tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83579930029758339492024-03-20T03:44:47.590-04:00the tenth letter..."But God..." Ephesians 2:4 <br>
Sometimes I wonderJay Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15414242753908645401noreply@blogger.comBlogger274125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-66296680782475061362016-04-14T00:28:00.001-04:002016-04-14T00:31:11.709-04:0010 things I've learned since leaving full time ministry<div class="MsoNormal">
For some time now I have desired to post a follow up to my
post 2 years ago announcing my departure from vocational ministry. Life rarely
affords me the time to write these days, and even as I bang out this post I
know that I have to be awake in four and half hours to get into the plant to
work, to put it plainly I do not even have the time to write now. I want to
give a quick top ten things I’ve learned re-entering the work force after 6
years of full time ministry. These are in no particular order, and these are
only my own personal reflections. I am NOT saying this is indicative of all
ministers or all people in the work force, these are just observations from my
own life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u> I had much more free time as a pastor</u></b>.
Sure I was in the office a lot, and I had to call on people and do funerals and
go to hospitals and so on, but I also read 70+ books a year, blogged almost
every day, attempted to write a novel, went mountain biking and so on. Now
working 55-60 hrs a week I have time to play with kids, spend a little time
with my wife, and occasionally sleep for more than a 6 hour stretch. The “me”
time has vanished.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Pastor
credentials DO mean something in the ‘secular’ workforce</u></b>. This one surprised me, but people of all
stripes like talking about the faith. Being an engineer who was a pastor
creates an interesting space with people. I run the risk of over analyzing
this, but it seems to me that people like the idea of having a pastor figure to
hash things out with who is not tied to (read paid by) the church. In any case I’m
in a unique situation. There are countless pastors who left the workforce (they
are a blessing to their congregations because of it) but the former pastor now
in the work force is a bit of an anomaly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Being
a pastor gradually caused me to lose touch with reality. </u></b> This was a tough pill for me to swallow, but
it is true. I’ve looked back on most of my conversations with colleagues in
ministry about what the world really needs from the church and I sort of cringe
when I think of them. I was far more out of touch than I can comfortably admit.
All the notions we had of how to cater to the world seem woefully inadequate
now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Pastors
are not paid as poorly as you think.</u></b> Working at Chrysler I am making
much more than I did as a pastor, much more. However Chrysler is pays uniquely
well. Before I took my current position I worked 1.5 years at an average
engineering wage but never had any more money than I did as a pastor even
though my salary was almost double. Let’s face it, as a pastor I had, house,
utilities, insurance, along with a group of 150 or more wonderful congregants
who would go out of their way to do anything for me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>People
aren’t as impressed as pastors think by the church doing nice things.</u></b>
We do a lot of back patting in the church every time we go to a school and
tutor, or go to a parade and hand out water. I think we are right to do these
things, but few people are actually sitting back saying ‘wow there is something
different about these people.’ I think individual acts of sacrifice by
Christians carry far more weight than corporate acts of charity from the
church. In other words if a Christian man takes the crap job on the line so
someone else can have it easier for a day that goes a lot further than hanging
out with our Christian buds do-gooding together.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Vocation
matters.</u></b> This piggy backs the last point, but the general work force is
more open to the individual Christian glorifying their God in the midst of
their work than they are by the individual Christian facilitating church
outreaches. Outreach gives the church a good name, no doubt, but individual
sacrifice on behalf of another in the midst of one’s vocation give Christ a
good name because there is no ‘selling point’ for an organization.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Work
is fulfilling.</u></b> I think we forget this. In vocational ministry I
believed that no other work could be as fulfilling as the full time proclamation
of the Gospel. I lost touch with how fulfilling getting up at 4:15am to go to a
factory to build something with other people could be. Making stuff is fun and
it matters. Everyday around 1000 cars will roll off our line, some will take
little kids to baseball practice, others will take someone to their senior
prom, many will drive to their parents’ funerals, people will die in some of
them, and teenagers will lose their virginity in them. The world is so
interconnected and all the pieces matter. Lives will be lived in them. If
someone can get the right perspective on their work, no matter what their job
is, they will find it fulfilling.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->8.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>It
hurts sometimes to not preach.</u></b> Sometimes it’s just hard to hear a text
being taken a direction I wouldn’t have taken it. I sit under good preaching,
but having been a pastor is a real impediment to simply receiving the word.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->9.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Pastors
tend to enjoy a martyr role.</u></b> I’d downplay it, but I secretly enjoyed
when people believed I made some grand sacrifice to be a minister. When people
would act like I was doing something so difficult I tended to believe them. I
was addicted to praise. I’ve since found that everyday people are sacrificing
their time to feed their families, to care for their sick ones, to look after
their co-workers, etc. Sacrifices of a
pastor really do not supersede that of the rest of the world, or even that of
the unbelieving world.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->10.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]--><b><u>Pastors
are necessary.</u></b> Though the above points may lead you to believe I am
downplaying the pastor’s role let me assure you I am not. I think the pastor
should have free time, should be fairly compensated, should be able even to
isolate from the world. It is necessary that the pastor is in some ways
comfortable and not overworked so that they can have clarity and rest to deal
with the difficult situations they face. People, I, need someone to remind me
of the forgiveness of sin I have in Christ, I need someone to announce my
absolution for my sin, I need someone to feed me the body and blood of our Lord
and deliver to me the holy Word of God. I am thankful for pastors, and I am
grateful that many have taken that role and continue in it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are just my thoughts after nearly 2 years away from
vocational ministry. I am thankful that God pulled me into the ministry, and I
am thankful that a lifetime of vocational ministry was NOT in his plans for me.
Do I miss the ministry? Not really. I enjoyed it immensely, but count it a
great blessing to be back in the work force.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-16054350394817793392015-01-11T01:20:00.001-05:002015-01-11T01:20:12.006-05:00Imperatives, Indicatives, Assurance, and Baptism<div class="MsoNormal">
Early on in local church ministry I was convinced that the
primary topic that needed dealt with locally in the church was not that of
empowering believers to share the gospel, nor was it in bringing sinners to
repentance, but it was instead to give believers assurance of the salvation
that they had in Christ. As time has passed this conviction has grown. Often
times assurance of salvation is taught as one important thing among many
important things, but rarely is it taught as the one thing most important. Many
other topics have taken precedence in the church leaving assurance often
neglected. The common refrain is that believers know the Gospel but need to be
taught to live empowered lives, or need to become more proficient in
evangelism, or need deeper prayer lives, or what not. Assurance is too often assumed.
In some more fundamentally liberal or conservative circles the idea of
assurance is almost shunned. For instance listen to your typical fundamental
conservative’s take on Matthew 7 and you will no doubt hear a call to question your
salvation when you hear the words of Jesus “depart from me I never knew you.”
Look no further than David Platt’s blockbuster “Radical” series for an example.
Your fundamental liberal (this is not an oxymoron) does the same thing when
taking Jesus’ words “I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was sick and you
did not visit me…” These verses in both contexts are used against believers to
bring them to question their own authenticity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question we must ask ourselves with regards to the New
Testament is what parts, if any, are meant to bring us to question our faith?
The lens we read scripture with will always drive our interpretations of the
text. Without acknowledging that we read scripture through different lenses we
will never be able to come down to any common understanding of any individual
text, or even the whole scripture itself.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s start with a basic multiple choice question:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With regards to salvation the New Testament….</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Teaches us how to be included in the saving work
of Jesus Christ and how to get others included in His work.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->b.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Announces the already completed saving work of
Christ for those who believe.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->c.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Both a, and b.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The first response of most readers here would be ‘c. both a,
and b’. Upon deeper examination you will find that most believers lean far more
heavily on either ‘a’ or ‘b’. However I think the validity of ‘a’ should be
brought into question altogether.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The notion that the New Testament is teaching us how to be
included in the salvation of Christ should be brought into question. In
evangelical circles Romans seems to be the go to book of the bible for
instruction regarding ‘how to be saved’. Most of us have seen, or even used the
‘Romans Road’ for instruction on ‘getting saved’. Rarely have we questioned
whether or not that is what Paul was writing about when he penned his letter to
the Romans. Was the unbeliever even on his radar when he wrote to the early
churches? Were his letters evangelical in the sense that we typically think of
evangelicalism? The first clue to answering this question is the audience Paul
addressed in Romans and all his letters. Note that he always writes to
believers. The fact that his audience is believers should at least cause us to
hitch just a little bit at the idea that these passages are meant to be read as
a ‘how to’ with regard to salvation. He is writing to the already redeemed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So when we read a text like Romans 10:9-10 which teaches
that “if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts
that God raised him from the dead we will be saved” is it fair to take this
text as teaching how we are to go about being saved? Or ought we teach it to ‘already
believers’ as a positive assurance that their confessing and believing
evidences their salvation in Christ? Remember the audience here is not the lost
who need to be saved instead it is the saved who are struggling in first
century Rome to live in light of their confession. To the broken believer who
believes that Jesus was raised from the dead and confesses that even in the
midst of their doubts and the midst of a world which denies their confession
this text of Romans 10:9-10 should be a source of great assurance. However if
we take Romans as a ‘how to’ book these verses at worst get relegated to a once
in a lifetime event of believing and confessing to get saved, and at best give
us assurance based on ‘our’ believing, and ‘our’ confessing. In other words we
take our assurance from something we have done as opposed to finding our
assurance in what Christ has already done for us. While I know I run the risk
of losing many on this point, it is not trivial. The natural question is “Jay,
why cannot it not be both instructional and assuring?” Remember the audience is
believers leaving it unlikely that this is an instructional text for the lost.
Moreover these verses are entirely indicative, there is no command to ‘confess’
or to ‘believe’. Quite simply it states ‘if you confess’, present tense, you
will be saved. This is an announcement of fact in the present tense for
believers. It is about assurance, not about apprehending salvation. If we are
to believe that we were ‘saved’ and ‘regenerated’ at a specific point in time,
and that point in time was when we confessed and believed then this verse
should read “If you confessed” past tense and “if you believed” past tense “you
will be saved.” That is not how the verse reads though.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again this is not hair splitting. If we are to view
confession and mental ascension (belief) as the means by which we are saved
then we ultimately lay claim to our own salvation. When someone asks “how were
you saved?” in this paradigm you would be right in answering “I was saved when I
confessed and believed.” What is wrong with this? Everything! If you read these
texts this way your assurance of salvation is tied to your own doing, your own
work as it were in believing and confessing. The reason this is a problem is
that it causes us to look inward for our salvation, we’ve tied it to our
ability to believe and the validity of our confession. A proper conception of
salvation is this; “I am saved because the Lord Jesus Christ lived died and
rose for me.” That conception of salvation looks outward to the work of Christ
for assurance, a finished work in real history, and not our inward confession
of that work. If we are not precise here we will attribute salvation to our
work of confession. Instead if we see this as being written to believer who
knows “I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ living dying and raising for me” Romans
10:9-10 become a great comfort. Why? Because their confession is what Jesus has
done, and their belief also is what he has done. Yes they confess and believe,
and can have assurance in light of their confession and belief, but the
assurance does not come from their decision to confess and believe but instead
comes from the cross and empty tomb.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some would agree that these texts are intended for assurance
and that they are indicative of our salvation, but they diverge and say that
those indicatives still point back to the imperative to believe and confess.
Again the problem is that the text does not say ‘if you have believed, and if
you have confessed’. If the verse
pointed to a past tense occurrence then that reading would be fine, but it
doesn’t.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Romans 10:9-10 is one simple example of where we have
confused imperatives and indicatives and taken verses that have the singular
intent to give assurance and turned them into instructions. There are countless
others as well.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is not to say that the question ‘when did I get saved’
or even ‘how did I get saved’ is an invalid question. The question is fair.
However to answer that question we must find an imperative that deals with the
unsaved becoming saved, not an address (like the epistles) to those who already
believe and are being given assurance of faith.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The audience of the New Testament is believers, every single
book in it was written by believers to believers. You could possibly claim an
exception with Hebrews as that might be written to Jews who do not yet believe,
but other than that the New Testament is the Church’s book, not the world’s.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So where can we go to deal with the question “how do I get
saved?” You have examples in Acts of unbelievers coming to faith. While acts
was written to Theophilus, a believer, it does chronicle unbelievers coming to
faith in its narrative. What do we find there when unbelievers ask ‘what must
we do’? “Repent and be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit.” While I
think we should exercise some caution establishing doctrine from Acts given
that it is narrative and not doctrinal in nature we do at least get some clues
into how the doctrine from the epistles played out in real time. The imperative
for salvation was not ‘confess and believe’ it was ‘repent and be baptized’.
This isn’t isolated to Acts 2:38 either. Even Paul recalling his own conversion
points to his sin being washed away at baptism.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So then if baptism is imperative for being redeemed by
Christ’s work we should at least expect that the epistles being written to
believers should reference baptism as such. If we look at Romans 10:9-10 we see
confession and belief in the present tense indicating an assumed action of
believers, but how is baptism referenced?
If you check Romans 6 starting at verse 3 we read:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by
baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by
the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. – For if we have
been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him
in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in
order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no
longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Notice here how Paul was not pointing to a present tense
action like he was in Romans 10:9-10, instead he was pointing back to something
that has already occurred. “Baptized,
buried, raised, united, crucified, and died” are all pointing to something that
has already happened for these believers. Of course this meshes perfectly with
Acts 2:38 and other narrative examples from Acts about unbelievers becoming
believers.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When read the Epistles we only find a few past tense things
being referenced to, one being the work of Christ in his life death and
resurrection, another being baptism, and the others all involve examples of God’s
actions among his people in the past. We do not find a multitude of examples
calling us to reflect inwardly upon something we have done.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Got to cut this short for now. Hopefully I will find time to
continue this at a later date.</div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-66636809207967702762014-05-04T22:10:00.002-04:002014-05-04T22:48:16.668-04:00Called Out of MinistryNow that the news has had time to circulate around Delta, and I no longer run the risk of anyone from the parish finding this out on the internet I am free to share this with all of you. As of the end of June I will be leaving pastoral ministry and will again be an engineer.<br />
<br />
There is no greater honor than to serve the local church as a pastor. Really. I cannot think of anything more fulfilling than to pronounce the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sin to those who are called His. The local church which I have served has been wonderful to my family and I. They have treated my wife, my children, and me with great respect. They have honored the office of Pastor, have supported us with their prayers, their giving, and their continual love for us. As corny as it sounds, the pastor to parish and parish to pastor relationship we have enjoyed was truly a match made in heaven. You'd be hard pressed to get me to believe that there is a more humble, loving, and joyful group of believers than the group which gathers each Lord's day at The United Methodist Church of Delta. These have been the greatest four years of my life thus far. Obviously no congregation is perfect, and Delta UMC is no exception, but I have never once walked into another church and wished that Delta UMC would be more like them.<br />
<br />
Aside from the parish itself, I'd say the work of a pastor is an incredibly blessed work. To administer word and sacrament is as joyful a burden as any that someone could be placed under. The sense of carrying the presence of Christ into hospitals, committee meetings, the pulpit, the community, and elsewhere is a sense every believer can enjoy, but is especially poignant when you carry that presence as an official of the church. The work of binding people in marriage, regenerating people in baptism, laying people to rest in funeral services, and so on are works that no human deserves the privilege of carrying out. I am thankful to have been called to carry out those works despite my own unworthiness.<br />
<br />
Why then would I leave such a blessed work? Allow me to start by listing some things that were not reasons I left. People may think it was financial, it was not. As a pastor in the UMC I had health coverage, a parsonage, no utility bills, no cell phone bills, no worries about fixing the roof on the house or replacing a furnace. Everything was provided. Financially my family was well cared for and we lacked nothing. Some may think it was the stress of the job. I have not found pastoring to be any more stressful than other lines of work. Yes there are a lot of hats to wear, and it is occasionally overwhelming, but the parish I serve has never once caused me to put the church before my family, nor have they ever treated me in such a way that left me feeling less than human. Some might think I'd leave to get out of the limelight and the pressure of living in a fishbowl. Again, the church respected our privacy and personal space, plus if you know me you know that I don't mind being the center of attention anyway. None of the standard reasons for leaving the ministry seem to apply to me.<br />
<br />
So why have we made this decision? Mainly because of the itinerancy system in the UMC. One of the most difficult realities that your local UMC pastor has to deal with is the fact that any given June they can be called to move within the conference. As my family has grown from 3 members to 5 in the time we have been in Delta the pressure of itinerancy has grown. The reality that every friendship my 6 year old makes is ultimately temporary, and every family which we connect with will ultimately end up separated from us is a reality that is too much for us to stomach. I don't think the itinerancy is a bad system per se, but it is not the right system for my family. Beyond that the pressure of obtaining a seminary education while balancing the life of family and church is pressure that cannot be understated. Truth be told becoming a Methodist minister while raising a young a family is a daunting proposition. Many ministers have pulled it off swimmingly, I could not.<br />
<br />
So what of your 'call'? In Methodist clergy circles there is a lot of talk around this ethereal notion of 'call'. We constantly review our sense of calling and cling to this sense as a driving motivation to continue through the process. The idea that 'we could not be fulfilled doing anything else' is to be at the heart of vocation. To be frank, I love ministry and have enjoyed it immensely, but I have never had the sense that I could not be fulfilled or living faithfully doing anything else. I am perfectly content to serve Christ as an engineer, and am very excited to do so again. In fact the idea of being laity in the church excites me.<br />
<br />
What is next for my family and I? Let me break down how this all happened and in the process I will explain what is next. About a month ago Kristin and I were discussing our future as a family and in this discussion, as always, the itinerancy finds its way to the forefront. We came to the conclusion that we would be open for anything, ministry or not, and would be willing to go wherever God would lead… even if he led us out of ministry. After that conversation and much seeking of God I began to think about what it would be like to be an engineer again. I considered contacting Edco (my former place of employment) just to see what was going on there, but not seeking work. I figured putting my name back on their radar wouldn't hurt. Truth be told if God were to lead us out of ministry it would seem that it would have to happen quickly as the window of opportunity to return to engineering work gets smaller with each passing year. The following morning after this conversation, before I made any effort to contact Edco, I received a message from them asking if I'd ever be interested in coming back to work for them. It had been a number of years since I had any contact with them. This was apparently out of the blue. I decided I would contact them back and meet with the general manager and plant manager to discuss the opportunity. I went in and explained to them what role I would want. Essentially I wanted to oversee Edco's engineering. It was clear when I told them this that it was exactly what they were looking for. I gave them a salary I desired assuming there would be some debate, instead they instantly agreed with what I proposed. (I wonder how much more I could have asked for!) We worked out the details and a couple days later I accepted the position. There are also other circumstantial things that fell into place. Our home in Toledo which we have been renting has come available for us to live in which solves any potential housing issues. So as of June 2nd I will be the senior design engineer at Edco, and will continue to preach in Delta until the end of June.<br />
<br />
I believe in the UMC (though we don't always see eye to eye), I believe in the systems in place. However I believe that in light of those systems, and in light of the opportunity which arose immediately after considering these things that we are following the will of Christ in this transition.<br />
<br />
Please keep our family lifted in prayer, and keep the people of Delta UMC in your prayers as we move through this. This is not an easy thing for any of us, but it seems that everyone understands it. Pray for your pastor, and when you might be frustrated with your Pastor consider the underlying realities which they live with. It is a great life, but not all roses by any stretch of the imagination.<br />
<br />
Peace for now, and God bless you.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-66321964984800746222013-12-02T00:54:00.000-05:002013-12-02T12:31:46.973-05:00The 30th day of thankfulness<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Earthworms vs. Butterflies. Custodians and “To Kill a
Mocking Bird”. Exploding dinosaurs, microscopes, telescopes, minivans in my
living room. The standard convention for giving thanks was broken this month,
and I broke it for good reasons, reasons I hope to share on this my 30<sup>th</sup>
day of thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">While not my ‘30<sup>th</sup> day thanks’, I am thankful for
all of you who read the posts. Opinions regarding the posts were varied, some
positive, some negative, but in the end I am humbled that people found them
worth having an opinion about. In the Facebook world of banal nonsense,
generating an opinion about things other than sports or politics proves to be a
difficult task.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Today I am thankful that absurd things are often the truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">We live in a spoken world. A magical world as it were, I hoped
to convey that in my posts. A world where dandelions get called weeds even
though they are the most useful of plants. (Thanks Ray Bradbury for pointing
that out to me.) A world where strange
transformations happen all the time, a world where just about everything is
miraculous. My hope for you who followed along these 29 days is that your
tolerance for the absurd has increased, even if only by a maggot’s hair. In
truth the moment you deny the absurd, the moment you try to package everything neatly,
whether by science, or systematic theology, you lose sight of the world as it
really is. Science and systematic theology both are helpful, but they are
limited in that they refuse to account for the absurd. Science declares the
absurd doesn’t exist, and theologians do their best, I know not why, to cover
up the absurdity of our theology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Today I am thankful that bread can be body, and wine can be
blood. Today I am thankful that water can wash away sin, and human lips can
forgive sin. Today I am thankful that vibrations from somewhere inside the one
human’s neck can carry the words of God to a drum inside some other humans
skull, and somehow those vibrations create faith. I’m thankful that Word became
flesh, God ‘became’ man. I’m thankful for an instrument of torture, a cross that
we look to as a sign of hope. I’m thankful for resurrection. I’m thankful that
there is one mediator between God and man, I’m thankful that mediator is the
Word made flesh which at one point dwelt among us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Sometimes I think the apologists who feel the need to
explain this all just need to go away. Stop telling me that Peter was telling
me to turn this all into logic when he said “to be ready to give a reason for
the hope in me”. My hope doesn’t lie in my ability to mentally ascend to proper
theory. My hope lies in the absurd reality that Jesus’ life death and resurrection
was for me for the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life. The world was
created in six days, I don’t care about a fossil record, I don’t really care
much about Ken Ham or Kent Hovind’s goofy theories either. The best explanation
is magic. The supper is really the body and blood of Christ, I don’t need some
transubstantiation or consubstantiation, some over under or through to explain
it, I have long since come to realize that the absurd is often true, and that
is enough for me. If he said it, it is. I mean He said light and light was…
right? Absurd? Sure, but true.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So today I am thankful for the word made flesh, for the
absurd reality which is not merely a reality but a person, the Lord Jesus
Christ, who lived, died, and rose for you. I am thankful for Him, and you
should be too.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Cheers!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Jay</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">_______________</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">_______________</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The archive of posts:</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 1 - thankful for the
sacrificial uranium nuclei that help power my world.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 2 - you ever wonder
how many people have died in the process of discovering what plants were
poisonous, medicinal, or safe? Today I'm thankful for those people, you should be
too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 3 - I wonder how many
deaths I would have died already if I didn't feel or fear pain. Today I am
thankful for pain, you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 4 - I burn ancient
forests for a warm shower. I drive with the power of exploding dinosaurs. Today
I'm thankful for all the organisms that put the 'fossil' in fossil fuels. You
should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 5 - Edible, good for
wine and tea, the first flower a child picks for his mother's bouquet, wish
granting, and baby-head-pop-offing. Her great virtue is her willingness to
indiscriminately set any green lawn ablaze in her golden glory. Yet her
willingness to spread her beauty is the reason she is so persecuted. To hell
with the poor soul who Satan inspired to call her a weed. Persecute away Mr.
