companies in Nebraska from paying taxes on the new health care legislation, while companies in the other states will have to foot a big part of the bill, or to exempt "Cadillac" health insurance plans from taxation for unions, while the same kind of non-union insurance plans will be taxed, went too far beyond the acceptable compromises of the democratic process. Whether special favors are given to Halliburton or the UAW, to oil companies or pharmaceutical companies, independent voters see them as unfair.

I continue to say that most elections are not enthusiastic endorsements of the party people put in power. In 2009 the voters gave the Democrats the keys to the American political house and just like the Republicans before them they proceeded to trash it like a frat party on a Friday night. Yesterday's election in Massachusetts cannot simply be explained as a bad Democratic candidate, though that certainly is part of it. Neither can it only be understood by saying the Democrats failed to get their message out about health care, though they were not always clear. These are the excuses the losers always make regardless of party affiliation, likely because of the unwillingness to admit that perhaps the Independent voters just don't like their policies. Scott Brown specifically campaigned on the promise that if he were elected, he would not vote for the current health care legislation.

What happened in Massachusetts was that Independent voters will not tolerate politicians out of control. And any Republicans who think that Scott Brown's election was an reaffirmation of their brand are deceiving themselves as well. While Brown did not deny his party affiliation, he did not have any national Republicans campaign for him and he was very clear to state his independence, even from his own party. The Republicans are not on the rise with this election-- rather incumbents are sinking fast. This happens when the people want change. Independents voted for change in 2008, but they have not received the kind of change they voted for, so yesterday they had no trouble voting for change one year later.

Health care reform is needed and I support health care reform, though I do not support the current plan. This kind of legislation must have bipartisan support. Historically, most of the major legislative successes in our country have been bipartisan. But it appears that the only time that can happen is when one party is in the White House and the other controls Capitol Hill. Then they have no choice but to deal with each other. Currently the Democrats have no more incentive to work in bipartisan fashion with Republicans than the Republicans had in reference to the Democrats when they ran everything. Only a divided government can create the kind of health care reform that is needed and will work.

I know that partisans on the left and on the right think differently. But the partisans must understand that while the base may drive both parties, the Independents decide elections. Too many partisan Democrats want moderate Democrats in the South so they can control Congress, and too many partisan Republicans want moderate Republicans in the Northeast so that they too can control Congress; but then they want them to shut up and toe the party line and vote as partisans. Many partisans in both parties are not the "big tent party" people they claim to be.

What it finally comes down to is that most independent voters believe that partisans on the left and the right often lack common sense when it comes to government. Yesterday's election was an attempt to return a little sanity to Washington DC.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Opinion Central Poll 2010.1: Final Results

Does the Bible you read the most print the words of Jesus in red?

Question of the Day???

Should Congress pass a second economic stimulus package? Why or why not?

All are welcome to comment.

Our Partially Impartial God

Today's audio sermon from Acts 10:34-38

A Prayer for the Second Sunday after the Epiphany

O good Jesus, Word of the Father and brightness of his glory, whom angels desire to behold: teach me to do your will that, guided by your Spirit, I may come to that blessed city of everlasting day, where all are one in heart and mind, where there is safety and eternal peace, happiness and delight, where you live with the Father and the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.3.214

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:

On renovating your life, part 2, by Dale Tedder.

Dave Nichols recounts a wonderful service a worship and a gunshot near the church.

Jeremy Smith advises us not to vote for casket... He will explain.

The individual and the communal from Craig L. Adams.

Bishop William William has four questions for pastors.

Bishop Robert Schnase posts on renewing prayer.

Why church? A life changed-- thoughts from Lauren Porter.

Music that moved Chris Roberts in 2009.

Michael Ledbetter writes on true revelations and hard feelings.

David Camphouse has a prayer request. Please read his post.

Brian Vinson reflects on going the extra mile.

Speaking of the Holy Spirit... writes Sally Coleman.

Mark Winter posts on fresh bread!

Brian Russell offers his thoughts on (re)learning to read Scripture.

Dave Perry on Christians finding the emergency exits.

Are you hungry? Read Andy Bryan.

Dave Warnock writes on the saving of the Methodist Covenant Service in the Church of England.