Tru-Green and Mrs. Chem-lawn my children will unleash more of this golden glory
with each wish they blow, and you will never stop them! Today I am thankful for
dandelions, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov6 - You know who gets
more credit than they should? Butterflies. Disguised like the heroic earth
worm, that butterfly-in-worm-clothing is only going to tear your plants to
shreds, spin a cacoon, then bam! Show his real colors and fly off to South
America. Meanwhile, Mr. Earthworm eats your dirt and makes soil to feed your
garden. The same garden that pesky false-worm is busy eating. What does o</span><span class="textexposedshow">ur noble Mr. Earthworm get in return? Impailed by a hook? Cut
in two by your shovel? Drowned and bloated in your church parking lot? Smashed
by your children? Yet you gaze endless at the evil Monarch's beauty entranced
by his lies. You all should feel ashamed. Oh Monarch, fly back to South
America, you're no longer welcome here. Today I am thankful for the earthworm,
and you should be too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 7 - Burp a baby in a
crowded room and when that monsterous gasteral release echos off the walls
everyone will smile and celebrate. And celebrate they should! Yet burp yourself
and they'll call you a pig. Why? Because they want you to suffer gas pains?
They prefer your gas to come out the other end? Historically a belch was a
compliment to the chef, and a true joy to the one who dined. But alas, some
imbecile decided to label the belch disgusting and relegate all fomal dining
into a painful experience. This should not be. Call me gross, I don't care, today
I am thankful for the belch, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 8 - Remember that
greasy guy from grade school? He walked through locked doors. Lurking in the
background, recognizable, but you'd never dare speak to him. Your vomit was
cleaned, scrawlings on the bathroom stall deleted, and against all odds the
locker room remained almost sanitary and you knew this greasy enigma was behind
it all. Camouflaged in mechanic clothes he quietly blended in with th</span><span class="textexposedshow">e school's institutional hues. He refused to interfere with
your learning, yet his humble efforts to stay out of the way projected a creepy
and undeserved image of a recluse. Yes, I tell you every school has at least
one Boo Radley, and for them, today I give thanks. I am thankful for school
custodians, and you should be too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 9 - If I were 85
years old at the time when houses were first being retrofitted with indoor
commodes I would have been repulsed. "You're going to do what?... INSIDE
the house? This is a moral outrage!" Walking by a recently used washroom
retrofitted with a commode and smelling the aftermath, I promise "I told
you so" would find itself chiseled clearly across my face.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">People are
generally disg<span class="textexposedshow">usted by
outhouses, feeling cursed to have to use one. But who thinks of the absurdness
of an 'in-house'? (Keep your toothbrush in a drawer, and put the lid down
before you flush, really.)<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="textexposedshow">Sometimes we bring things inside that should just
be left 'out'. Today I am thankful for that great relic of the not so distant
past, the outhouse, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 10 - Long ago in a
not so distant garden a group of tomatoes were bragging about their
versatility, two peppers were vying for a place on pizza and the aloof carrot
was dreaming of dessert. Tired of being relegated to a healthy snack, carrot
shaved himself, and slid into some orange jello thinking he'd blend in. Aha! He
was a welcome guest in the orange jello. "Jello is almost a dessert"
carr</span><span class="textexposedshow">ot thought. However carrot
remembered that even celery (you know, the ants on a log guy) once was included
in jello. So carrot shaved up again, and went where no vegetable dared to go.
Cake. He found himself swimming in spice cake batter and the world has never
since been the same. You, bold carrot who has broken all vegetable convention,
today is your day. No longer relegated to salad, beef roast and stew, you are
now a dessert. Today I am thankful for carrot cake, and you should be too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 11 - Military
technology amazes me, and it is staggering to think of how this technology </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">has
come to affect our everyday lives and raised our standard of living. Military
technology society never dreamed of 50 years ago is common place now among
civilians. Of those staggering advancements one stands out above the rest, the
crowned jewel of military innovation... cargo pants. No more sitting on
wallets, or having keys dig into your thighs. Our veterans we're rocking the
cargos in foreign lands long before the rest of us knew it was cool. So today I
am thankful for cargo pants, but more than that I am thankful for the veterans
who made them cool, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 12 - 44% pig skin +
28% bovine hides + 27% bones + 1% other = 100% awesome. Without this worthy
mix, there are no more Gummy Snacks, Marshmallows, Jello, or even some ice
creams, yogurts, chip dips along with many other glorious snacks. Beyond snack eaters,
the pharmaceutical industry, photography developers, and even the cosmetic
industry should all share in this November 12th day of thanks. For once we can
take pride, like our ancestors, in letting no part of animal go to waste. Today
I give thanks for gelatin, and you should too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov13 - Cheese, Yogurt,
wine, beer, even leavened bread, all the by-products of contamination. I'm
thankful today for yeast and bacteria and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 14 - What if we could
find a worm that would be willing to eat harmful bacteria? What if this worm
was successfully used to treat infectious wounds? What if she also would be
willing to spin up a chrysalis to keep those butterfly lovers who need a
picture of transformation happy? This would be the ultimate species, no? What
if it came out of its chrysalis and actually stuck around for awhile instead of
flying off to South America? Yes this would be an organism worthy of our
thanksgiving. So today I am thankful for the housefly in worm's clothing,
a.k.a, the maggot, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 15 - My best memories
are uncaptured. They are faster, higher, louder, stormier, happier, prettier,
uglier, tastier, stronger hotter and colder, yes the uncaptured memories are
far more interesting than reality ever was. Reminisce with the right person and
a memory will improve and grow, they won't correct you, unless they too are
improving the memory. A good friend will add a couple Tacos to</span><span class="textexposedshow">the already inflated taco memory, or subtract 5 degrees from
a cold winter memory, or even add a few bodies to the huge party memory,
certainly they will not resist your additions either. But alas, some poor soul
always gets carried away with a camera, only wanting to capture a memory,
unwittingly they put it in cage. My mind sees ten tacos but the picture only
shows six... burn the picture. Sure, caged memories don't die, but they don't
live either. Today I am thankful for uncaged memories, and you should be too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 16 - if our uncaged
memories have a freedom which caged memories do not (see yesterday) then today
I am thankful for the hard drives which go on permanent strike to set those
memories free, and of course you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 17 - Thankfulness for
maggots and houseflies was not echoed... by anyone so today I take a different
tack. Today I am thankful for the weavers of nets, architects who work in fine
silk as strong as steel. Great trappers of the aforementioned house fly. They
stand ever vigilant in their task of trapping and destroying bugs in your home.
In return you smash them. Today I am thankful for spiders, and you should be
too. (Especially if you are not thankful for houseflies)</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 18 - To deny magic is
to deny reality. We live in a spoken world, a fantasy as it were. A place where
the green worms someday get to be butterflies and the brown ones have been
cursed to eat dirt and reproduce by themselves. A place were black and white
squirrels spray noxious fumes postmortem to remind the world of their
existence. This place where frogs that pretended to be fish as children<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="textexposedshow">grow up only to stick there tongues out at blood sucking fairies that some
call mosquitos. Even last night magical winds blew that sent children under
ground while those same winds summoned heroes into giant red trucks, flashing
cars, and mobile hospitals. It is a denial of reality to say there is no magic,
and an outright blasphemy to call magic evil. Today I am thankful for magic,
and you should be too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 19 - Stomp in a
puddle deep enough wet your socks. Run barefoot to your mailbox in the dead of
winter just to feel your body dance a jig in auto-pilot. Count how many
snowballs you make after your hands have gone numb. Get grass stains while doing
something other than mowing. The greatest mistake we ever made was to grow up.
Why do you encourage your kids to make the same mistake? Mother, don'</span><span class="textexposedshow">t scold the muddy child because he caused you extra work,
teach them how to clean it and then give them permission to get dirty again.
Father, one barefoot lap around the house in the snow isn't going to kill them,
scratch that, they might die of laughter when they run inside. Why must we
forbid the very things that make life worth living? Today I am thankful for
childhood, and the adults who still live it and encourage it, and you should be
too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 20 - There's an
enigmatic cluster of people in our society who travel in droves to quaint run
down shacks. Wearing their creaky old bodies, each holstering a can of pledge
and a waning cask of elbow grease, they conjure diamonds from history's
rubbish. These pirates have scoured your garage to rob you of unseen treasure.
Give thanks. The past has tangible and not mere sentimental value because of
their thieving. We can only pray this order of buccaneers remains 100 years
from now, lest our possessions turn to dust and never find value again. Today I
am thankful for antiquarians and you should be too.</span><span style="color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">(An antiquarian is
an antique collector.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 21 - We talk a lot
about first responders, but rarely about the last responder. We celebrate our
life saving heroes but not our death saving heroes. When our first responders
zip up the bag who will you call? Who will bring dignitiy to death? Final
memories are hard memories, who is the hero who will step in to make those
memories right? The last image burns into our retinas forever, who will<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="textexposedshow">create that last image. Who brings out the dead when the heroes of hospice
can do no more? Another hero, that's who. Yet you look at him and shudder, you
wonder about his back room where he weaves his spell, and you even question his
sanity. You wonder about his childhood, and why he ever dreamed of such a
profession. Today I am thankful for funeral directors, and you should be too.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 22 - Few are the
people who see conversation as an art and not a mere transmission of ideas.
Conversations should often go beyond the practical, beyond the sharing of
stories and advice, beyond jokes, they should touch things we never expected to
touch. You know when you've been in one, its just different. Today I am
thankful for the rare conversationalist, talk to one (I did tonight), and
you'll be thankful too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 23 - With the Hubble
telescope beaming back gorgeous pictures of space we have become obsessed with
the enormity of this universe's beauty. It is mind blowing to consider how
small we really are. Yet if we put a particle of dust on a microscope and
continue to zoom in we will see gorgeous beauty there as well. Through and
through we live in beauty, we are made of beauty, we breath beauty, we spit
beauty. You just cannot get away from it. Even ugly viewed close enough is
beautiful. Today I am thankful for telescopes and microscopes which reveal this
beauty, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 24 - Speak a dream
and it vaporizes. The images were so vivid, confusing and real, you soaked in
the thick dream residue enjoying that strange high. Then you speak it and the
crystalline dream, becomes liquid, and in a moment it's a vapor that you
frantically try to bottle in your mind. I'm convinced that if a dream were
never spoken you'd be able to keep it forever. In any case today I am thankful
for those moments when dream residue is thick and heavy, you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 25 - Ears for
hearing, eyes for seeing, tongue for tasting, nose for smelling, skin for
touching. What if we had more sensing organs? A mole rat is oblivious to light.
Talk to a mole rat. Explain light to him. Lack of sensing organs make you
oblivious to almost everything in the world. How many more colors are there
that you can't see? How much music does this world create that you cannot hear?
How many flavors are there that you cannot taste? You barely sense the tip of
the iceberg of reality. Today I am thankful that our world is richer than we
will ever perceive it to be, and hopeful for what additional sense resurrection
life might bring, you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 26 - Beauty is
largely subjective. If an item or a person is not beautiful to you, it is
because of your decision. Culture helped, but the decision still lies at your
feet. Today I am thankful for beauty, and eyes that are occasionally willing to
see it, and you should be too.</span><span style="color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">Yeah remember those
earthworms? Beautiful. Really.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 27 - Yesterday I was
high school, the day before that I was elementary, but jr. high was 1000 years
ago. Just a week ago I got married and it's been like 60 years since my last
cold. Good memories stay close while the lame ones drop into the distant past.
Today I am thankful that our minds don't process time like our watches and
calendars do, and you should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 28 - Children have
real conversations with imaginary friends. Adults have imaginary conversations
with real friends. Alone in your car you run mock conversations. Don't lie, you
do. You get all the words right, your friend responds exactly as you plan. If
it is a fight you win, if it is friendly banter the conversations moves right
where you want it to. Go ahead, challenge your ideas and theories alone in a
mock conversation with real friends. This is a good healthy exercise. However,
today I am thankful that real conversations never go as predicted, and you
should be too.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #37404e; line-height: 107%;">Nov 29 (late I know) -
I'm putting two recliners side by side in my living room facing the front
window, a love seat behind them, and one more love seat behind the first one,
minivan floor plan. Then we are going to sit there for fourteen hours in an
attempt to duplicate the excitement of a family trip to the beach, because
let's face it long car rides were fun growing up, right? Absurd? Yes, long
trips were fun because the journey had a destination. Today I am thankful that
this terrestrial ball ride has a destination, and you should be too. (Unless
you are the the type who fakes mini-van rides in your living room.)</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-43776455426866946452013-10-18T14:35:00.002-04:002013-10-18T14:35:14.489-04:00That's a work! Nuh uh... yuh huh... nuh uh...<div class="MsoNormal">
“What is the limitation of God’s action through people?”
This question is anything but trivial, and it is precisely the dividing line
between sacramental Christianity (not sacramentarianism mind you), and
Evangelicalism. Let’s be clear that the way we answer this question touches
nerves that we didn’t realize we even had, and actually exposes divisions in
places where we once thought we were united.