David Hallam wishes the Methodist Recorder would see it right.

The enduring power of Martin Luther King according to Dave Faulkner.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on Genesis 4:17-26, Hebrews 3:1-11, and John 1:43-51.

Tony Mitchell wonders what it is about the good stuff.

Kim Matthews ponders a church with no walls. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Psalm 35:5-7a.

Thoughts on being a curmudgeon from Steve Heyduck.

Questing Parson thanks everyone for their prayers.

Joseph Yoo comments on everything being spiritual.

Angela Shier-Jones prays to the God of the Earthquake. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Joseph Slife on Charles Wesley on the cause of and the cure for earthquakes.

Dan Dick ponders the prophet margin.

"Filled With Expectation"-- a sermon by Beth Quick.

The Bible reads us according to John Meunier.

Matt Kelley writes on Pat Robertson's comments on the earthquake in Haiti.

Ken Carter recounts his mission experience in Haiti.

Deb Spaulding posts on grave consequences.

A report from Andrew Thompson on help for Haiti.

Betty Newman is in a time of preparation.

Katie M. Ladd writes on the Seattle Times not listing UMCOR as a relief organization in Haiti.

David Morris offers a stereo/3-d vision footnote in the steps of the Magi.

Have you got the missing piece? Pam Webster wants to know.

Ken Hagler gives his State of the Church post for Crossroads UMC.

Rick Mang has started work on a children's worship music CD.

Olive Morgan shares a Haiti earthquake appeal.

A sermon on the baptism of Jesus from Elizabeth Sweeny.

Steven Manskar has invited us to travel with him to England on a Wesley Pilgrimmage.

"Little Abundance"-- a sermon by Jim Parsons.

Simple Pleasures

Every day life is filled with simple pleasures; and yet how true it is that in the routine of the day such pleasures go unrecognized. What are the simple pleasures of my life?

-freshly brewed coffee made from freshly roasted coffee

-listening to the ocean while sitting on the deck of my rented beach house

-a casual and friendly conversation with friends at a local restaurant

-on an early summer morning watching the sun rise on my deck while the morning mist begins to disappear

-reading a few verses from the Bible to ponder

-having a conversation over coffee

-having conversation with my children about the day's events

-watching my family enjoy a meal I have prepared

-talking to my wife after she gets home from work

-going out to dinner with just my wife-- no kids

-going out to dinner with my wife and children

-seeing an acquaintance unexpectedly in the post office or in some other place around town

-knowing that my family is home for the night and safely inside our house

-enjoying a fire at night in the fireplace

-laughter at any time of the day

-planting my garden

-drinking a cup of Earl Grey tea while reading theology

-and many more

Life is filled with simple pleasures that we take for granted. What are your simple pleasures? Feel free to comment.

Caption Contest 2010.1... And the Winner Is...

Doodlebugmom: "I got one!"

Haiti: A Land of Contrasts

In 1984 and in 1985, I did mission work in Haiti. I loved my time there and have always wanted to go back, but other missional callings, such as my work in Cuba, have kept me from returning.

For me, Haiti is a land of sharp contrasts. The people are dirt poor but they they are not poor in spirit (I am not speaking in the biblical sense). It was difficult to be around all the need, and yet I loved being with the people and their humor, while witnessing their resourcefulness in simply meeting their daily needs. The buildings are in need of major repair, but the countryside is beautiful with poinsettias growing wild in the mountains along with stately tropical foliage. The Christians are quite plentiful, but the island still exists under the strong influence of voodoo practice. Haiti has a terrible history of corrupt government under dictatorial regimes, and yet the people love freedom. The Haitians who have come to the United States have flourished without government intrusion. Haitian cuisine is wonderful but most Haitians eat so little of it each day.

When one looks at the history of Haiti, one might think it is a snake bit country. The people have had to endure corrupt governments that are far beneath their nobility. They have suffered from hurricanes and now a devastating earthquake. Most Haitians walk around hungry every day with little opportunity to improve their lot in life. But the Haitians do not deserve their tragedies, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs a lesson in rudimentary theology. If there is such a thing as "dumb luck," the people of Haiti have had more than their fair share of it, and it is long past time for them to get some relief.