So what is the limitation of God’s action through people? I can hear you
saying “well God has no limits, and God can do whatever God wants to do!”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I might say Amen to that, but the truth is that you don’t
really believe that, and you need to stop pretending that you do.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For instance, can God forgive you by having me say to you ‘your
sins are forgiven’? Or must God have me
tack on the words “because of what Christ has done”? Or must God have me tack on “In the name of
Christ”. Or does God just do it, and any words I say are mere commentary on
what he has done. You see there are limits that you have in place. Can God have me cook bread, ferment wine,
speak words of institution over them, feed them to you, and forgive you by
those actions of mine? Can He? The question is, can God work that way? Can God have me run to the church tap, fill a
pitcher, put it in a font, sprinkle it on a baby in accordance with word, and
wash away that child’s original sin? Can
God do that? Of course the evangelical
reader will astutely point out that I am creating a false dichotomy, or a
strawman, and they would say “sure God <i>‘could’</i>
do that, but that isn’t what God does in accordance with His word.” In other
words that is not the way that he has revealed himself to be working.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question we then ask the evangelical, especially in
light of verses in scripture which seem to insinuate forgiveness in the supper,
washing away of sin in baptism, confession and absolution, and so on is this; <b><i>“What
is it that makes the typical evangelical balk at a non-symbolic view of word
and sacrament”? </i></b>This is an important question, and one that I ask
often.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The evangelical response inevitably sounds something like
this; <i>“We are not saved by works,
therefore eating the supper, being baptized, being absolved, etc… can only
signify what Christ has done. Baptism cannot actually wash away sin, because it
is work, communion cannot actually impart forgiveness, because it is a work,
absolution cannot actually absolve, because it is a work. To say these things are more than symbolic is
to violate the overarching theme of the New Testament which is salvation by
faith in Christ, not of works.”</i> Add on the fact that it sounds too Roman
Catholic, and all arguments for sacramental Christianity are usually DOA before
the normal evangelical will even entertain them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
After debating this ad nauseum with a friend of mine I’ve
come to a very simple conclusion. These two systems have different ideas
regarding what scripture refers to as a work. When I hear someone say baptism
is a work, I just scratch my head. <i>“How is someone putting me in water and
saying words over me a work?”</i> My
opponent would scratch his head and say <i>“How
is someone putting you in water and saying words over you not a work?” </i>Then we just kind of stare at each other
like the other person is an idiot.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you step back the difference is pretty obvious. The
sacramental guy is saying a work is anything we do ourselves, and the
evangelical is saying a work is anything done by any human effort other than
Christ’s. So the literal sacrament view finds it absurd to think baptism is a
work because it is done to you, not by you.
The supper is not a work because it is given to you, not done by you,
absolution is not a work because it is pronounced to you, not by you… and so
on. In the evangelical framework all of
those things are works because they are done under human volition and they
believe it involves the creation of a mediator between God and man, which is
strictly denounced by Paul. Which again begs the question “What is the
limitation of God’s action through people?” or “Is it possible to say a person
doing these things is really God doing them?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I contend that if we are going to frame a debate between Christians
regarding the sacraments the place we need to start is with a working
definition of what the scriptures mean when they say we are not saved by
works. Debating any other point will inevitably
amount to us speaking directly past one another. The other thing we must be
aware of, is that belief in real presence, baptismal regeneration, and
absolution does not imply Roman Catholicism. I hate to even have to bring that
up, but it seems like the assumption of most evangelicals is that there is no
third alternative between them and Rome.
There are though, some of Anglicanism, Lutheranism, even slivers of
Methodism and I am sure some others hold to a literal view regarding the
sacraments and their accompanying scriptures.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Without beginning to make the arguments as to why the
literal sacramental definition of works is right, and the typical evangelical
view is wrong, I want to use the rest of this post to explain some of the
downstream differences we see in our churches which are resultant of our
differing view of works.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One staple of evangelical Christianity is personal bible
study. There is this idea that the private study of God’s word is, if not a
mandate on a Christian, at the very least it is one of the healthiest things a Christian
can do. For the evangelical one of the signs of a healthy church is bibles in
laps of the parishioners following along as the minister preaches. The healthy
evangelicals are being Berean and “fact checking” the sermon for lack of a
better word. The preacher then is merely
supplementing, or guiding their own personal study. Ultimately under what I
will call the ‘Berean mandate’ (as understood by evangelicals) it is up to the
individual to determine truth. Of course
they would say ‘No we are discerning truth’, but take an honest look and you
will see that regardless of what any minister would say, <u>personal
interpretation of the text is always trump in evangelicalism</u>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course the flip side is the more sacramental church.
Nobody has their bible out, or very few do, and they and their minister are
perfectly fine with that. Instead they are listening for the words about
themselves to be spoken to them. (Faith cometh by hearing). Instead of shuffling through to find the
ministers passing reference to Philemon chapter 2 they are waiting to hear the
Law and Gospel spoken directly to them ‘sacramentally’ through the minister. Of
course the evangelical doesn’t hear any of it, because they were being busy
Bereans looking for the second chapter of Philemon.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oddly enough the evangelical looks at the sacramental folk
as sheep just lapping up whatever the minister feels like saying, and the
sacramental folk are looking back at the evangelical wondering why they are
working so hard at apprehending a sermon.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the sacramental people church attendance is super
important, and a lot of times they don’t even know why, but they think, and
rightly so, that showing up and hearing the words of God’s forgiveness,
remembering their baptism, and receiving the supper somehow makes them right
with God. The evangelicals find that to
be absurd. Of course the evangelicals are comfortable missing church as long as
they maintain bible study and fellowship in a small group, or some sort of
personal devotional practice. Both sides look at each other and say, ‘that
sounds like works salvation to me!’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the evangelical church you might hear a 58 part sermon on
Ephesians, because the most important thing is understanding. (58 weeks in
Ephesians was not meant to be absurd, seriously you’ll find stuff like that.)
The sacramental church might spend 3 or 4 weeks in it depending on the
lectionary, because they are less concerned with your knowledge and more concerned
with pronouncing (thereby applying) Christ’s life, death, and resurrection to
you, and condemning your flesh (literally condemning it, not a symbolic guilt
trip) with the Law.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In evangelicalism growth happens primarily by study and
service. In sacramental Christianity growth happens primarily by tending to the
means of grace.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course we could go on and on here. Simply remember that
the line of demarcation is in what constitutes a work. For evangelicals a work
is anything done by anyone, for the sacramental folk it is anything done by
your own volition. Which is why we sacramental folk watch the evangelicals and
actually think they teach works salvation, and they look at us and say the
same.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hopefully that was an honest assessment, and before anyone
yells at me, I KNOW that I made some sweeping generalizations there, and I
apologize if I cast anyone into a role they really do not fill. This is a springboard though which we can
start from.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I need to stop for now, but I will continue this in multiple
parts.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-75366000023545107762013-05-14T17:04:00.002-04:002013-05-14T17:04:19.335-04:00Dementia, Manufacturing, and the Not so Missing Link<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are two disturbing trends in America right now that
need some serious attention. The first is the increase in dementia type
illnesses occurring among people who are still in the prime of their life, and
the second is export of manufacturing jobs overseas. While I think it is nearly
impossible to stop the exporting of manufacturing jobs in our current economic
reality, I do believe it is possible to curb dementia with relative ease. It is
no coincidence that there is an inverse relationship between domestic
manufacturing and dementia. The correlation is staggering. The answer to
solving the dementia pandemic is to increase people’s exposure to common manufacturing
chemicals. Healthcare professionals are keeping this secret. Again, realize
that as time has gone on, less and less Americans are having the opportunity to
be exposed to various cutting fluids, paint fumes, and metallic dust, and we
are just now beginning to see the price that under exposure to these chemicals
is really playing on our public. Of
course we have heard the bogus arguments from the other side. Many people want
to tell us that it is actually dementia that is causing the loss of
manufacturing jobs, and that to reverse the trend of job exporting we must
first begin to cure dementia. While I understand the logic, I do find it rather
careless to blame memory impaired people for the state of manufacturing in the
US. Frankly I am appalled at that proposition.
Now fortunately for all 13 of you who read my blog I have a surefire way
to reduce your risk of developing dementia in your golden years. A group
renowned people and I, have been scavenging through the rust-belt and
purchasing up all the unused manufacturing fluids and gases that we can get our
hands on. Now this is a secret the
government doesn’t want you know, because they have their greedy hands in our
health care, and dementia is big business for them. Anyway, we have procured
literally thousands of pounds worth of chemicals, and have created a scientific
method for simulating healthy levels of factory exposure to these chemicals.
You owe it to your family and to yourself to contact us, and make sure you get
the exposure you need. Call 800-555-6565 for your free sample, don’t forget
that number… or else… you’ll forget that number.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ludicrous? Of course it is, yet you and I buy into, and even
make arguments like this all the time. Entire movements are based on ideas
similar to the one above. Anytime you read a story that begins with ‘studies
have linked…’ you should put yourself on guard because more often than not a
whole load of horse manure is about to spew forth on your page. (Organic horse
manure, so maybe it is justified.) Of course this is not to discredit all
stories that statistically link things together, but proceed with caution. The
point is simply that in most cases correlation simply does not imply causation,
especially in the incredibly complex world that we live in.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What causes obesity? Some say fast food, some say lack of
exercise, some say its stress… I think it probably has something to do with
sushi. More people in America are eating sushi than ever before, and more
people are fat than ever before… coincidence? I think not. Seriously though,
how many times will the FDA or the ‘organic’ or ‘vegitarian’ soldiers march
through our streets telling us something is unhealthy, only to march down the
street two years later saying the exact opposite before we will realize that
maybe they just don’t know? That their arguments of causation from correlation
are frankly wrong? Can someone tell me
what the current thinking is on potatoes, or whether high fiber diets actually
reduce cholesterol or not?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now if we project this tendency we have to grant causation
to things correlated into the realm of the church we will see how prone to this
thinking we are. Look at the worship wars for instance. Contemporary churches
have typically seen more growth than traditional offerings, especially through
the nineties and the early part of this century, therefore to grow the church
we must become more culturally relevant. Seems like a good argument right? Or
how about this, the sharpest period of decline ever in the American church
corresponded in conjunction with the burgeoning movement of contemporary music
into traditional churches. Uh… two
stories correlating different things, yet giving the exact opposite messages…
both with stats to back them up. Both
sides can argue all they want, and people will line up and spend big money to
go to conferences based entirely off of these ideas, without ever knowing that
they are being sold placebo. I can tell
you the secret to church growth, and this is free for everyone who has read
this far. What you need to have happen
at your church in order for it to grow is this: You need to see to it that
number of people entering your ranks exceeds the number of people dying and or
leaving the church. If you can do that I will guarantee your church will grow.
I promise.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what’s the point? Everyone is hopeful for a miracle and
even willing to see a miracle in things that are obviously not miraculous.
People stuff gel capsules with roots in them down their throat in hopes to
stave off cancer. People use the latest strategies to present the gospel.
People switch out to the latest leadership models to grow their church. People
hope rigid spiritual disciplines with solve tepid discipleship, and on and on
the list goes. And most of the justification behind all of these fads and
trends is someone well-meaning soul who has determined causation based on correlation.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-32473648898496916242013-05-09T14:23:00.002-04:002013-05-09T14:23:13.223-04:00Mechanics, Engineers, and the Atonement... Finding the Right Place to Fight<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The process you use to develop your theories, opinions, or
truth statements are as important if not more important than the final conclusions
that you draw. While this might seem obvious at first glance, the importance of
this idea, especially as we approach issues of faith cannot be understated. For
the most part we all process the same or at least similar ‘facts’, yet our
process determines what weight we give to various ‘facts’ we are presented
with. In most cases when a debate comes up on issues of theology (or really
anything with even a modicum of subjectivity) we spend all of our time debating
our conclusions based on the facts presented without ever engaging the validity
of our processes used to arrive at our conclusions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s take a common debate between automotive engineers and
mechanics.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No engineer is designing an automobile with the intention of
making it difficult to work on, really, there is no conspiracy here. We really
do want your car to be repairable, it’s just that in our thought process ‘reparability’
is only a minor factor. Yet, the mechanic is convinced that it is an absolute
truth that ease and cost of repair should be a primary design consideration. In
truth it is nearly impossible to say who is right or wrong on that alone.
However if we decide to debate the thought process itself behind the design we
can make headway in seeing whether one side’s process of thinking is superior
to the other.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It comes down to values, and yet no cogent debate can occur
about anything unless both parties have at least one shared value. As an
engineer my core value is efficiency and cost reduction. Ultimately we find
that the mechanic actually has this in common with the engineer. He wants the
repair to be efficient and low cost. At the very least there is a starting
point from which to debate and something fruitful can proceed. Before finding
that shared value, mechanics are merely gear heads who don’t understand the
finer points of machine design, and conversely engineers are just asses who
have no consideration for the next guy who is going to work on their car after
their design inevitably begins to fail. I am not a mechanic, and can only argue
the engineering side. I would simply say just save the money I have gained you
in efficiency and number of trips to Autozone, and use that extra money to
shell out $500 to get your spark plugs changed. But, you might respond, it is
ridiculous to spend that much for something that simple. To which I would say
no more ridiculous than spending that at the pump, or changing them yourselves
3 times as often. To which the mechanic
might say, but being able to do something yourself is a value in and of
itself. Ah… and now we have found the
difference, the point of debate as it were. I think overall money savings is
more important, the mechanic places higher value on self-sufficiency. Now we
have the ground work for a really interesting philosophical debate that we
might have never found if we never started with our shared value of cost and
efficiency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The jump to theology is not hard to make here. Let’s take
Calvinist, Wesleyan, and Lutheran doctrine with regard to the atonement.
Calvinism would limit the atonement to the elect by grace alone, Wesleyans
would make it available to all via decision which was enabled by prevenient
grace, and Lutherans would say the atonement is already applied to everyone and
is ascertained by faith. How do we get to a meaningful place from which to
debate these things? We find that Calvinism is primarily concerned with the Glory
of God, Wesleyans are concerned with Holiness, Lutherans are concerned with
unwavering good news to all. These core values are very different and have an
immense effect on our view of the nature and scope of the atonement. Of course Wesleyans and Lutherans are still concerned
with the Glory of God, and Lutherans and Calvinists are still concerned with
Holiness, and Wesleyans and Calvinists are still concerned with Good News, BUT
which of these things should have primacy?
That is where the debate must occur. Unfortunately the debates among
these groups tends be around what is the role of good works, or what is
predestination, or how can one know they are saved, or can salvation be lost…
or a myriad of other topics. Yet with each group operating from a different
platform regarding what is ‘most important’ each of those debates simply end
with everyone thinking the other person doesn’t get it. The only fruitful debate is a debate around
what should be primary, from there other things can be debated, but until
agreement on the primary occurs discussion around the secondary topics is
largely pointless.<br />
<br />
Is God’s glory the primary concern, is Holiness the primary concern, is Good
News to all the primary concern. Again, we all agree that these things are interrelated,
but that is where the debate must begin.<br />
<br />
Should cars be easy to fix by anyone mechanically inclined? Or should cars
rarely need fixed? Of course the answer
to both questions is ‘yes’, but debate must occur at the primary level of what
is most important.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Next time you debate anything with anyone, I encourage both
parties to attempt to trace their line of thinking all the way back to your
point of divergence. If you don’t start there, then whether you know it or not,
you are just debating past each other. However if you get to your point of
divergence, you might at least come to understand, and *gasp*, even respect
that the conclusions of your friend make sense in light of their fundamental
differences. You might even find that
from the point of divergence onward you both are using the exact same process
to draw your conclusions. Of course this is not to minimize our differences,
these things are immensely important, but at the very least we should debate
the differences in at the point of divergence not at the logical downstream
conclusions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Make sense?<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-48544990573273415972013-04-10T12:23:00.001-04:002013-04-10T12:23:07.541-04:00Good News is Unconditional Too<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
“If you forgive the
sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it
is withheld.” –John 20:23<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have found that the vast majority of commentary that I’ve
read on this text goes to great lengths to explain away the plain reading of
the text. While none of the commentators would be so brazen as to say they have
a complaint with the text itself, the undertone of each of them is indeed a
complaint. The common thread of these commentaries sounded something like this;
“we know that only God can forgive, therefore this text means that the
disciples were charged with proclaiming the good news about <i>how someone may be forgiven.</i>” Yet that is not what the text says at all. The
text clearly says ‘if you forgive… they are forgiven… if you withhold… it is
withheld.’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For reasons unknown to me we have a real problem with the
idea that someone can forgive sin on behalf of God. The vast agreement of
commentary surrounding this passage proves our discomfort with that idea. We
claim to also have a problem with the other side of the equation as well. We
ask, “who are we to withhold forgiveness from anyone?” However, in practice we
can see that we don’t have a problem with the second side of the equation at
all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How many times have we heard a preacher boldly claim that ‘there
is none righteous no not one’ or that ‘all have fallen short of the glory of
God?’ We hear these things, and we collectively say ‘amen’ as we should. God
has indeed said that we have all fallen short, and when the preacher declares
that to us we should hear it as God speaking because it is true. We have no problem
with the preacher condemning us from the word of God. This is not some
fundamentalist only thing, progressives too have their own way of doing this. ‘We
have failed to bring justice’ ‘we have failed to be open-minded’ ‘we have
failed to serve the marginalized’ and so on.
Again this is all to say the same thing, ‘we have all fallen short’. We
are used to this sort of preaching, and we readily accept it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem that we have is when a Christian says the words ‘you
are forgiven’. We get all bent out of shape and say ‘only God forgives! No one
can forgive sin in heaven other than God!’ We are fine with the preacher saying
all are condemned, but as soon as someone says ‘ALL are justified freely by his
grace’ we respond saying ‘whoa back up, there is no way that ALL are justified.
You can’t just tell someone they are justified until they have examined
themselves to see if they are in the faith.’
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Can you see our blatant inconsistency here?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I look at you and tell you that in baptism you were
buried with Christ and risen with Christ, or say the words ‘baptism saves you’,
or say ‘you are forgiven’ people will line up to insert various caveats as to
why or why not that may be true for you. Yet all I have said are the words of
scripture themselves, it is someone else who is adding or taking away from it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why is it that we have not embraced the idea that we can pronounce
actual and effectual heavenly forgiveness with our human mouths from God’s word,
yet we are comfortable with speaking actual condemnation from the scriptures? Why is it that we wrongly insert ‘if’
somewhere in the message of forgiveness but rightly leave out ‘if’ in the
message of condemnation from the law?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are questions worth consideration.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-76534917605972170152013-03-27T15:51:00.001-04:002013-03-27T15:52:39.291-04:00Semantics and Homosexuality<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Homosexuality is the most pressing social issue of our
time. Whether or not it should be is
open for debate, but as far as public attention goes, the debates surrounding
homosexuality and society get the most play.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The conversation around this issue has been so charged that
the task of getting to the bottom of what both sides are attempting to
communicate is a daunting one. The underlying struggle of the whole debate
actually comes down definition of terms. Both sides of this issue will say
different things using the same terminology and then debate right past each
other. Language itself is critical in the whole debate, and in the end whoever
gets to define the terms wins the debate and determines the public perception.
When someone says “it’s just semantics” and writes off ‘semantics’ as a mere secondary
thing to the debate they have already lost, regardless of what side they are
on. Semantics are at the heart of every
debate, and it is semantics that will form the collective conscience of the
society. This is true for any public discourse, not just debate around
homosexuality. In the gun control debate for instance, the old line “guns don’t
kill people, people kill people” is merely semantics nothing more, but it is
the heartbeat of the debate. If that statement is collectively agreed upon by society,
those who argue against guns have a huge uphill battle to fight in the public
eye. Semantics are the heartbeat of every debate, and again I reiterate, that
whoever successfully defines the terms of a public discourse will always be the
primary drivers of policy. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the abortion debate it is probably more obvious than anywhere
else. We might ask the question: “After
conception what is growing in the mother’s womb?” Seems to be a fair enough question,
but even that question itself assumes an anti-abortion position by calling the
impregnated woman a “mother”. Before the
debate even begins as to whether it is a fetus, child, embryonic tissue, or
whatever you may choose to call it, the woman carrying it has already been
called ‘mother’ in the question, which of course presumes that what she has
been impregnated with is a child. My adamant position against abortion is beside my
main point, which is that semantics matter.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now regardless of your position on gay marriage, or the
morality of homosexuality as a ‘state of being’ or ‘homosex’ as an action, you
are not equipped to even navigate your way honestly through either side’s
position without first giving notice to the semantics involved.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Homosexual<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s take the most obvious term, ‘homosexual’. Believe it
or not, this is not a term that’s definition is universally agreed upon, not
even close. Some would say a ‘homosexual’
is a person who engages in sex acts with a person or persons of the same
gender. If that is the definition then there is no such thing as a celibate
homosexual because the term is defined by the act itself. Others would say it is a person naturally
disposed toward engaging in same sex acts with a person of the same
gender. Notice that this is a
drastically different definition. In the first definition the term is based on
an action, in the second definition it is based on a disposition toward an action. Another
definition might be that it is simply some intrinsic characteristic of person
that affects far more than mere sexuality and that the term ‘homosexual’ really
has nothing to do with the physical acts of ‘sex’ at all. Again, this definition which is also popular
(maybe the most popular) is drastically different than the first two. In this
third definition you could, in theory, have a homosexual who is content in a
happy and functional ‘heterosexual’ marriage. The point is that it is impossible to have a discussion around this issue if you have no
idea what definition of ‘homosexual’ your discussion partner is operating with.
Truth be told I am sure there are countless other definitions people are
operating from that I haven’t even considered.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Marriage<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Marriage is another term that a lot of battle has been done
around. There is the simple definition that many will work from that marriage
is the coming together of a man and woman as a family unit. With that definition it really does not
matter what legislation is passed, there is no such thing as same sex marriage
because of a conflict of terms. Of course there are other definitions of
marriage that abound, namely that marriage is the union of two persons in a
committed monogamous legally certified union. With this position the battle for
gay marriage is one of legalization. Those holding this position would say that the
only thing that stops gays from being married is a legal barrier, and that if that
barrier is dropped then same sex marriage is validated. Other views deny the
legal side altogether, and say that gay marriage has been going on for a long
time and the only battle left to fight is getting the already existing and future gay
marriages to have legal protection. Of course there are other views as well and
society is divided. The case can be made both for and against polygamous
marriage, but the question must be raised whether or not the wives of polygamy
are actually ‘wives’. It depends on the semantics. I do not bring up polygamy to try to lump it into the debate around homosexual marriage, not at all, I only bring it up to say that there are debates surrounding the word 'marriage' that go back even further than our current one. There are many other facets
beyond heterosexual, homosexual, and polygamous to the definition of the word
marriage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Sex<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The very act of sex itself needs to have a clear definition
as well. We all remember the whole “what is is?” debacle during the Clinton impeachment
proceedings. At what point is something ‘sexual’? It is an important debate to
have. Certain practices which are culturally normal in other parts of the world
would be seen as sexual in here in Northwest Ohio, and I am sure that is a two
way street.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Love<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Love itself might be the hardest of words to define, but it
plays into the debate as well. I love men. That is a true enough statement
coming from my fingers to this screen. However in the context of this debate
what could those three words mean? It’s hard to tell. It could mean that I love
men exclusively, or love them sexually, or that there are some men like my son
and my father that I love, or that I love humankind in general. The ambiguity of
any statement regarding love is alarming.
As is the ambiguity of terms like ‘homosexuality’ ‘marriage’ or ‘sex’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you actually want to engage anyone in this debate, you
owe it to them to at least define the terms you are working with, and you really
should go an extra step and try to understand the terms they are working
with. Otherwise you just continually
talk past each other, and whoever ends up on the wrong side of the war of semantics will just look like an unloving, or immoral fool in the end. In truth we are all both, but the odds are that you would see the people you debate with in a different light if you understood their terms.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-825094219678812332013-03-01T11:45:00.007-05:002013-03-01T11:45:56.296-05:00Divine Authorship - A Writer's Look at Free Will<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the past month I have taken it upon myself to write a
novel. In the process of developing a
gripping plot and characters worth following I have learned a number of things
about myself as well as the world around me.
It has been a rewarding process.
The primary thing I am learning is that I am a terrible writer, especially
of fiction. That little truth has stung
and even depressed me a bit, but in the process of writing my skills have gone
for absolutely terrible, to really bad.
I’ve figured that if I keep at it another ten years I might even ascend
to mediocrity. How’s that for a noble
goal?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is one unexpected thing I’ve learned regarding free
will and divine sovereignty. After
attempting to control my characters and keep them rolling through the designed
plot I have for them, I am realizing that I have less control over them than I
want to. It is a strange realization to
say the least. In truth my characters
can do nothing without my fingers striking the keys. They can say nothing that I have not thought
in advance. I know the words that will
come out of their mouths before they even speak them. I am absolutely sovereign over them. I change the weather around them to make them
react, I put people in their lives to make them grow, I place challenges in
their path to make them fail, and then I determine their reaction to those
challenges and failures. In every sense
of the word I am sovereign over them. My
sovereignty as an author was always something I assumed. However what I did not expect was for my
characters to have their own free will within the context of my divine
authorship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you spend time perusing writing websites, or reading
books about writing you will find continued advice to ‘let the characters speak
for themselves.’ It seems to be a great
paradox. The idea of letting your
characters speak, even though they cannot speak without your mind giving them
words is a hogwash concept. Hogwash
until you try it. As I write dialog my
characters say things which I did not expect, I find that my characters react
to situations in ways that I do not desire.
I have even found that if I do not reign in an evil character they will
eventually become good, or that if I give a good character enough rope they
will hang themselves with it. I know
that sounds like some sort of psychobabble, but sit down and develop some
characters of your own and put them in a story together and you will find that
what I am saying is true.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is a real sense in which the moment I place my
character on paper I relinquish a degree of sovereignty that I have over them,
though I never relinquish my authorship of them. I am still the source of their words, their
world, their situations, their plot, and ultimately their demise or exaltation.
They can do nothing without me, they cease to exist if I cease to write
them. Moreover anything they do will
ultimately serve my purpose, which is to elevate and honor my protagonist. Nonetheless my characters exist in my mind
(and on a bunch of sheets of character profiles) and the traits, personalities,
and backgrounds I give them drive their own free actions, sometimes against my
will. Ultimately their own actions will
determine their role in the story.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we are willing to look at God’s sovereignty in the light
of divine authorship with Christ as the ultimate protagonist in His narrative
we will see how this blending of free will and sovereignty actually works. If you have never sat down to write fiction
this all could seem like an ethereal of
a view of sovereignty that places either too much responsibility in God’s
hands. On the other hand you might be uncomfortable with the idea that God’s
own creation has some degree of effect upon him, but if you have written you
will see no contradiction or problem here.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the story I am writing I have had numerous moments where
a character has pleaded with me (in my mind) and changed the direction of my
narrative, yet somehow it is all happening within my own mind and only finds
direction only from me. The character
which free thinks, still must use my mind to do the thinking. I think of moments within God’s divine
narrative of human history where similar things have happened, moments where
God repented of what appeared to be his initial plan. Moses telling God what would happen if he
wiped out Israel comes to mind. Again,
in the 40k+ words I have written in my novel I can think of a number of times
when my characters have advised me on my plot.
Nonetheless the characters cannot even think apart from me giving them
my own thoughts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I encourage you to try writing, if for no other reason to
learn something about yourself, as well as how your own characters can have
free will while under your absolute authority.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are other things I have learned that will have to wait
for other blog posts. Not the least of
which is how my own personal attitudes and desires are reflected in the way I
tailor my story. Every piece of
narrative is somehow a reflection of the author, but that is a topic for a
later date.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-18821468362640512052013-01-31T13:38:00.003-05:002013-01-31T13:38:24.540-05:00What about the Conquest?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I stand before a group of God created people, with the
command to lead an army to utterly destroy those people, men, women, and
children. Everything in me screams out
for the justice of God and the protection of the innocent, and yet through the
messengers of God, the very anointed ones which we follow, I am told to kill,
and to kill mercilessly. Should I doubt
the anointed ones? Should I go
rogue? Should I begin an insurrection
amongst my own people in order to change the course of history? Or should I do as my leaders have commanded? I mean, it is “our” promised land, the land
which God had sworn to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet, there are women and children in that
land, unsuspecting women and children who will die by my sword… if I obey. How do I know that God has spoken these
things?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the most troubling sections of scripture to most
believers is the conquest of the Holy Land by Israel. I think we tend to approach the text, placing
ourselves in it, and have emotions elicited that follow the path of the
paragraph above. It is impossible to
simply spiritualize the hostile takeover and still respect the scriptures
themselves. The Hebrew texts present
this take over as historical text, and you would be hard pressed to read it as allegory. Many well-meaning pastors have tried to turn
this historical text into a mere life lesson about overcoming hardships, or
claiming God’s promises. In doing this
the pastor, knowingly or not, is attempting to make a beeline past the history
itself in hopes that nobody will notice.
The people of Canaan simply become ‘obstacles in our lives’ the land
simply becomes ‘our idealized Christian existence’ and the carnage is quickly
sterilized into mere addictions and habits that have fallen by the
wayside. We do this sort of thing with
the cross as well, but that is another topic altogether. The question is how do we deal with the
history itself? I suppose we could ignore
it in favor of platitudes about victory.
We could do the opposite and celebrate it and find some sort of twisted
pleasure in God’s vengeance. We could
write it off as God becoming progressively nicer, I mean the slaughter of
Canaanites is certainly not as drastic as the flood account so God must be
getting gradually nicer… right? We could,
in the same vein as Brian McLaren, view it as the people of God gradually
becoming more aware of the mercy of God, and choose to see this hostile
takeover as progress from seeing the flood as an act of God, but not yet seeing
the fully realized mercy and inclusion we find in Christ. There are a lot of ways to look at. The spiritualized way is to ignore the
history. The ‘joy in the vengeance of
God’ is a way to affirm the history, while ignoring all the other attributes of
God which we cherish. The ‘progressive
understanding of God’ method acknowledges the history but denies God’s action in
or authorization of it. Where is a good
place to stand?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I tend to think that we come to this section of scripture
with some pretty faulty presumptions.
First we presume that these people of Canaan were relatively innocent,
believing they were ‘sort of’ bad, but the women and children surely must have
been innocent. We give the benefit of
the doubt, but on what is that founded?
Recall in the whole account of Sodom and Gomorrah, “yea if I find just 5
righteous men I will spare the city.” To
deny God’s patience is a mistake. What
was so horrific about these people that they needed wiped out? Or was it merely the manifest destiny of
Israel and these Canaanites were innocent by-standers?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think we ought to at least consider the possibility that
the people of Canaan were violently opposed to God, violently opposed to mercy,
and violently opposed to life and creation, and that maybe, just maybe, they
were getting the just rewards of their actions.
Recall that God waited until their ‘iniquity was fulfilled’ before
sending in the troops so to speak. We
are back to Genesis “If I find 5 good men, I will spare the city.” The question I ask is what ought to be done
with a people who heat up bronze statues till they glow, and then place their
infants in the hands of that statue in the belief that they could please their
gods? Moreover to consider that the
reason they were trying to please their gods was so that they would have better
weather and be able to grow more crops for themselves? Ought a nation, or religion like that be
allowed to continue? Would we not cry out for the justice of God against such a
people? Yet now we read of God carrying
out his justice against such a people and we bristle at the thought that God
would order the death of anyone. Don’t
leave this completely in the Old Testament either, lest you stumble across Ananias
and Saphira in Acts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am not about to say that I am comfortable with the
conquest of Canaan, or that I have some warm fuzzy feeling about it, or that I have
reconciled the carnage in my mind. I am
not about to say that this portion of scripture fits neatly into my
understanding of God, and ultimately of the grace of Christ toward the
world. It doesn’t fit neatly at
all. At the same time few people cried “injustice!”
when storm troopers offed Nazis who saw it a duty to their god to mercilessly
kill infant Jews and other minorities.
In fact if anything it seemed an injustice that many survived.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s good that we are troubled by death and conquest. It is good that we are not comfortable with
the conquest of Canaan, I don’t think God would want us comfortable with
it. At the same time, we ought to look
more objectively at the people conquered, and be willing to see that there was
a lot more justice in the whole thing than we tend to be willing to see. Moreover as we look at the failing of Israel
to fully carry out these gruesome commands of God, we see the very injustice of
the Canaanite people infecting Israel themselves as they begin to make the same
hideous offerings once made only by the people of the land.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m optimistic. I
think when Christ came, announced His kingdom, lived died and rose for the
world, that things have gotten better. I
believe things will continue to get better, at least in regards to Canaanite-like
death worship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we approach the conquest portion of scripture, at the
very least, let us not minimize the culture of death which Israel was called to
eradicate. It is also critically
important for us to see that post- life, death and resurrection of Christ for
the sin of the world, there is no place whatsoever for militant conquest of a
people. The conquest was finished on the
cross. Nonetheless we ought to be a bit
more objective regarding the conquest narrative of the Old Testament before we
raise our fist at God and cry out ‘that’s not fair! My god wouldn’t do that!”<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-12120328472731007262012-12-17T15:27:00.003-05:002012-12-17T15:27:32.338-05:00Without purpose, but not in vain<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
What benefit was gained by the shedding of young blood at
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is a question that I have not seen probed much in the
news, in blogs, or in various Facebook dialogs since this tragedy. Naturally our questions have not surrounded
the benefits of such a tragedy, because to think of possible benefits seems to
be trite, and distasteful. Instead the
primary question being asked is “why?”
That is a good question, a question that many have tried to answer, and
every answer seems to fail. There is
Westboro Baptist’s answer that this is the judgment of God, there are other
Christian commentators that say this is the result of removal of God from
schools. Still there are others who
blame a lack of gun control, while others make the claim that if gun control
were more lax we would not have these problems.
Other people, myself included, have pointed to lack of understanding of
mental health issues, and the church and society’s unwillingness to come
alongside the disturbed to offer them real help. All of these questions of ‘why’ are appropriate,
but none of them offer anything of peace, or give us any sense of hope, or any
glimmer of light into the situation. Of
course the seemingly Christian mantra of ‘everything happens for a reason’ is
equally void of hope, and Christians ought to be willing, especially in the
face of such a tragedy to forgo that worn out line. In the wake of this tragedy the atheist’s
line of thinking tends to gain traction… “If God is good, he must not be all
powerful because he has not stopped this, or If God is all powerful, then He
certainly is not good because he has allowed (thereby effectively caused) these
things to happen.” I’m not here to
defend God, or even to pretend to have a cogent response to that line of
thought. What I desire to come back to
is my first question:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“What benefit was gained by the shedding of young blood last
week?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is a great and a healing question. It is not a question in which the answer
poses ‘the reason’ or ‘purpose’ of this happening, not at all. It is a question of whether or not these
children died in vain. So as I begin to
outline the ‘benefits’ gained by this tragedy, I am NOT saying these benefits
are some grand divine purpose for the tragedy in the first place. In other words, I don’t offer the remainder
of this post as words to help us understand the question ‘why?’ The event was senseless. However what I am posing here is that these
children did not die completely in vain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This past Friday countless children across America received
something from their parents that they have not received in a long time. They received hugs, affirming words of love,
glances from their parents that showed that they were indeed deeply cared
for. Parents walked into their homes
from work, and for the first time in many weeks even they were happy to see
their children. They dropped their coats
and ran to their children and gave them the love they should be giving them
every day. We ought to give thanks to
those twenty children for this; their sacrifice (however unwilling) produced a
newfound love for children who are starved for it. Millions of children received long overdue
love. I would not contend that this was
worth the price those twenty children paid, but I will say that they did not
completely die in vain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This week countless teachers across this country are looking
at their students differently. Children
again are being seen as something of tremendous and sacred worth, not mere
pupils for teachers to educate in order to get their paycheck. Most teachers have always loved their
students, but somehow after a tragedy like this we begin to see the true worth
of the students given into our care. As
the news of this was being reported I am certain that every elementary teacher
in the country began to think about each of their students in ways they had never
thought about them before. Millions of
students were seen by their teachers for what they really are. Again, I would not contend that this was
worth the price those kids in Connecticut paid, but will say that they did not
completely die in vain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At the national level we saw corporate weeping, as
collectively we were reminded again of the value of life. Thoughts surrounded around the protection of
children, which is odd during this during the Christmas season which is marked
more by exploiting the desires of children for a profit. Flags across the country are at half-staff, churches
are joining in praying unified prayers for those affected. Even the President of the United States has
read words of comfort from the scripture to bring comfort to the whole
nation. These are wonderful occurrences. Certainly these occurrences are not worth the
price paid to attain them, but they remind me again that these children did not
die completely in vain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the midst of all this we were reminded again of what our
first responders and our teachers are really all about, we are reminded of
valor, and sacrifice. Of course the
price was too high to make it all worth it, but let us at least see that these
children did not die completely in vain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me be clear that I do not believe that the ‘reason’ for
this event was to reap the above benefits I expressed. I do not think there is a good ‘reason’ or ‘purpose’
for tragedy, I have no desire to cheapen it all with reasons or purposes. As far as a cause, that is simple, fallen
humanity in a fallen world doing wicked things.