As the next few days and weeks unfold, the extent of the calamity will become truly known. But one of the great things that will come out it all this is that people from all over the world will reach out and offer relief. Yes, over time it will come out that there has been some waste, fraud, and abuse, but we will also witness the best that humanity has to offer to other human beings in need. We are cracked images of God, but we are images nonetheless.

Please pray for the people of Haiti, and pray for all those involved in rescue and relief efforts; it is after all risky business to go into such a setting. May God bless them in their work.

Quote of the Day: Bearing the Destiny of the Suffering Servant

"The story of Jesus - his incarnation, his selfless life, his example of consistently loving behavior, his death and resurrection 'for us' - was the definitive expression of God's love for his creation. Paul describes this as the love of God himself in his concern for humans (Romans 5:8). The essence of the kingdom of God is a response to and imitation of this love as manifested through Jesus Christ. His followers share both the bearing and the destiny of the Suffering Servant. That is to say, the humility of Jesus is to be the normal disposition of the Christian. This thought is not limited, of course, to the Christ hymn of Philippians 2 but lies behind Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 8:9 that Christ, 'although he was rich, became poor for your sakes, so that you by his poverty might become rich.'"

From David Alan Black, Christian Archy (Gonzalez, FL: Energion Publications, 2009), 28.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.56: Final Results

How many books did you read in 2009?

Who Says Church Is Boring!

Caption Contest 2010.1

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution #2: Copernicus

Before Galileo is discussed more substantively, the work of Galileo's predecessor, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) must be understood in order to make sense of what got Galileo in trouble with the church. Copernicus wrote a book entitled, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres. Copernicus was the first to suggest that the earth moved. This implied that the earth was not the center of the universe since the center would not be in motion. The earth not only moved, said Copernicus, but it orbited the sun. Unlike Galileo, however, Copernicus was not condemned by the church for the same theory. This fact often comes as a surprise to those who think that the church officials at the time were little more than ignorant men obsessed with their own power. Indeed, many highly acclaimed accounts of the beginnings of the scientific revolution pass over this fact, either out of ignorance, or because this truth fails to fit the narrative they want to weave. In fact, in 1533, Pope Clement VII arranged for a public lecture to be given at the Vatican to explain the theory of Copernicus, which was circulated as early as 1530. The pope responded to Copernicus favorably. Copernicus was urged by Nikolaus Cardinal Schoenberg to arrange for its publication in full detail. Copernicus resisted, not because he was afraid of church authorities, but rather he was concerned with being ridiculed by his scientific peers.

The crucial question is why was Copernicus' theory entertained by the church, while Galileo, who simply built upon Copernicus and others was not? The answer is to be found in their respective methodologies. While Copernicus' interpretation was revolutionary, his method was not. Copernicus came to his conclusions through what was the best science of his day and continued to hold to the basic theological and philosophical foundations that were accepted at the time. For example, Copernicus argued that the earth orbiting the sun was to be preferred to the other way around because it was nobler for a divine body to be at rest than in motion. Since the sun had a higher dignity, it is proper for the earth to revolve around the sun. (Copernicus did not propose the movement of the sun.) It must be remembered that the sun was a divine body because Copernicus was still working with the two-fold understanding of the universe. The earth was terrestrial and everything else, including the sun, was celestial, that is, heavenly. Notice that Copernicus was still looking for mathematical simplicity and harmony, which were part of the neo-Platonic worldview.

.

It was Galileo who is usually credited with being the first to employ modern scientific method in the understanding the world. What made Galileo unique was that instead of being concerned with discovering why the planets and stars moved the way they do, he asked just how one ought to go about answering such a question. His was a methodological concern. Previous scientists and philosophers may have disagreed over their conclusions, but they employed the same method. As long as the method went unquestioned, the basic worldview remained the same. When one changed the method, however, accepted explanations began to fall like dominoes. Just as crucial was the fact that when the accepted method was questioned, so were the accepted authorities who employed that method. It was not too long before many would question, not only the authority of Aristotle and Ptolemy, but also the authority of the church and the Bible.

You Better Practice What You Preach!

Thanks to Dave Black for linking to his blog my post on John the Baptist. Dave adds his own commentary:

Of course, if you are going to act like a prophet today and call people out, you had better be sure your own house is in order.