That is what caused this, and it is sad and terrifying.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet despite these events being completely senseless,
reasonless, and purposeless, the victims and their families at least deserve to
know that their children’s death was not in vain. These families deserve to know that the blood
their children shed fertilized the fallow loveless ground of millions of
homes. It doesn’t bring them back, it
doesn’t make it worth it, nothing could make it worth it, but the blood wasn’t
spilt completely in vain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While the victims ought to naturally be bitter that the rest
of the nation still has their children to love, I hope they will hear the
unspoken thanks of all the children who have unexpectedly found themselves
loved sincerely by their parents again.
The blood was not spilled completely in vain. <o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-83812710018842206202012-11-07T16:40:00.000-05:002012-11-07T16:40:26.767-05:00Is there another way?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the lead up to yesterday’s election I was fairly vocal
that voting third party was an intelligent and influential way to vote. Needless to say I was greeted by no small
amount of criticism for that position.
In hindsight I think we can look more rationally at third party voting
than we are really capable of doing during the emotional ramp up to the
elections themselves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, for a very obvious case where third party voting
makes sense; if someone lives in a state that is going to be a landslide victory,
and they are voting in opposition to the landslide, then they above all people
are biggest vote wasters. There is no
reason for a Californian to vote for a GOP candidate if another candidate
offers a platform more congruent with their desires. That seems obvious. Of course if all minority party voters in
landslide states would take this to heart we would quickly see a rise of a
third party, and they would receive enough popular vote to receive federal
campaign funding, as well as a like place at the table during the debates. This goes for red states as well. If you are a hardcore liberal and live in a
red state you are better serving your cause by voting for the most liberal
third party candidate that you can.
Remember that popular vote doesn't (and might I add, shouldn't) matter
in the election.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Second case is when you think that your own party
absolutely blundered when nominating their candidate. For instance, say you believed strongly in a
much more limited use of military on foreign soil, massive limitations to
government, and a truly balanced budget and you were a Republican. The odds are that you supported someone like
Ron Paul in the primary. You are a prime
person to vote third party. In fact, by
voting major party when you fundamentally disagree with the selection that
party made, you have given them license to continue selecting those types of
candidates. However, if they continually
lose close elections because people like you refuse to support their
candidates, then they are forced to rethink their views.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The third case is simply a vote of no confidence. There is no way in our system to cast a ‘no’
vote. You can elect to not cast a ballot
for any given candidate, but there is only one way to vote ‘against’ both
candidates, and that is with a third party vote. Again the vote of no confidence should not be
looked as a mere ‘wasted’ vote. In fact
it is a potentially nation altering vote (especially in a swing state like Ohio
where I live.) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Beyond simply having the potential to swing an election, you
also have the potential to bring the third party closer to that magical 5%
number which gets them in on Federal Campaign Finance money, and a possible
seat at the table for the debates. This
is really important. Now granted we are
nowhere close to the 5% number right now with any third party. However, by clearly articulating the good
reasons to vote 3<sup>rd</sup> party we can push the number closer to that
line. As that % approaches 5, both
parties begin to get scared and have to restructure themselves to accommodate
you and your views. So in voting third
party you have the potential to fundamentally change a party’s platform, while
voting major party you give an endorsement of the party’s current platform.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now naturally there are some large psychological hurdles you
need to get over to be able to vote third party. I think the tallest of those hurdles is the
notion that the future hinges entirely on one particular election. We hear it every four years “This is the most
important election ever”, and with many people, maybe even a majority of
people, their vote is cast more out of fear of the opposition than anything
else. There are a number of problems
with that; the biggest is that voting out of fear promotes supporting things
that are not rational. When everyone is in
fight or flight mode they will do anything for survival, including voting for
someone or something that they adamantly oppose.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My suggested plan for moving forward:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Get minority party voters in landslide states to
cast 3<sup>rd</sup> party votes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Get people who honestly believe their candidate
got hosed in the primary to cast 3<sup>rd</sup> party votes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Remind people that dispensationalism is wrong
and we don’t stand on the cusp of the end of the world with every election cycle.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Get current 3<sup>rd</sup> party voters to speak
rationally and winsomely about why 3<sup>rd</sup> party voting makes sense at
times other than the election cycle.
Clue them in on things to look for during the upcoming elections, and
try to get people to solidify their stance on various issues prior to the party’s
selection of a candidate. This lays the
ground work for getting them to vote third party once the madness starts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Finally, if a main party does move their platform
because of third party influence, support that main party, and enjoy the fact
that your vote really did matter even though it never got close to being for a
winning candidate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
Anyone else have thoughts on this?</div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-2710504243663903802012-09-19T12:54:00.002-04:002012-09-19T12:54:19.495-04:00Make Babies or Open the Border<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I suppose in the midst of the political season it would be a
great time to post some politically charged idea and see where it leads. This is a bit of a divergence from what I
normally like to do here, but hey, it’s my blog so I’ll give it a whirl.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The topic I want to look at is immigration. It seems to me that there is an intense fear
of immigration among those who are adamant about closing down the borders. Of course those who support the lock down of
the borders will say, “I have nothing against immigration, I am only against ‘illegal’
immigration.” However in the course of
discussion with a majority of these people you will find that they want legal
immigration to be a very difficult process, which includes the learning of our
language, a better understanding of our government than most 20 year old
Americans have, along with countless other regulations that would make
immigration nearly impossible for any nominally educated person from south of
our borders. (Let’s be clear that when
people talk about securing our borders they are not usually talking about the
Canada or our Eastern or Western seaboards.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now the arguments against a loose immigration policy are
many, and we have heard most of them over and over again. Many of those arguments have some merit, or
are at least grounded in something that resembles truth. For instance, the people who come across the
border will need jobs, and we have limited jobs already. Or the people who come across the border will
force us to provide all sorts of bilingual amenities, signage, etc. There are a number of arguments that make
sense at face value. Of course there are
other arguments that seem to me to be a bit petty. “You know if we let them come in, we will
quickly become the minority.” (“We”
meaning people of European decent.) God
forbid our society becomes a shade darker over the next 100 years.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It seems to me that people who are in favor of a looser
immigration policy have done an absolutely horrible job of expressing to the
general public the great value of a looser policy. Usually their arguments surround around the
simple fact that immigration will actually be easier to control if there is
less incentive to do it illegally. There
is some validity to that argument, but it doesn’t even begin to touch upon the
real value of a looser immigration policy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here is why I am for loosening up our borders. The first thing we must realize is that our
entire society is essentially a pyramid scheme that relies on population growth
to sustain it. Social Security,
Medicare, Pension Plans, our very economy itself, is dependent on a growth of
consumption. If the economy is not
growing, it dies, period. Couple that
reality with the birth rate continuing to drop, and the age at which people
begin to have children continuing to go up, and the reality that our whole
system is in a precarious state becomes obvious. Loosened immigration allows for the population
growth that we are not achieving with our own birthrate. As you read this do not underestimate the
importance of this simple factor. Regardless
of how conservative or liberal your politics may be, the economy cannot sustain
a decline in population.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The other big thing to realize is that an immigrant comes in
with virtually nothing, and in most cases a legal immigrant catches on to the
American dream relatively fast. This
means that they need shelter, which means the production of homes and apartment
complexes needs to occur. They need
places of worship, requiring the construction of Churches. They need transportation, which necessitates
the building of cars. (The list could go on and on.) The very needs that an immigrant has are an
asset to our economy. It is no different
than the birth of child in the sense that it adds another consumer to the
economy. With an aging population that
is not replacing itself there is a desperate need of consumers to keep the economy
thriving. It’s not hard to get your mind
around this. If you work in a clothing
shop you want customers who need clothes, not those who simply browse, if you
are a realtor you want people who need houses not just nosey neighbors who drop
in at an open house. If you operate a
grocery store you hope that people with an empty pantry at home will stop in. It just makes sense. The greatest contributors to any economy are
people who have little who are working their tails off to obtain more. That is exactly what the immigrating populace
by and large is. The caricature of
immigrants being people who merely come across the border to obtain the social
services supplied by the US while not contributing anything themselves is
patently false, and if you have ever met a first generation immigrant I am
certain that you would concur with the falsity of that caricature.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There needs to be a distinction made, between the poor
immigrant, and the generationally impoverished American. We middle to upper class people tend to lump
poor people into some homogenous group, and it is sad that we do. We see poor people who seem to do nothing to
get out of poverty other than looking to what social services they can
receive. Certainly there are poor people
like that, whether they are at fault, or whether it is a generational thing can
be debated. However not all poor people
fall into that category. The
impoverished immigrant who comes across the border looking to work for a better
life has already (by their immigration) proven that they are in a different
class of poor. They are those who are
coming to make a life, obtain a dream, to earn and to purchase. Again the poor who seek a better life through
work and consumption are the greatest asset an economy can have, and a loosened
immigration policy provides our economy with a great influx of that type of
person.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I contest that in the not so distant future you will find
that countries with dwindling birthrates will begin to court immigrants and
actually attempt to draw them into their borders. If we don’t get on board with that idea,
eventually immigrants will choose to go elsewhere and we will have missed a
golden opportunity to make our economy more robust.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Obviously this whole post reduces people to mere economic
units, which is unfortunate. I have
almost dehumanized people by looking at them only to ultimate gain we receive
from them, that is not my heart in this.
My point is only to say that a loosened border is a positive economic
move for us, in fact I believe (unless we decide to start making babies fast)
it is a necessary economic move for us.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-54427030495945237692012-09-05T13:59:00.005-04:002012-09-05T13:59:47.961-04:00Where's my candy?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is difficult, albeit not impossible, to give what you do
not possess already. I don’t mean this
in the obvious sense, but in a deeper more psychological sense. For instance, if my son has no candy and he
is asked to hand out candy at a parade, it is incredibly difficult for him to
do such a thing if he is not to receive any of the candy himself. In his mind there is an injustice in the
whole thing, “daddy why do I have to give out all of this candy, I don’t have
candy, this is not fair.” Of course the
typical “Christian” response to my son would involve telling him how much he
does have, and how he shouldn’t be selfish and so on. Nonetheless a psychological barrier will
still exist no matter how much explaining we attempt. To give what one does not receive themselves
is a near impossibility.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We see this often when it comes to charitable causes. The person, who for their entire life, was
forced to ‘pull themselves up by their own bootstraps’ often finds it
incredibly difficult or even deplorable to offer a free handout to anyone. On the flip side, the person who has
consciously benefitted from the charity of others to attain a decent station in
life will typically find it much easier to return the favor back upon
society. The person who has received a
handout, and used it wisely, will typically have the audacity to believe that
handouts work, while the people who have always refused the handout will believe
that works of charity will only produce laziness and not develop
character. Both people have legitimate
arguments from experience. The point is
that it is easier to give if you have received, and it is far more difficult to
give if you perceive that you have not received.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When we bring this line of thinking inside the walls of the
church we see a bit of a strange picture emerge. Pastors are constantly urging to people to be
more forgiving, to be more outward, to be more of a transformational agent to
the community and so on. We hear ad
nauseum about everything we are to give, and we are promised blessing in
return, but precious little is done to break down that psychological barrier
that was outlined above. We say that if
we are going to be the church we must do (insert pastor’s favorite act of mercy
here) while that particular act of mercy is never actually enacted upon the
hearers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here is how it plays out.
It is relatively easy to get a group together to feed the homeless, to
build a habitat house, or to do various mission work. People realize that they have food, so it is
relatively easy to give food. People
realize they have shelter so it is relatively easy to give shelter, people
realize they have a clean environment to live in so they find it relatively
easy to go clean up a neighborhood.
However in the midst of all of this these same people, in most
instances, will find it very difficult to offer real grace, real forgiveness,
and true mercy to those who they encounter in the midst of their charitable service. It is not for a lack of desire that charitable
people struggle with this. I am certain
that most if not all Christians who do charitable work operate with the most
upright of intentions. Nonetheless most
of us have nothing more to give than the tangible service that we offer. In other words, when the rubber meets the
road, and we are face to face with the destitute, we find it very difficult to
offer them hope, we find it very difficult to hear of their situations and
audibly absolve them of their sin. We
find it very difficult to speak of grace in Christ. We default to offering an invitation to
church (which may or may not be appropriate) or maybe a few platitudes of
comfort that have little effect.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I contend that the reason we struggle at getting beyond
physical charity into legitimately offering spiritual grace to people is that
very same psychological barrier that keeps my son from wanting to hand out
candy if he hasn’t received any himself.
We are people who have spiritually pulled ourselves up by our
bootstraps, attended worship, got involved with service, and done the work
under our own power and have had a drive to do good. The truth is that in most worship settings
the church is never directly told the words ‘you are forgiven’. The church is rarely told, ‘you no longer
stand under judgment.’ The church almost
never hears ‘you are the light of the world’ ‘you are the salt of the earth’ no
strings attached. Instead we are told,
if you pray this prayer all will be forgiven, or you need to go be salt and
light. In most preaching no grace is
ever really offered, instead a way of purchasing grace is all that is
offered. It is no wonder that Christians
struggle to offer free forgiveness when wronged, because nobody is offering
them free forgiveness from wrong without certain conditions attached. It’s no wonder that Christians are quick to
offer everyone biblical advice, but slow to offer biblical grace. We have been inundated with ‘relevant’
messages that we can apply to our life, but are rarely given messages about
what has already been applied to us freely (namely the life, death, and
resurrection of Christ on our behalf.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s really hard to hand out candy at the parade when nobody
has handed you candy first. Yet if you
frequently receive candy with joy, there is no psychological barrier in place
to keep you from distributing candy with joy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every pastor must remember that it is a primary duty of
theirs to distribute grace, offer absolution of sin, pronounce that their
people are no longer under condemnation.
If this is done weekly, and rightly, we will find that it is much easier
for our people to distribute real grace in the conversations, to withhold
judgment of others, and be merciful beyond simply providing for physical
needs. If our preaching does not
pronounce forgiveness, we ought not to expect our people to pronounce a forgiveness
to the world.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-31368188544247626882012-08-31T18:28:00.000-04:002012-08-31T18:43:48.636-04:00Getting at the headwaters<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whoever controls the discourse controls the world. One of the great mistakes of education in the
past few decades has been to place an absurd emphasis on math, science, and
technology. In the 80s and 90s we were
inundated with the news that Japanese, Chinese, and other-ese children from all
over the world were outscoring American children in both math and science. Couple this with the rise of the internet,
the rapid increase in automation, and overall boom in technology, and we had
what most educators felt was a crisis that would result in the demise of the
American economy if not addressed. As
someone who was educated during the 80s and 90s the pressure of this ‘impending
crisis’ were nearly palpable. I can
recall bragging about my math and science scores on the ACT while being
unconcerned with my reading and language scores which were comparatively much
lower. I can recall being impressed by
hearing that people who had graduated high school before me were in college
taking classes in three-dimensional calculus, while thinking that those who
studied classical literature were wasting their time. My thoughts on this paralleled so many other
students of my generation. We were
taught, and I believe that students are still taught, that unlocking the keys
of this world lied in a firm grasp of math, science, and technology. In the meantime, the majority of us never
read a full book during the duration of our high school education, the more
diligent among us would read through the Cliff’s Notes, or Spark Notes, while
the rest of us would just B.S. our way through the reading units. Strangely enough this was acceptable, and it
was relatively easy function at A or B level by doing the bare minimum. Of course there was no reason for concern, as
long as students were beginning to excel in the math and sciences at a higher
level than the classes before them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My contention is that we have been sold a bill of goods, and
that we are reaping the rewards of that now.
Most of us have an intense struggle to communicate our thoughts in a
meaningful way. We read only what can be
digested easily, and it seems that most of our conversations don’t rise much
above a 2<sup>nd</sup> grade reading level.
Granted we can solve a math problem, as long as it isn’t a story
problem. We can balance a check book,
but cannot speak coherently about how our spending habits affect our future or
the people around us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The point here is not to minimize the importance of the
sciences, but the truth of the matter remains that it is those who understand
communication, and who can control discourse, that will be the people who will
ultimately assume the power of shaping the future of the world. Just watch the political process play out and
you will see this clearly. Most people
are in the hands of politicians and media, and because we are incapable of
articulating our own thoughts we are stuck repeating the talking points that
they have given us. Put it in the
context of religion, and we find that most of us are pawns in the hands of
those who lead us in matters of faith.
Incapable of giving words to our own thoughts, we are stuck with
whatever clever oration our pastors give us.
We are easily beguiled by 140 character tidbits because our minds have
not been fashioned to think in 200 page chunks.
Even this blog post has already gotten uncomfortably long for a number
of readers, which is just more evidence to my point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We must recover the study of our own language. If you consider that you develop your own
thoughts in the English language, it must follow that the stronger your command
of that language, the more able you are to think clearly. This goes beyond simple grammatical syntax,
but into thought processes, things like irony and sarcasm, symbolism and foreshadowing. Believe it or not, the collective
consciousness of English speaking people has been shaped by Shakespeare, by the
King James Bible, by classic works by various authors. You cannot watch a sitcom or TV drama that
cannot trace its roots back to classic literature that was written decades, and
centuries before. Yet without going back
to the source of these narratives you are stuck simply regurgitating the
surrounding culture without producing a unique thought process on your
own. Yet if you can go back to the head
waters of the English speaking culture you are capable of introducing a new
ingredient into those waters that will improve (or destroy) much of goes for
culture today. People with real and
lasting influence are people who can get at those headwaters, and you will
never get at them without immersing yourself in good literature.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are ‘bible-only’ Christians out there who would never
crack a work of fiction, and truth be told their sermons, their counsel, and
their general discourse is a bore. Worse
than that is that their words may be true, but they get nowhere
near the headwaters of our culture and have little to no effect on the general
discourse of their places of employment, their churches, or within their
family. There are also the ‘theological
work only’ Christians, who read a million books on Christian living and
doctrine, yet have no thought processes that actually touch on the human
condition beyond theological talking points.
Again, this is a huge mistake.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Personally, I have not arrived at some point where I could
pretend to be a good writer, and I am doubtful that I will ever come to a place
of respectability in that realm. However
I can tell you that over the past 3 years as I have begun to read more and more
classic ‘upstream’ stories my own thought processes have become more clear, and
more efficient. I have found it easier
to not be led around by the current thoughts and trends of the day. Math and science didn’t get me to that
point. Even when I was an engineer, I
would have had a far better handle on my profession, had I heeded the advice I
offer here. Words are the air which
ideas breathe, most of our ideas are choking because we refuse to inhale.<o:p></o:p></div>
Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-83626004827009411652012-07-26T15:04:00.000-04:002012-07-26T15:04:00.324-04:00Anxiety is a sin, which is good news for the anxious<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">One of the greatest
tasks of pastoral ministry is to bring the comfort of the Gospel to the people
who are in your charge that are afflicted and despairing. I suppose that goes without saying, and
certainly every pastor worth their salt feels the weight of this task. Of course this task runs beyond just the
pastoral office, and every Christian reader of this blog ought also to feel the
weight of this calling.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">I have been preparing to
preach this weekend from Matthew 6:25-34, which to refresh your memory, is
Jesus’ teaching regarding worry. Jesus
lays out the imperative to not worry, and bases that imperative upon the value
of humanity in comparison to grass, and birds.
God basically says, look if God is going to clothe grass with beautiful
wild flowers, and if God cares about sparrows, why are you worrying when you
are worth so much more to God than these things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Strangely enough this
text has been used by many well-meaning preachers to give comfort to people
mired with anxiety. Anxiety is subtle,
hidden epidemic in that debilitates countless people… possibly a majority of
people in this world. If we take Matthew
6:25-34 at face value it is not really all that comforting of a text. What person who struggles with anxiety is not
trying to not worry? Nobody believes
themselves to be choosing to worry, nobody.
Yet, this text, and the pastors who preach it are typically preaching a
message telling people to not choose worry.
It is a very condemning passage, a LAW passage so to speak. It basically tells us “stop doing something
that you have no power to stop doing.”
To which we might ask… “and how are we supposed to do that?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Now many of us have seen
the epidemic of worry, and it unfortunately has caused us to change our
approach to the issue of anxiety. We
have come to a place where we no longer approach anxiety as a sin. We take a passage that is clearly condemning
upon anxiety, and we tip toe around it and fail to let the text do the work it
sets out to do, that is, to condemn anxiety.
Instead we treat anxiety as though it were a personal trait on par with
the color of our hair or eyes. In other
words we no longer treat it as a sinful disposition; instead we treat it as
something inherent to our pre-fall being.
I completely understand our tendency towards this, we want to bring
comfort to the afflicted, we want to tell the anxious person that ‘you are ok,
everything is fine, this is a natural problem that a lot of people struggle
with, there is nothing wrong with you.’
The problem is that the anxious person knows better! They know that there is something wrong or
else they would not feel the way they do.
By taking anxiety out of the sin category, we have essentially told
people that they are stuck with it, that it is no different than their hair
color, or height. In our attempt to
bring comfort in the short term, we actually leave people in despair for the
long haul. (Please don’t get
sidetracked, I am not against anxiety medication, this has nothing to do with
that.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">If we are going to allow
the cross to be our source of comfort, and the cross to have the final word on
our reality, then we need to be able to approach issues like anxiety
differently. We need to be able to call
anxiety what it is, a sinful disposition.
It is a disposition that fails to realize the sovereignty and provision
of God, a disposition that is narcissistic and faithless. That was a harsh sentence was it not? Not really.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Here is the point. If anxiety (or any other sinful disposition)
is placed properly in the ‘sin’ category, it can be dealt with in the
cross. The person who is honestly
struggling with anxiety, if they see it as sin, can know that they have
received forgiveness for that sin in Christ, they can know that Christ has
borne their anxiety on His shoulders, and has determine that anxiety would not
have the last word on them. However if
we leave anxiety in the personality trait column, the believer is stuck dealing
with anxiety, without a Christ who has borne their anxiety. They are left to merely try to pull
themselves up by their boot straps, and try harder not to worry and they are
bound to constant failure, with no cross to comfort them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Let’s try a different approach
in case you are not following. If we
take a different sin, say lust, and view it in the same light it becomes
clear. If you take someone who struggles
with lust, and tell them it is not a sin, they are left to simply stay enslaved
to lust, knowing it is wrong, but not knowing of the forgiveness they have received,
and not knowing of the possibility of repentance. It is a disaster. However the person who
struggles against lust knowing it is a sin has the opportunity to struggle with
the hope that their sin is forgiven, and that hope that by the power of the
cross they will be delivered from that sin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Naming something a sin,
is not a means of condemnation to someone, though it appears that way at first,
instead naming something as a sin allows that sin to come under the domain of
the cross where it can be dealt with hopefully with forgiveness and grace.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">A popular verse that is
drawn out by fundamentalists is Isaiah 5:20, and it is usually used to call down
condemnation upon people who affirm a particular sin as non-sinful. The text does that, and it is not an
altogether bad approach to Isaiah 5:20, but it runs the risk of missing a key
point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Woe to those who call
evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who
put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!</span> (Isaiah 5:20)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">In the context of Isaiah
5, we see the prophet pronouncing ‘present-tense woes’, not future tense. In other words, he is not saying, “look out
if you are calling evil good and good evil, because in the judgment you are
going to really get it from God.” He
instead is saying that by calling ‘evil good, and good evil’, you have placed
yourself in a current state of woe. When
you call evil good and good evil, you are *currently* reaping the rewards of
your paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Now let’s go back to the
example of anxiety. By refusing to call it
evil, you are placed in a permanent state of ‘woe’ without any way to get
out. However by calling it what it is, ‘evil’,
there is a cross to deal with it, and it becomes a struggle under the umbrella
of grace.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Let us deal with sin as
sin, for Christ came to deal with sin, and to deal with it gracefully. Let us not make the mistake of writing any
sin off as being not sinful, lest we place our people in position where they
must struggle outside of the cross.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #F9FDFF; color: #001320; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;">If we have a
disposition, that has always seemed to us to be just a personality trait, we
ought to be joyfully surprised to find out that our disposition is sinful. Not because we are glad to be sin, but the
moment we realize our disposition is indeed sinful, is the moment that we can
have the hope of true forgiveness, repentance, and healing from that
disposition.</span><o:p></o:p></div>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-24435660266654493042012-06-19T12:16:00.000-04:002012-06-23T19:32:14.531-04:00West Ohio Conference Health Insurance... What can we do?<span style="background-color: white;">In the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church a
pastor who is in a full time appointment is to be enrolled in the West Ohio
Conference healthcare plan, paid for by the local church and provided through
Medical Mutual of Ohio. The cost to
local congregation is approximately </span><span style="background-color: white;">18k (corrected) per year for a family my size, with the
family also contributing a portion of the premium as a payroll deduction. Overall the cost of this policy probably
lands somewhere around </span><span style="background-color: white;">19.6k per year.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reason for the exorbitant cost is the quantity of ‘uninsurable’
or difficult to insure members within
this plan. Given the general health of
the group being insured the cost is understandable. I am certain that within our conference the
leadership has done everything within their scope of ability to negotiate with
Medical Mutual of Ohio the best possible heath care package for the clergy of
our conference. I doubt that anyone
would accuse them of foul play, or a lack of due diligence. These leaders face a serious dilemma
regarding making health care both available and affordable to all full time
Methodist clergy in West Ohio. This post
is no way taking a stab at the praiseworthy efforts of those individuals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The cost of this health care hinges on the more easily
insurable members staying in the program.
If the young clergy, and clergy without any pre-existing conditions were
to opt out of this plan, the overall cost for the rest of the aging clergy and
clergy with pre-existing conditions would sky rocket. If the ‘insurable’ clergy opt out, the
churches with ‘uninsurable’ clergy would long for the days when insurance was a
mere $19.6k a year.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With these realities before them, the Conference set in
place a rule that if a pastor in a full time appointment decides to opt out of
the West Ohio Conference’s health care plan that pastor will never, under any
circumstance, be allowed to opt back into the plan. This of course is a very real threat, and it
is a threat that the Conference needed to make in order to keep costs
manageable for local congregations. (It
is debatable if $20k per year is manageable).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So that is the background, but what is an insurable young
clergy person to do with this? Healthy
insurable clergy placed in the middle of a rock and hard place.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Currently I get my insurance privately and the local church
I serve reimburses my premiums (I am a licensed local pastor in full time
appointment). My current insurance is
much more comprehensive than the Conference plan, and is over $10k per year
cheaper than the conference plan. The
question is should I opt out of the WOC plan and free $10k per year of my
church’s budget for ministry, or should I opt into the WOC plan to the tune of
an extra $10k per year of expense to my church so that uninsurable clergy can
still retain their insurance? (Note this
is all while my wife still retains maternity coverage, at some point we will no
longer need that coverage which accounts for 40% of our premium.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whether or not to remain in is a valid question. If, and I know it is a big ‘if’, I stay
healthy and insurable, over the next 30 years I will save the local
congregations I serve at least $300k. I also
will personally save money, and on top of that have better healthcare. With those numbers before me it seems a worthy
risk. However, is it unjust to opt out
knowing that it will increase the burden on churches that are served by
uninsurable pastors?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course there is the threat of never being allowed back in
the WOC plan if one opts out, but every year the WOC plan becomes less and less
desirable anyway, and with the aging body of clergy it is not showing any signs
of getting better. In other words, will
there ever really be a reason that I would want to re-enroll in that plan? Moreover the nature and laws surrounding
health care are in such flux right now that the odds of the current rules and
healthcare laws still being in place 30 years from now are slim to none. In light of these realities, the threat of
never being allowed back in the WOC plan really is not all that
threatening. Again, the only issue at
stake here is the issue of justice. If
you take that out of the equation it is a no brainer and every healthy pastor
should find it to be a relatively easy decision to opt out of the WOC plan, and
save their churches 10s of thousands of dollars for ministry every year.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do not dare to call for a mass exodus from the plan, but
something needs to be done to make this whole thing more equitable. If I were to enroll in the WOC plan, my
church is effectively getting stuck with an $10k per year apportionment and the
only reason they would pay that money is for the strengthening of the
connection by providing all clergy with equal benefits. The local church gains nothing by this other
than piece of mind. To call this $10k anything other than an apportionment is a mistake, because that is exactly what
it is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we want this system to be fair, at the very least a
portion (preferably the entirety) of the difference of cost between
self-insurance and WOC group insurance should be deducted from the local church’s
yearly conference apportionments. (I can
hear a collective cringe from conference leadership at this thought.) Certainly that would make people at the
conference offices a little bit nervous, but what else can be done? The bottom line is that if healthy clergy
take the time to look at this plan and look at the future of health care they
will come to the same conclusions I am, and they will withdraw from the plan
altogether. If that occurs there is a
real mess on everyone’s hands. At least
by giving churches with healthy pastors a significant break on their
apportionments, the pastors could still consider it prudent to remain within the
conference plan, because ultimately the local church loses nothing by staying
enrolled.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again, I don’t presume to have all the answers on this, and
I know that my solution of reduced apportionments doesn’t solve the whole
issue, BUT it might keep our young healthy clergy from making the obvious decision
to opt out. The bottom line is that no
matter how you cut it, whether you reduce apportionments, or whether pastors
start opting out, the churches that are served by uninsurable pastors are going
to get short end of the stick. On the
flipside, for the last so many years the churches have been served by insurable
pastors are the ones who got the short end.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am very interested in thoughts of other West Ohio friends
surrounding this. Charge conferences are
only 4 or 5 short months away, and at that point we are going to have to nail
our colors to the wall one way or another.
Do I stick the church with a $10k bill and commit to the good of uninsurable
pastors, or do I self-insure and commit to the good of the community of Delta?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I know this post was outside of the scope of what we
normally do here at The Tenth Letter…, and I apologize for taking the time of
non-West Ohio Conference pastors and parishioners who may have trudged through
this, but this is my only real public venue to air this, so this is where the
post had to land.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Update: June 20, 2012<br />
The total cost for insuring my family through the WOC plan is $19.6k with $1.5k being the clergy's responsibility. The church is responsible for about $18k. (I corrected those numbers up top since the original posting)<br />
<br />
It is important to note that the conference has included an HSA contribution within the scope of this plan which is an important upside to the plan. (Again I still maintain they are doing their best with what they have to work with), but the plan has a deductible much higher than the personal plans healthy clergy can obtain.<br />
<br />
Finally, I want to express appreciation for the Conference Treasurer for directly contacting me in response to this blog.</div>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-12145915761429957712012-06-07T16:43:00.003-04:002012-06-07T16:44:18.825-04:00Sovereign Satan... Really?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the most disturbing trends in Christianity over the
last couple hundred years is the idea of a sovereign devil. Personally I have never met a single
Christian who would vocally affirm that they believe in a sovereign Satan;
however I have found countless believers whose praxis affirms what their words
would never say.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Allow me to make a few real case studies of how this plays
out:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case #1:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have served on a number of Chrysalis Flights in my
day. Chrysalis is a 3 day retreat for
youth that inculcates them with the Gospel message in a meaningful way. (This study is not a dis of Chrysalis, I am
gladly serving on the next retreat.)
During the process of preparation for a Chrysalis weekend the team meets
for 4 to 6 weeks prior to the weekend itself.
At the conclusion of the last team meeting prior to the weekend there
will be, without fail, a discussion among team members to be on the lookout for
attacks from the ‘evil one’ during the week.
In other words there is this thought that what is going to happen on
that weekend is so wonderful that Satan is going to do everything in his power
to stop it. When the team arrives on
Thursday night to prepare for the weekend there inevitably is the conversation
between some team members about the things Satan allegedly did to try to thwart
the weekend. Usually it is their kid
getting sick, having car trouble, or a stressful week at work. After these exchanges those involved in the
discourse typically sit back and marvel at the work the evil did to try to
distract them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case #1 analysis:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For those involved in these conversations Satan is sovereign
over the work place which caused the stress.
Satan is sovereign over the pot hole that sent their care to the
shop. Satan is sovereign over the bacteria
that gave their kid a cold… etc. Can you
see it? Can this really be? Um… if Satan has that kind of authority, well
I might be better off worshiping him, because it appears to me that it is he who
is really the one true god. God forbid
that someone acknowledges the real possibility that God himself would orchestrate
said events in order to sharpen one’s focus… or *gasp* that those events might
be chalked up to the basic course of life in a fallen world over which God
sovereignly reigns.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case #2:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A young woman leaves her fundamentalist home and heads off
to a fundamentalist Christian college.
While away at college she decides that this particular college is not
right for her because she had a bad experience with the faculty, her
classmates, and the curriculum. The parents
of this child grow deeply concerned that ‘the evil one’ has thwarted God’s will
for her to go to this college.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case #2 analysis:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Satan is sovereign over the experiences this girl had with
the faculty… or at least is sovereign over her interpretation of those
events. Satan is sovereign over here
interactions with her classmates. Or
Satan has directly influenced her perception of the curriculum. Again, I would be willing to bet my home that
the parents of this girl would never vocalize that they believe in a sovereign
devil, but their praxis proves that they do.
God forbid that her leaving the college might actually be the will of
God (which in this case it likely was.)
Or God forbid that her leaving this college is *gasp* caused by living
life in a world effected by the fall.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case #3:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Barack Obama<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case #3 Analysis<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Countless people seem to believe that our government is
under the authority of the evil one, and that the presence of certain elected
officials proves that. Um… I do not give
a lick where you stand on political issues.
It seems, to these folks, that Satan somehow is sovereign over our
entire political process, which means that Satan somehow has the authority to
pull voting levers, run political campaigns, make chads hang from ballots, and
swap out the internals of Diebold voting machines. Just stop people, you sound ridiculous.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
General Thoughts…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I could lay out countless more cases of this ad nauseum, but
these three will suffice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every time a person gives credit to the evil one for
something they personally do not like, they without knowing are actually
affirming that they themselves are gods.
While that sounds bold, it is true.
The definition of evil is “that which displeases God”. In affirming that all is evil which
displeases one’s self, or interferes with one’s perceived notion of what ‘should
be’, one is affirming themselves as god.
They make their own thoughts out as though they were God’s thoughts. It is a dangerous road to walk.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Moreover when a person credits every hiccup in their plans
to a work of the evil one, they are without even realizing it, affirming the
sovereignty of Satan. The devil is not sovereign,
God is in authority of all your situations, not simply the ones where you feel
that you are being moved of the Spirit.
In more charismatic circles there is a heavy emphasis on experiencing
the Holy Spirit, but the reality is that God is at work in all, ALL, things and
while these people tread through this world looking for the next experience
they miss the simple fact that they are in the midst of a constant experience
of God’s sovereignty. Unfortunately they
attribute the sovereign work of God in making their tire go flat out to be the
work of the evil and by doing so they blaspheme God. That’s right, it is blasphemy to credit the
working of God to be the work of Satan, yet this is common place not only among
charismatics, but among most of evangelicalism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do offer this one caution, evil things do happen! Things which displease God actually
occur. God is not pleased with tyranny and
war, or with genocide, or abuse, sexual license, etc… however the question we
ought to ask is ‘why does God allow that which displeases Him?’ That is a good question, and it is one that I
do not have an easy answer to.
Nonetheless I am not, nor should you be willing to chalk up evil to a
sovereign Satan.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Remember that Satan is bound, he is limited, and he is NOT
the reason you spilled spaghetti sauce on your nice church clothes.<o:p></o:p></div>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-55413825647219480812012-05-07T13:03:00.000-04:002012-05-07T13:03:13.579-04:00The problem with "Not Guilty"<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
We are creatures who are driven by guilt. Our societies, be they primitive, or refined,
all have guilt as their governing principle.