Amen to that!

A Prayer for the First Sunday after the Epiphany: The Baptism of Our Lord

Father in heaven, who at the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan proclaimed him your beloved Son and anointed him with the Holt Spirit: Grant that all who are baptized into his Name may keep the covenant they have made, and boldly confess him as Lord and Savior; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

--The Book of Common Prayer

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.2.213

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:

Pam Webster writes on being known and loved.

On his new blog Dale Tedder posts on renovating your life by waking up early, part 1. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Craig L. Adams reflects on waiting and hoping and Psalm 25.

Dave Nichols comments on getting started in the new year.

Bishop William H. Willimon meditates on ambiguous news at Christmas.

In the steps of the Magi-- part 1-- mindfulness from David Morris.

Katie M. Ladd posts on a new camera and a new way of seeing the world.

Betty Newman wonders if our liturgy has replaced the law.

What are the top tech trends for youth ministry in 2009? Read Gavin Richardson.

Part 3 of what is worth reading from Andrew Thompson.

Deb Spaulding is star gazing.

A reminder from Ken Carter that in our end is our beginning.

Matt Kelley offers his thoughts on journalist Brit Hume's recent comments on Tiger Woods, Buddhism, and Christian conversion.

Henry Neufeld also gives his perspective on Hume's comment asking, "Is Christianity the best deal in the universe?"

John Meunier wonders why the outrage over Hume's advice to Woods.

Reflections on Charles Wesley's Eucharistic meditation from Daniel McLain Hixon.

Beth Quick preaches on "Until Next Time," from Matthew 2:1-12.

Dan Dick writes on church members being Christianaughty.

Go and sin no more... ponders Angela Shier-Jones.

Joseph Yoo reflects on waiting and winter.

Questing Parson recounts a narrative on choosing joy.

Richard Heyduck ponders perfection avoided.

The Ten Commandments and sharing the "Good" News from Steve Heyduck.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Acts 2:1 and Hebrews 10:25.

Kim Matthews writes on vulnerability.

"Side By Side,"-- a sermon by Tony Mitchell.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on Isaiah 49:11-17, Revelation 21:22-27, and Matthew 2:14-21.

Pam BG cogitates on blame, shame, and learning.

Dave Faulkner answers the question of snow and working at home.

David Hallam shares some thoughts on changing weather and climate change.

Winter is when infrastructure really matters according to Dave Warnock.

.

Andy Bryan wonders if it all started with a glimpse.

.

Dave Perry challenges us to finally get a grip on God.

.

Brian Russell on the challenges for reading Scripture for the world. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

.

Mark Winter has unveiled his new Jubilee.

.

Community, body language, and priesthood-- reflections from Sally Coleman.

.

Brian Vinson offers a retrospective on the decade that was.

.

David Camphouse is adjusting the course.

.

Michael Ledbetter reflects on two great nations.

.

A post from Chris Roberts on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday and a bulletin insert for UMCs.

.

Richard Hall posts on Epiphany.

.

Is the Lectionary still relevant? Lauren Porter asks the question.

The Universe Is a Put Up Job

John Polkinghorne, particle physicist and Anglican priest, on the finely tuned universe.

The Quotable C.S. Lewis #27: Heavenly Desire

"We are very shy nowadays of even mentioning heaven. We are afraid of the jeer about 'pie in the sky', and of being told that we are trying to 'escape' from the duty of making as a happy world here and now into dreams of a happy world elsewhere. But either there is 'pie in the sky' or there is not. If there is not, Christianity is false, for this doctrine is woven into its whole fabric. If there is, then this truth, like any other, must be faced, whether it is useful at political meetings or not. Again, we are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that so not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because we wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love for exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object."

-- The Problem of Pain

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2010.1

Man opts for jail over New Year with relatives

.

Fri Jan 1, 2010 10:53am EST

ROME (Reuters) - A Sicilian man stole sweets and a packet of chewing gum so he could get arrested and spend New Year's Eve in a jail cell rather than be with his wife and relatives, Italian media reported on Friday.

The 35-year old Sicilian first showed up at a police station on Thursday asking to be arrested because he preferred spending the night in prison rather than with his family, but was rebuffed because he had not committed a crime, the Agi news agency said.