Our laws, be they derived from scripture or not, all find their power in
guilt. A speed limit only finds its
effectiveness in the reality of the guilt it creates. Our parental rules for our children only find
their effectiveness if they create a consequence for guilt. We are punished for not completing
assignments, not performing as we are expected to perform in the work place,
not being the spouse we are supposed to be, and so on. Guilt is foundational to everything we
do. I do not venture to launch out on a
tirade against guilt, or even to say guilt is a bad thing, or an improper
emotion or reality. My purpose here is
to say that guilt is the very fabric of society, it drives everything.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The strange thing to realize is that this is actually the
way we like it. We get very
uncomfortable when something begins to tear at the fabric of guilt. For instance if an employee no longer feels
guilty for not doing the job they are paid to do we have no choice but to
remove that employee from our company.
If a student no longer feels guilty for not doing their work we no
longer have a means to make them learn. If
we remove guilt from our legal system we no longer have a legal system. If a man has no sense of guilt for
mistreating his wife or children he becomes a very dangerous man. Anything, or anyone, that would seek to remove
guilt from a conscience of someone who has done wrong is making a horrific
affront against all that is humane. We
cannot understate the importance of guilt to our life, and when we see someone
who feels no guilt we are frightened. A
person unresponsive to guilt is, in our eyes, an incredibly dangerous or incredibly
useless person.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When we look at texts like Romans 2:12-16 and we get the
idea that the Law is written on everyone’s heart, this is exactly what we are
getting at. Let’s not make the mistake
of oversimplifying here. Paul is not
writing that everyone universally knows, understands, and affirms the Law of God. That really is not the case at all. Moral law is relative from society to
society. The universal truth is that
everyone is driven by Law, and that the guilty vs. not guilty paradigm is
intrinsic to everyone. In that sense the
Law is written on everyone’s, without exception, heart. If the concept of ‘law’ was not written on
everyone’s heart, there would be no sense of guilt, and without the sense of
guilt society would not function. We
would be mere animals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Enter the Gospel. The
Gospel is an absolutely terrifying message when taken at face value precisely because
it tears away this fabric of guilt upon which our society rests. Make no mistake, the Gospel, really does
undermine and redefine society as we know it.
I can recall disciplining my child when his actions caused him to be
guilty of violating our family’s laws, and my little man reminded me that on
the cross Jesus already paid for his sin (true story). In one sense I was very proud of my son for
realizing that glorious truth, and applying it to his situation, but as a
parent it was terrifying. It was
terrifying because if Christ really took away his guilt, and he really believed
that to be true, then maybe all of my family ‘law’ was in jeopardy of being
rendered useless. At the very least the
family ‘law’ had been rendered useless in the way that I was applying it to him
as a believer in Christ. Take the
situation of my son, and expand it to our entire society and you can see how
the Gospel message of ‘not guilty’ undercuts everything. If a person believes themselves to not be
guilty then they are truly free… free from me and my laws… free from society
and its laws… free from God’s Law. Maybe
the Gospel isn’t such Good News after all?
Maybe we’d be better off to never speak of this Gospel again for fear
that people might actually believe it, and actually believe themselves “not
guilty.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course the Gospel is by definition “Good News” and should
not be seen as anything but Good News, but it is terrifying news. The Gospel creates a New Kingdom that is
driven by a completely different paradigm than the one which our society
operates under. The Gospel creates a
Kingdom where obedience to the law is driven by gratitude for what has been
done for us, not by fear of guilt for not upholding the Law. The Gospel has created a people who cannot be
driven by society’s most effective driving mechanism, which is guilt.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t underestimate how much people really fear the Gospel, even
believers who know it is true (myself included) are terrified to realize the
relief from guilt which Christ has given to us and the world. The charge of Antimonianism which often gets
leveled at true preachers of the Gospel is a frightening charge. If I am going to proclaim righteousness apart
from the Law it feels like stepping off of a cliff and expecting ground to
somehow appear under my feet. There is a
very real fear about what could possibly happen if people decide to believe the
Gospel we proclaim. I ask myself the
questions; “What if someone really does believe themselves to not be guilty,
but then they are not filled with gratitude for what Christ has done? Will
these people just do whatever they think is right and become lawless creatures
that are bound to no sense of right and wrong?”
Or this; “If a person can no longer be driven by guilt, do they have any
reason to serve people in need? Do they
have any reason to seek the forgiveness of people they have wronged?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We must be willing to believe that the Gospel really is the
power of God unto salvation, and that the effects of the Gospel really will be
a society that lives in gratitude to God and willingly obeys the Law which he
prescribed, without fear of condemnation from that Law. In this light we can see that the Gospel is
not quite as easy to believe as we initially think. The Gospel upholds, and is not in any way at
tension with the Law. Yet the Gospel
removes the guilt which is society’s only reason for upholding that Law.<o:p></o:p></div>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-67751747916258178232012-04-04T16:26:00.001-04:002012-04-04T16:26:44.706-04:00trends trends trends<p class="MsoNormal">It’s interesting to watch the trends that drive worship settings in churches. For a number of years it has been assumed that a more contemporary setting is the best practical way to get young people who have left the church or never been a part of it to come inside the church doors for a worship service. Champions of the contemporary scene can boast the numerical success to prove this reality. Traditionalists have sat back, often frustrated, watching their time honored traditions go by the wayside in order to implement the various new styles. Of course over the last few decades this has produced more than enough debate and division in local congregations everywhere. Pragmatism seems to rule, the attitude is simply that if it works, and it honors Christ by proclaiming the Gospel then it is the right practice. We want to reach those who have not yet heard the Gospel, so we develop our services accordingly. In recent years we are beginning to see a trend that suggests that a more traditional service might be a pragmatically viable as the contemporary service. It is not uncommon to see, especially around universities, a return to a more traditional setting becoming the more attractive method of doing church. Traditionalists sit back and rejoice in seeing this trend, and are hopeful now that sticking to their guns is going to pay off as interest in the big box contemporary church begins to show signs of waning.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There is a brutal irony here. We who are more traditional are now coming out of the woodwork saying ‘look, it still works’ and we puff out our chests and rejoice in the trend that seems to vindicate our refusal to succumb to the latest trend. The irony is that traditionalists have argued against pragmatism ever since the mega-church stage show got rolling, and yet now that the traditional service seems pragmatically viable, the traditionalist appeals to the very pragmatism they once decried. Both the traditional and contemporary camps, are now appealing to the trends to say that their method is viable. The underlying truth that is being exposed here is that most traditionalists were still nothing more than pragmatists all along, and it is evidenced by their willingness to come out of the word work now that their method seems to be working again. Those of the contemporary mindset could rightly make the argument that the traditionalists were merely frustrated pragmatists all along. During the worship wars (contemporary v traditional) many of the contemporary people would level the claim that the traditional church was jealous that their methodology had run its course and was no longer as effective as the new style. We of the more traditional set decried that claim and we thought ourselves to be adhering to a more pure form of worship. Eventually many traditionalists, myself included, began to look at ourselves with some sort of ‘persecuted remnant’ philosophy, and found ourselves taking comfort in that. The truth is that the whole persecuted remnant thing was just a ruse. We traditionalists have come out of our shell, rejoiced at the gradual changing of the trend, and our rejoicing proves that we have longed to appeal to pragmatism and the will of the masses just as much as the most contemporary of churches.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The reality is that the appeal to pragmatism is flawed at the outset. Whether it is the traditionalist trying to justify their tradition by the renewed public interest in it, or whether it is the contemporary churchmen who can boast of gigantic churches, it really is simply two sides to the same coin. The fatal flaw in the whole debate is that success can be judged by how many people walk through our doors on a Sunday morning. Now listen, I get as excited as the next guy as I watch the church I serve grow, and I would be a liar if I did not say that I monitor our numbers very closely to assure that we are growing. The church that does not want to grow has serious problems. However if the church boasts rest in the fact that they are in line with the latest trend, and their growth is predicated on their trendiness (traditional or contemporary) there is a serious problem.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As we look in Acts we cannot deny the reality that large numbers were being redeemed, and that the magnitude of those numbers were recorded as important facts. You cannot speak out against a church because they have seen 3000 people converted, because the early church saw just that and found it important enough to include in the Holy Writ. There is one distinct factor in this though, that all the pragmatist worship design seems to miss… the great numbers that were converted were never converted by attending the worship service of the church. If you recall at Pentecost the great movement among the people was not because they were drawn into the service, but that those gathered in the upper room were led into the streets preaching a language which those outside of the church miraculously understood. All the great movements of the book of Acts were external to the gathering of the Church. The biblically normative method of church growth was the church outside of the facility discipling and baptizing. Of course those who were discipled and baptized then became a part of the church. The normal order of church growth was not attracting people to the church, but was in sending the church into the world.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This flies right in the face of all trend following. It doesn’t matter one bit that traditional worship is becoming more attractive to the next generation, because the worship service was never meant to be an attraction. Traditionalists are falling into the exact same trap that the contemporary church has fallen into, the trap of believing that people needed to come to church to hear the Gospel.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">At some point we need to get off of this wheel, because the trends will continue to go back and forth, and the war will continue to wage, and whoever has the style that is most current to the times are the people who will believe themselves to be vindicated.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I can only think of one way to change this trend, and it is painfully difficult change to embrace. The change is simply this, make the Sunday worship gathering a setting that exists primarily for believers. The reality that unbelievers will gather in every assembly is a truth we must deal with, but that reality can no longer drive our methodology, be it traditional or contemporary. If we take this approach it allows us to preach as though we are preaching to believers, it allows us to practice church discipline as though we are disciplining believers… and more importantly than this, it places the onus of proclaiming the Gospel to the world upon the body of believers, not merely their pastor who represents them. This shift in thinking allows the pastor to approach their flock as an actual shepherd of believers, comforting them with the Gospel and commanding them with the Law so that they might go forth and make disciples. It causes the individual Christian to work with the people they meet in their vocation to bring them to the faith outside of the church, and then when the person begins to receive faith bring them into the church. It changes the whole dynamic. Yes it makes for smaller churches in the short run, but it makes for a more robust body of believers over the long haul.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Any thoughts on this?<o:p></o:p></p>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-30343387196881735122012-01-20T01:43:00.001-05:002012-01-20T01:44:42.169-05:00Yes! Christianity is a Cult<p class="MsoNormal">Before embarking on this little exercise in reality I ought to make it clear that I am a Christian, I pastor a friendly welcoming and typically non-judgmental congregation, I believe that the Gospel invitation goes forth for all, and that Christ really did live, die, and raise for this world. I affirm what most evangelicals would consider the orthodox faith, and I make no apologies for that. I ask only one thing of you as you proceed, do not close your mind until you have given at least a few moments thought to what follows.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let me start with one simple statement. Christianity is a cult. That is the thesis, and it is not too difficult of a thesis to prove. Christian, your hair may stand up on your back as you read that three word sentence, but it is true, and in denying it you unknowingly deny the faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles. Christianity is a cult.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let us work through some of the standard markings of a cult, and let us see whether or not Christianity fits the bill.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">All cults have a leader who makes audacious claims about themselves. The head of Christianity claimed to literally be the Son of God. This is the most audacious claim that could be made, it was the very claim that caused the leader of Christianity to be nailed to a cross.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Most cults claim to be the true manifestation of an existing accepted religion. Jesus claimed in Matthew 5 that he was the fulfillment of the Jewish Law and the words of their prophets.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders demand irrational obedience to their leadership. Jesus demanded his followers to take up their cross and follow Him. Typically these commands include a separation from existing relationships. Certainly you recall Luke 14:25-27, and you will be hard pressed to convince me of that not being cultic language. Must I go on to Jesus’ other commands of obedience to Him? When Jesus called his disciples they were expected to drop their nets (their very livelihood), to not tend to the death of their parents, instead to let the dead bury their own dead. Come on folks, if you cannot see this as cultic you are simply stuffing your fingers in your ears and screaming “La la la la la la” at the top of your lungs. However we have only begun.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders tell their followers that persecution by the majority validates what the cult leader is professing. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake.” The leader of a cult knows full well that the majority will reject their message, so to encourage their followers the leader prepares them for constant rejection. If you cannot see this theme in the New Testament, again I think your blindness is intentional.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders implement strange rites of initiation. Have you not read that we are baptized into the death of Christ. That we must be born again of water (baptism) and the Spirit? Wanna talk more about strange rites? Jesus said to his followers that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood they have no part with Him. These are the words that only a cult leader would dare utter.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders profess that the way which they proclaim is the only true way. Must I rehash all the exclusive verses of Christ? Jesus claimed himself as the way, truth, and life. His apostles taught that He was the only mediator between man and God. Another apostle claimed that all who rejected this leader would be cast into the lake of fire.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders have insider language for their followers. Take a look at Matthew 13:10-17 and you will see that he taught in parables not to make things easy, but in order to confuse everyone who was not his follower. (As an aside, if you somehow think that parables were meant to make difficult topics more understandable you really need to stop reading this post and go read Matthew 13 for yourself. It’s at best a mistake, and at worst an outright lie to say that Jesus gave the parables to clear things up. The opposite is true, which by the way is the type of thing you might expect from a cult leader.)<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders have great things to say about their followers. “You are the salt of the earth… you are the light of the world…”<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders make wild promises to their followers… um, Jesus promised his followers eternal (yeah, like forever and ever and ever) life in paradise.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cult leaders typically work with an inferior class of people… you know like tax collectors and fishermen, as opposed to theologians who would know better.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So far we have just looked at the leader of Christianity, we have not looked at the church itself. Oh did I mention that the one who prepared the way and announced the arrival of this leader was a family member of His? That might raise the cult red flag a bit. Now hopefully what I have written so far has shaken you at least a little bit, and much more could be written about Christ and the cultic nature of His leadership. I do want to make sure you know my heart in this. I am not blaspheming Christ by affirming that he is the leader of a cult called Christianity, not at all. The claims that Christ made of Himself are true, and He verified them in His resurrection and ascension. Unlike the cult leaders we are most familiar, Jesus substantiated His claims. Nonetheless they are undeniably cultic claims.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now on to the Church. The church was founded upon the teachings of the close friends of this leader, the apostles, who continued to propagate the claims the leader made about himself. Hmmm… a leader and his inner circle have the authority. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">One of the marks of a cult is the incredible amounts of time the cult spends together. Have you not read in Acts that the believers met daily in their homes breaking bread, and devoting themselves to the teachings of the apostles?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The church met for prayers, psalms, and spiritual songs. The church gathers to partake of bread and wine which they profess in some way is the body and blood of their leader. The church requires baptism into Christ’s death for membership into its ranks. The church still gathers each week to hear ordained leaders speak to them for 30 minutes or so about the writings in their sacred book about their leader.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cults are heavy on indoctrination. Isn’t the great commission from Christ to the church to go and make disciples, teaching and baptizing. Disciples? The very term disciple is undeniably cultic. This could go on and on.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let us look beyond the church itself and look at the very basic nature of Christianity. We have a leader who claims to be the Son of God, we have a Holy Book that claims to be the word of God, we have a body of people who claim to be the people of God, we have sacraments which we claim to be instituted by God. Plug your ears, scream “la la la la la” if you want, but you will not change the reality that Christianity is a cult.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Congratulations if you have made it this far. Those with their fingers in their ears have left us a number of paragraphs ago. However for you who have hung in this far, you deserve to know the whole point of this little tirade, let those who left go polish their little porcelain Jesus to make him look really nice to the rest of the world. We are here to deal with the real thing.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The unbelieving world knows that Christianity is cult, they may not label it as such, but functionally they know it is. As Christians however we fail to see it, or worse we do everything in our power to deny it. In our effort to ‘de-cult’ Christianity we render the entire New Testament impotent. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We have a false notion that the world does not want to be Christian because they think it is too cultic. So what do we do in response? We remove all the cultic elements from the public eye. It is popular in the more cosmopolitan churches to have their baptisms performed at a separate service, you know so ‘seekers’ are not exposed to the ritual. Those churches will typically do the same thing with the Lord’s Supper. We spend our time on topical sermon series which allow us to pick and choose the scriptures we will cover so as to avoid those cultish ones. We remove unison prayer, we remove ancient songs, we remove the communal reading of the Psalms, we go so far as to attempt to proclaim that not only is Christianity not a cult, but we lie and say it is not even a religion. Why? Because we believe that people will not like the church if we do those things.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We are afraid to give people the real thing, because we believe they will not like it, that they will be offended by it. So we run around saying it is not a religion, it is not unique, it is not holy, it is not separate, it is not strange… then we invite them to our church… and if we are still preaching the cultic Christ, they are offended because we hoodwinked them. Or, we invite them to our church which has stripped Christ of all his uniqueness in favor of a pep rally about transforming your life (as though it is about you, and not about the leader of this cult.)<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The unbelieving world deserves the truth about Christianity. Then they can come to our churches, and we will welcome them, and they won’t need to feel like we are trying to pull some sort of bait and switch on them.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What follows would be an honest invitation to our church:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I would love for you to come to Delta United Methodist Church. We are not going to judge you, we are as messed up as anyone, certainly as messed up if not more messed up than you. However I give you fair warning, we do some strange things, we worship a man who has made some strange claims, we sing some songs with some strange lyrics, and we pray some strange prayers. (Of course as Christians we find these things to be normal.) You see we know we are a strange bunch, and we want nothing more than for you to experience this strangeness with us. Yeah I suppose you could say it’s a cult, but it is open to all, we have nothing to hide, and we look forward to being upfront and explaining anything you might have a question about. We have had the same questions, and most of us still have a number that are yet unanswered. Yet grace abounds my friend, and you will find it here.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Isn’t that more honest than:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hey come check us out. We have great music, great coffee, a relaxed atmosphere, and most of all we are not religious.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then a few months later:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Join our small group, come to our baptism class, become a member and tithe, give to our building program, come to our special communion service…<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Wait what? This is quite a bit different than the invitation you gave a few months ago.<o:p></o:p></p>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-12319398059467674582011-09-29T20:53:00.004-04:002011-09-29T21:11:17.575-04:00Fruit-Booting and Reality<p class="MsoNormal">I used to be a fruit-booter.<span> </span>At least that’s what the skateboarding crowd would call my friends and me.<span> </span>“Fruit-booter” was a derogatory term for those who were aggressive inline skaters.<span> </span>Let’s be honest, as far as aggressive inline skating went I was average.<span> </span>There were a few rails I could slide, some decent flights of stairs I could jump off of, and had there been the plethora of skate parks then as there are now I am sure my friends and I could have at least held our own at them, though we probably would not have wowed anyone, we certainly would not have inspired any film crews to show up to see our skills.<span> </span>The non-skating crowd would have thought what we were doing was amazing, but among those who know the sport few would be impressed.<span> </span>Nonetheless we had fun, tons of it.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As I look back to those days I realize that there was something different about me then, something admirable that over time I am afraid to say I lost.<span> </span>There was a passion in me, that rarely have I been able to capture since.<span> </span>This is going to sound weird at first, but when I look back at that time skating was my ‘worldview’.<span> </span>How I looked at the world was entirely shaped by inline skating.<span> </span>When I was at the amusement park standing in lines with my friends we would look across all the rails in the cue lines and discuss the various moves that could be done within those lines.<span> </span>When we drove by a staircase in front of a church our natural tendency was to see if it had enough of a run up to be able to jump off of, and enough space to land.<span> </span>When we saw sidewalks downtown with a concrete ledge we would question whether or not it could be waxed in order grind down.<span> </span>The entire world of concrete looked to me as a playground with unlimited possibilities.<span> </span>What was simply a planter box to the common observer was to me a royale to soul grind (skating terms) waiting to happen.<span> </span>The stairs you trudged up to get into your office building was to me a mute 360 waiting to happen.<span> </span>In the middle of winter while the skates got dusty my mind was still engaged, still creating, still seeing the world around me as a place of infinite possibilities.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The point is that my skating ‘worldview’ looked at the world seeking out its possibilities, not bogged down with its rational uses.<span> </span>I did not care what the intent of some flight of stairs was, I looked at those stairs for possibilities!<span> </span>That worldview brought life to everything I could see.<span> </span>My friends and I could have never put a finger upon why life was so good then.<span> </span>However if I had the chance to talk with them all now I imagine that we would be unanimous in saying that something has changed in all of us since then, and that the change was not for the better.<span> </span>At some point after careers began and life became driven by goals, and tasks the world lost its magic.<span> </span>Hand railings became something to help us up stairs, stairs became something we used to only to change our elevation to get somewhere different.<span> </span>Planters became nothing more than decoration and buildings became nothing more than places of employment.<span> </span>This supposed maturing process that we all go through is utterly tragic.<span> </span>As I grew up everything became so much more rational, so much more logical, and the world that was once a magical playground when I had the skating ‘worldview’ lost its magic.<span> </span>The strange thing however is that the world did not change, the world never lost its color, the world never lost it, it’s still here, I have just become blind to it.<span> </span>The magic is not gone, I have just ceased to believe in it!<span> </span>I contend with you that the magic that the skating ‘worldview’ allowed me to see was real, and the only reason I could see it was because of the ‘worldview’ I held.<span> </span>It was not a false magic, it was real, ask my friends Nick and Matt if it was real, they will gladly confirm it.<span> </span>Ask the kid on skates down the street, or the skateboarder with his skinny jeans and ugly haircut if it is real, he will tell you that indeed that magic is as real as the screen you sit in front of!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now as great as the skating ‘worldview’ was, it is limited.<span> </span>For instance, rain or snow could bring the skating world to a halt.<span> </span>When the rain or snow fell you could only dream of the world that was, or the world that was to come again once the roads became usable again.<span> </span>Rain was not a blessing, it was the greatest of curses, because it temporarily destroyed your world.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Maybe my four year old son’s worldview is better even than the skating worldview.<span> </span>We walked in our house today in the middle of the rain and he had to stop to analyze the down spout.<span> </span>As I looked at the spout I saw it was flowing well which meant no clogs, all was well.<span> </span>When Joey saw it he saw a waterfall pouring into a newly created small lake in the front yard.<span> </span>Like magic the rain created a whole new world to be explored, he cared not about the function of the down spout, his thought was not rational in any sense, but you cannot tell either me or him that there was not a waterfall in our front yard that was not there a few hours earlier.<span> </span>He is not mature enough to see the function, he only sees the form, and the form was a waterfall.<span> </span>His view was far more desirable then mine!<span> </span>Don’t tell me it is just because he has a better imagination, it has nothing to do with imagination, he was just better suited to see reality!<span> </span>Clear as day there was a waterfall pouring into a newly formed body of water in my front yard, there was nothing unreal about it, you could touch it, feel the cold water, splash in the puddle that had formed, it was real.<span> </span>It was far more real than my view that saw nothing but a formed piece of sheet metal doing its job.<span> </span>This is not the case of a delusional Don Quixote fighting a windmill as though it were monster; this was the case of a real waterfall at my house.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What if I told you that I fought a monster today with hundreds of eyes that feasted on dead carcasses and vomited its prey all over the place?<span> </span>Would you think I am mad?<span> </span>I am not mad, no I valiantly destroyed a common housefly, which indeed fits the description I just gave.<span> </span>Go ahead and tell me I am a mad dreamer, I do not mind.<span> </span>Tell me I am nuts for seeing myself as a valiant monster slayer enjoying the task of taking out that fly as though it was the thing I was created for.<span> </span>Tell me I am nuts, I don’t mind, but it is you sir, not I, that is driven mad by the annoying fly in your house.<span> </span>You may kill the fly and have relief, but when I kill the fly I have victory and joy.<span> </span>Am I being childlike?<span> </span>Maybe, but you cannot say that I am lost in some fable or myth because I really did kill a little monster with hundreds of eyes that feeds on carcasses and vomits its prey everywhere.<span> </span>My mission was real, your worldview just limits you from being able to see it!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What I am saying to you is that this world is far more rich and dare I say ‘magical’ than you are willing to see.<span> </span>What I am saying is here is that the valiant fly swatter, skater, and waterfall downspout gazers are more realistic than you are!<span> </span>They see realities that exist that you fail to see.<span> </span>Your rationality prevents you from seeing the world as it ACTUALLY IS.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I could go on and on.<span> </span>The writer sees the English language with all its grammar and syntax as a great possibility for a story.<span> </span>The novelist sees more than just the function of grammar, they see a deeper more real reality!<span> </span>The rest of us see vocabulary and rules that we need to learn.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hopefully what I have said above has piqued your interest, at least just a little.<span> </span>As you look down at your keyboard what do you see?<span> </span>Mere keys, or is it a device that enables you create and destroy worlds, to bring healing to people’s brokenness, and to expose wickedness.<span> </span>The REAL possibilities at your fingertips right now are staggering.<span> </span>Or what of your kitchen table, is it a mere place to eat your food and have some conversation.<span> </span>Or is it a place where you tell war stories about slain monsters, and discovered waterfalls.<span> </span>Is it a place to eat and complain about the days issues, or go through a few formalities of family life, or is it a conference of warriors, and explorers?<span> </span>Are you catching my drift?<span> </span>There are ACTUAL realities that exist around your own table that your view of the world does not allow you to see!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I would contend that the only worldview that actually seeks realities beyond the mere rational form and function of everything is indeed Christianity.<span> </span>In the eastern religions the goal is to ultimately separate from reality, that somehow entering into a state of nothingness can one truly experience spiritual life.<span> </span>Transcendentalism teaches essentially that matter is bad.<span> </span>These worldviews would teach us to learn that the downspout doesn’t matter, and that if we can get ourselves to the point where the downspout and nothing else for that matter affects us then we will truly be free.<span> </span>It’s bogus!<span> </span>I tell you that the waterfall was enjoyable and beautiful precisely because we realized it was REAL.<span> </span>It was not our distance that brought pleasure, it was putting our hand under it and enjoying it!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The reason I say Christianity gives us the proper worldview is because in it we realize that all things were created by and for Christ.<span> </span>All of it.<span> </span>We also see that we are indeed co-heirs with Christ, in other words this whole world in a very real sense is ours.<span> </span>When we say all things are created by Him we really mean ALL, from waterfalls to wrenches, it is all the creation of God.<span> </span>If indeed all things are ours as co-heirs with Him then we can determine how to use them as we please.<span> </span>Let me give an example.<span> </span>If I have a wrench, I can limit it’s usage to turning bolts, or I could make it a pendulum for a clock, or I could use that flat part as a mirror to pull out my<span> </span>nose hairs.<span> </span>It’s my wrench, therefore the possible realities for that wrench are limitless.<span> </span>Of course we are bound by laws of God so that we would not steal the wrench, or kill someone with it, but beyond illegal usage we are unbound.<span> </span>So it is with the entire world!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Even evil and pain function within this worldview to make something beautiful.<span> </span>Evil itself was the mere nemesis which God had nailed to himself in victory!<span> </span>There is a cosmic throw down which Christ won on the cross.<span> </span>It is a really beautiful thing, him reconciling the world to himself with real flesh and blood, a real cross with real nails.<span> </span>The existence of evil itself proves that there is the existence of good.<span> </span>The tension of good and evil makes the world all the more beautiful.<span> </span>Without pain there is no joy of healing.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In Christianity we have a sovereign God, the author of reality, all realities, nothing has been made that was not made by him.<span> </span>That means that even the reality to the skater is a reality created by him.<span> </span>The waterfall was His waterfall, the kitchen table is his command center, the evil housefly monster is a villain created by him that I might be the valiant king of my home.<span> </span>Do you see it?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you can’t see it don’t quickly dismiss it.<span> </span>I assure you that in the middle of downtown Toledo there is a playground that spans over a hundred acres… you might just need to be a fruit-booter to see it.<span> </span>Unbeliever I implore you to look at the world through the eyes of a Christian, not one of those creepy Christians, but look at the world as a world created by and for Christ, a world of intense order and beauty that contains realities you have yet to imagine!<span> </span>You might just see there is more to all of this than you ever imagined.<o:p></o:p></p>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-85029608336784789802011-09-26T14:08:00.002-04:002011-09-26T14:30:18.042-04:00I love Mondays<p class="MsoNormal">I have spent almost my entire day today just thinking without an agenda.<span> </span>In other words my mind has been wandering randomly all day, and I am ok with that.<span> </span>It started this morning as I was thinking about a conversation I had last week with my cousin about the benefits of factions in the church, this thought later became a<a href="http://deadpastorssociety.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/factions-a-gift-from-god/"> blog post over at Dead Pastor Society</a>.<span> </span>Later I began to think about how most preaching both liberal and conservative typically amounts to just beating people down in order to get them to do something, and then the phrase “The beatings will continue until moral increases” came into my head and that spurred on a whole other line of thinking.<span> </span>Eventually I ended up watching some video about the holocaust, later listened to some teaching on the Theology of the Cross, checked facebook a few times… and now I am just sitting here writing another blog post.<span> </span>This is not an atypical Monday for me.<span> </span>In fact I always look forward to Mondays because this how they usually go.<span> </span>Monday is the day that I free myself up to do this sort of things, ALL DAY.<span> </span>Granted I do more of this at other times during the week, but for the most part I have no plans to do anything but bounce around in thought on Monday.<span> </span>When I get done with this post I will be picking up “Orthodoxy” by GK Chesterton and hopefully finishing the rest of it, and later I will continue reading from 2 Chronicles if time allows.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Monday is random, undisciplined, and free.<span> </span>In some ways it is even better than a day off.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Of course the question comes up, “Jay! How do you have time to do that?”<span> </span>Let’s be honest, you, reader (if you are like most people), are not as busy as you say you are.<span> </span>You’re just not.<span> </span>People ask you how life is, you say “really really busy”, but the reason you say that is because it makes you feel important, and it gives you an excuse for never calling or talking to the person you’re in the conversation with.<span> </span>We just are not as busy as we proclaim to be.<span> </span>Most of the tasks we have to do take far less time then we allot for them, and sometimes we take much longer than necessary just because it makes the task seem all the more important.<span> </span>Need proof?<span> </span>How many times has a deadline crept up on you and out of necessity you complete your task in 1/3 the time you normally take and lo it’s done just as well.<span> </span>Come on, be honest, you are not as busy as you say you are, and your job and your family is not as demanding as you make it out to be!<span> </span>(Of course there are exceptions and you may be one of them, but I bet most people reading this are sensing the truth of what I am saying.)<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I don’t write any of this to condemn anyone, not at all.<span> </span>I write this to encourage you to free up some of your work time for random thought.<span> </span>You have already fought enough with employers and family and such to get everyone to believe it takes you longer to do a task than it really does, which means that you have extra time on your hands.<span> </span>Have fun with it!<span> </span>Don’t waste all of it on facebook (but waste some there), or looking through old emails.<span> </span>Get some books, think random thoughts, write, contemplate, do the things your mind longs to do.<span> </span>You will find that you are going to have so much more to talk about with people, you become more insightful, and more ready to do good creative work, all because you took time to be random.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I certainly believe we should be a disciplined people (that is why I give myself Monday and not the rest of the week.)<span> </span>There are tasks that we need to do, deadlines we need to meet.<span> </span>I only am telling you not to believe your own lies about how difficult your job is and how little time you have, because the time you take making those lies appear true is time that you could waste doing fun stuff, like writing blogs, reading books, and listening to good theology.<span> </span>(At least that’s what I find fun!) <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’d love to hear all your thoughts on this one.<o:p></o:p></p>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8357993002975833949.post-28604295319017830922011-09-23T15:55:00.001-04:002011-09-23T16:00:46.626-04:00Why I am not a "creationist"<p class="MsoNormal">Again I remind you that post every Monday over at <a href="http://deadpastorssociety.wordpress.com/">Dead Pastors Society</a>, so if you are interested in more of what you find here, head over there.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let me say that I have a huge beef with creationism.<span> </span>Now listen, I certainly believe in the literal creation account of scripture, meaning that I believe in a literal 7 days, a literal flood, and a literal tower of babel, all those things I take to be absolutely true.<span> </span>However I am not a creationist because the doctrine that defines my system of theology is NOT creation.<span> </span>Now I am not opposed to “-isms”, in fact I think they are helpful.<span> </span>Methodism is a system of understanding scripture and ecclesiology, as is Lutheranism, Calvinism, Romanism, Arminianism, etc… There is nothing wrong with an “-ism” in that sense.<span> </span>Now certainly not all “-isms” are equally desirable and therein lies my problem with “creationism.”<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Creationism affirms that all biblical doctrine is eventually founded in the creation, or in the first 11 books of Genesis.<span> </span>One of the main things you will hear a creationist say is that if you lose the book of Genesis you lose the entire bible.<span> </span>In other words the creationist affirms that all doctrines are ultimately founded in the creation and without the literal creation account no doctrine can stand.<span> </span>This is standard creationism, and I believe creationism’s emphasis is horribly misplaced.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let me give an example.<span> </span>One of my best friends, who I love dearly, in the Lord is what I would call an ardent creationist.<span> </span>I explained to him that I believe in the literal creation account simply because Christ seems to believe in it, and Christ being resurrected is indeed proven as God in the flesh, and if God Himself affirms a literal creation then who am I to deny it.<span> </span>In other words my sole reason for believing the literal creation narrative is the authority of Christ proven by his resurrection.<span> </span>After hearing that argument my friend said, “I will definitely add that argument to my arsenal.”<span> </span>What I presume he meant is that he will add the resurrected Christ argument in order to serve his creation argument.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So what is wrong with his methodology? Or is there anything wrong with his idea of the adding the resurrection argument to his arsenal? <span> </span>YES! <span> </span>Listen, the resurrection IS our arsenal, it IS our argument.<span> </span>It is not one of many arguments used to prove a greater point.<span> </span>It IS the great point!<span> </span>It is not a sub argument that we add to prove other points of doctrine, not at all!<span> </span>The life, death, and resurrection of Christ IS our doctrine, and all other arguments are subservient to that doctrine.<span> </span>In other words, the literal creation serves to proclaim the life, death , and resurrection not vice versa.<span> </span>To put it more clearly, I can proclaim the Gospel without mentioning the creation. However the only way to rightly proclaim the creation is in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. <span> </span>I can proclaim the Gospel without mentioning where Cain got his wife, but I cannot proclaim the story of Cain and Abel without making a beeline to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.<span> </span>Christ’s life death and resurrection is the primary storyline of scripture, the one which every other scripture is governed by.<span> </span>The bible is Christocentric, not creation-centric.<span> </span>Can you see my issue?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Creationism wrongly places the creation as the foundational moments of scripture.<span> </span>You can be a young earth creationist without being Christian.<span> </span>You can be an orthodox Jew and be a YEC, hell you can be an agnostic and be a YEC.<span> </span>There is nothing distinctly Christian about creationism, and even if the argument for creation is ultimately won in the public sphere it does nothing to guarantee Christian doctrine.<span> </span>If you look a Paul arguing in Acts, the reason people get bent out of shape is not his appeal to a common ancestor, they can work with that, but the reason the reject or accept Christianity is always the resurrection!<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let me make it clearer.<span> </span>In Christianity we see Adam’s fall in the light of the redemption Christ offers.<span> </span>In Christianity the reason for the fall is found in the redemption which Christ offers.<span> </span>The creationist sees Adam’s fall as the action that necessitates Christ’s work.<span> </span>In Christianity Adam was subservient to Trinity’s ultimate plan of redemption by his fall (that is not to say God caused it, a topic for another time).<span> </span>In creationism Christ was subservient to Adam in that Christ was required to come because of what Adam had done. <span> </span>In Christianity Christ necessitated Adam, and creationism Adam necessitated Christ. <span> </span>In Christianity Christ is Plan ‘A’ from before time, in creationism Christ is plan ‘B’ as a result of Adam’s sin.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">When I see fossil records that prove creation, and archeology that proves the Pentateuch I rejoice because all these things point to validity of Christ’s plan of redemption from before time began.<span> </span>However Christ’s life death and resurrection are the verifiable historical events in which I place my trust.<span> </span>In other words I do not get near as bent out of shape by some government agenda to squash creationism as I do by churches that are denying penal substitution, even if those churches are YEC churches.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">With all of that said, I do appreciate the work of groups like Answers in Genesis, and I am not at all opposed to them, no I am very much thankful for them.<span> </span>Nonetheless I think they err in that they present a brand of Christianity which places creation as the foundation of all doctrine, and not the life death and resurrection of Christ.<span> </span>I believe this is a tragic misplacement of emphasis.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hope that one makes sense, let me know what you think.<o:p></o:p></p>Jay D. Miklovichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728787424158231346noreply@blogger.com3