The man immediately went to a tobacco shop next door, where he threatened the owner with a box cutter as he grabbed a few sweets and a packet of gum. He then waited until police arrived to arrest him for robbery, the news agency said.

(Writing by Deepa Babington; Editing by Charles Dick)

Opinion Central Poll 2009.55: Final Results

What do you think will be the condition of the economy in 2010?

John the Baptist Is Not a Nice Person

Luke 3:1-20

How many congregations would tolerate John the Baptist as their pastor? Before we even get into the substance of his preaching, can you imagine how the folks in the pews would react to a guy who dressed as shabbily as he did? Moreover, who would invite him over for dinner being such a picky eater. Some individuals are meat and potatoes kind of persons, while John was into the locust and wild honey diet. What congregation wants such a strange pastor.

But even if people could get past his attire and eating habits, what would be the response to his preaching? Is it possible to imagine starting a sermon by calling your listeners a "nest of snakes?" There is little comfort in John's words, little to calm the human spirit. "Get your act together!" says John. "Bear the kind of fruit in life that shows you are indeed as repentant as you say you are. Judgment is coming," John warns. "The axe is being swung with mighty force at the trunk of the tree. If the tree is not bearing good fruit, it will cut down and thrown into the fire!"

Moreover, John is not content to speak in vague generalities of what repentance actually means. When asked for specifics by the people, he responds with specifics. "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise." The scoundrel tax collectors are not let off the hook either-- "Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you." And John insisted to soldiers charged with the duties of keeping order in daily life, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages." (John is indeed a brave man.)

What nerve this desert wild man has to stick his nose into everybody's personal business! Why doesn't he limit his preaching to the big and important things we all need to hear like how much God loves us and how his grace is without limit and how forgiveness is always available. No one wants to hear about judgment and to be told what they should do with their money. John even has the gall to get political by telling Herod that his sex life is immoral! Doesn't he know that what Herod does in his bedroom is his own business! He is, after all, a consenting adult. No wonder Herod threw him in jail. That's what you get when you start meddling. If John thinks he is going to have any kind of following, he going to have to tone it down a bit and speak nicely; after all, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Oh, wait... John did have quite a following among the common folk, even though he didn't always say nice things. It was the powerful and status quo who opposed him. So, if John were here today and could preach in our churches, how would we respond to the preaching of this not so nice person?

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution #1: Introduction

The most important shift in Western thought came into its own with the Enlightenment, beginning in the 17th century. It is this context that the modern social sciences were born. It was not the case that human beings began asking questions about themselves for the first time. Women and men have always done so. The shift came when the place of God in the asking of the questions changed. Previously, most thinkers would not have considered answering anthropological questions without some basic theological assumptions. The thinkers of the Enlightenment began pushing the theological assumptions further and further into the background until, for many, the need for God to answer the human questions all but disappeared.

Before the Enlightenment there was a common view of the world based upon assumptions that had been held for centuries. That this view is different from the view of the world today is displayed in the difficulty modern people have in, not only accepting their view of the world, but understanding how they could have believed it themselves. Of course, we should not forget that 400 years from now people may think the same thing about us.

This common view finds its foundations in the cosmology of the time, which was a mixture of biblical thought, Aristotelianism, and Ptolemaic thought. In this cosmology, the earth was believed to be the center of the cosmos and it was also believed that the earth was not only the center of the universe, but it was at the center of a series of concentric spheres. These spheres, which numbered at least 53, were believed to carry the stars and the planets and accounted for their motion. This theory was the result of the conviction that there could be no empty space in connection with the prevailing views of motion.

The understanding of motion that under girded Aristotle's cosmology held that motion would continue as long as the cause of the motion was in contact with the object it was moving. With this assumption in place, the logical question would be how the planets moved in the sky without falling to earth. This was accounted for by positing, not that they were free moving bodies, but that they were contained within the spheres. It was also believed that the heavenly bodies were made of a special "higher" element. They were better, therefore, in the hierarchy of being. This accounts for why pre-Enlightenment astronomers believed the planets traveled in circular paths and that the spheres were round. The circle and sphere were believed to be perfect movements. They were perfect creations of a perfect God; and all movements were directly from the divine. It is not difficult in this cosmology to understand that God is needed to explain it.

The ancient astronomers were not unaware of the difficulties with this interpretation. For example, many had observed that the planets did not travel in perfect circular orbits. In response, many offered modifications of the Aristotelian cosmology. Claudius Ptolemy has the distinction of solving the problem. He proposed that the change in speed and direction of planets was the result of cycles and epicycles. While it was true, said Ptolemy, that the planets and stars moved around the earth in circular paths, they were not simple circular paths. A planet moved around the earth in circular motion, but is was also moving through a series of smaller circular orbits. It was this continual series of orbits that moved on the larger circular path around the earth. In this theory, the perfection of the cosmos as demonstrated in circles and spheres was maintained.

Theologically, it was believed that the earth, particularly human beings upon it, was the center of God's creation, and that God's creation was perfect on account of its geometric design. While the Bible did not specifically teach that the earth was the center of creation or that circles and spheres were perfect, it seemed correct that such would be the case. Genesis seemed to indicate that the creation drama was brought about by God for the salvation of humanity. Why would anyone assume that the earth was not the center of creation?

The main point to be gleaned is that the accepted cosmology before the Enlightenment was based on long held and cherished assumptions. To change those assumptions would cause a cultural explosion. Galileo Galilei was the one who struck the match.

A Prayer for Epiphany Sunday

O God, who on this day through the guidance of a star, did manifest your only-begotten Son to the Gentiles; mercifully grant that we who know you now by faith, may one day be brought to the contemplation of the beauty of your majesty; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Benedictine Monastic Diurnal

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.1.212

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:

"O God Our Help in Ages Past"-- Dave Nichols on time.

Bishop Robert Schnase reflects on the One who made us came to us.

Bishop William Willimon writes on being awake in Advent.

Should you eat more vegetables? Read Michael Ledbetter.

It's time for Ken Hagler to trade in the multi-tool.

Dave Camphouse is doing a re-read of Genesis.

Christmas went so well for Rick Mang that he forgot about the new year.

Michael Daniel is waiting for a miracle.

David Hallam wonders if we need church planting.

Brian Vinson is wondering what to say.

Looking back on the innkeeper who looks back-- a post from Sally Coleman.

Shepherds leave their fields for Mansfield... huh?... Read Mark Winter.

Dave Faulkner preaches on the Gospel Women, Mary and Elizabeth.

Brian Russell offers his challenges to reading Scripture and wants to know your challenges as well.

.

Dave Perry cogitates on prospecting for God in 2010.

Reflections on preaching the familiar from Jim Parsons.

The day before the day before according to Andy Bryan.

Olive Morgan offers Christmas greetings from Caversham.

Andrew Stoddard shares his thoughts on the year's end. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Tony Mitchell writes on a dialogue of science and faith.

Kim Matthews reminds us that even in a foreign land God is with us.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Hebrews 12:2-3.

Is it time to bury Cokesbury? Steve Heyduck asks the question.

Richard Heyduck offers additional thoughts on generosity.

Questing Parson is sharing the dental anxiety.

Methonerd John Meunier ponders on whether doctrine in the UMC is more than a club. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Lorna Koskela writes on submission.

Thoughts on being fully committed from Joseph Yoo.

Is Intelligent Design religious? Read Henry Neufeld.

Angela Shier-Jones comments on the new life in Christ.

Dan Dick posts on being number dumber.

"This Time"-- a sermon by Beth Quick.

Tiffany Steinwert is imagining Mary.

Why do we go home? Kurt Boemler ponders the question.

Daniel McLain Hixon writes on the ordination of women and church unity.

In this new year Matt Kelley is looking back and looking forward.

Ken Carter reflects on reading the signs.

Deb Spaulding is offering a biscuit with honey.

Gerry Charlotte Phelps posts on the new China underground.

Ponderments on renewing the covenant from Andrew Thompson.

Gavin Richardson lists what he wants back and what he would leave behind.

Joseph Slife wants to know why UM leaders aren't supporting the Manhattan Declaration.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.54: Final Results

Should Tiger Woods give up golf permanently if it will save his marriage?

May You Have a Blessed 2010!