Help please

I’ve had some annoying problems with my site for a while and don’t know how to fix them. I thought perhaps someone reading this might know what to do or look for. They happen for me on several computers with several versions of Windows (98SE, 2000 and XP). I’ve only noticed in IE since I don’t really use anything else.

  • Sometimes the text for the site will be invisible. Scrolling down and then back up makes it appear. I’ve seen this one on other sites as well.
  • I can’t highlight a single word or phrase from my site for copy and paste. Clicking and dragging selects everyting from the click point on up the page. It doesn’t seem to matter which way I drag, I only get the text above. This one is really annoying.

Any ideas?
Correction:The highlighting problem seems to be isolated to the comments section of individual archive pages. The pop up comment window is fine and the main body on the main page and the individual archive page is fine too. Weird.

Letterboxing

Well. my wife did it again (twice in one weekend!). She got me out of the house to experience something new, in this case Letterboxing Letterboxing is basically a scavanger hunt run by stangers. Someone has hidden a box somewher and you have to follow the clues tto find it. In the box you’ll find a rubber stamp and a journal. You bring your own journal and rubber stamp. You stamp your stamp in the box’s journal and the box’s stamp in your journal. Afer that, you dicreetly put it all back for the next person. Then, using the email addess at the Letterboxing site, email the person who left it to tell them you found it (or that it’s missing if you didn’t find it). It’s a mini adventure and a little connection with someone new.
We spend part of both Saturday and Sunday looking for 7 letterboxes in the Columbus area. We found 5 of them. In the process we foun a mid-1800’s graveyard in the middle of an apartment complex (with fresh flags on two graves!), explored a cool ravine in the same comlex, discovered a new park with a neat stream and another park with a 25 foot high rock wall along a creek. We also got to poke through a fair bit of underbrush, lift some rocks and get generally dirty. Pretty fun.
Maria told me at one point “See, I’m providing you with fodder for your blog.” I love this woman.

I went to a Bush Rally

You read that right. Me, the guy who dislikes politics and tries to avoid it, went to a political rally on Friday. Actually it was kind of fun and I’m glad I went. Bush was in town and the governor of “Caleeforneeah” was to be with him. We got several personal phone calls from recordings of important people inviting us to come. My wife, again prodding me to get off the couch and do things, thought we shouldn’t turn down an opportunity to see both the terminator and the president. When will I next get such an opportunity? So we went. Here are my thoughts and observations:

  • We had little difficulty getting in – except the line 4 1/2 blocks long! We got in line at 5:15 and got inside right at 6:00, when the doors were supposed to close. For a while I thought we had spent $15 to park for nothing.
  • We had pretty pathetic seats. We were in the very top row at the very back of the auditorium. I took that picture with my Palm Camera (A wopping 0.3 Megapixels). The podium is in the middle of the white area. It was so far away, you didn’t even look down there and just watched on the jumbo-tron. So in the end it wasn’t much different that watching TV.
  • Buttons, shirts & hats – oh my! There was an endless string of folks hawking Bush paraphernalia. These didn’t strike me as supporter, just opportunists. I bet the showed up at Kerry rallies too.
  • It was a pretty packed house, only the luxury boxes and some scattered seats, mostly with blocked views, empty. Nationwide arena seats just shy of 20,000.
  • There was only about half of the floor with people standing in it, the rest was empty. This is the cheering squad that you see on TV.
  • I expected more protestors, in fact I was a little worries that we might run into some confrontations. But there were few of them. One RV circling the line to get in with a loudspeaker proclaiming “Bush L – I – E – D!” and a group of 4 on the opposite side of the street with a loudspeaker.
  • An R & B group performed a version of the Musiq Soulchild song “Love” using the “George” instead of “Love” in the lyrics. Real hokey. They also sang a bunch of acapella patriotic songs. They weren’t that good and frankly were probably there because they were 4 young black guys supporting Dubya.
  • I thought that my kids would appreciate having a flag or something that I assumed would be handed out for folks to wave. It makes for good images, that sea of waving banners. But it turns out only the folks in the lower seats got them.
  • Here in Ohio, especially near Ohio State, you can split the crowd in half, point at one side and shout ” O H!” and the other will immediately respond ‘I O!” You’ll then get an alternating “O H!” “I O!” for just about as long as you want it. Well, after a couple rounds of that they changed it to “B U!” “S H!”
  • There was a series of speakers prior to the main event, most of which we didn’t see. Then there was some video of Bush and Cheney from various events and then just some music while we waited. Just after 7:00, the music changed, exactly like the music before a professional sports team comes out into the arena. After about 5 minutes of that, they introduced Arnold and the place went nuts. Only about 30 seconds or so later they announced Bush and he came out with Laura. The three of them stood on the stage waving for a 7 minute ovation (I timed it.) It was incredible and I hadn’t anticipated how emotional that would be. There’s something about seeing the president coupled with the screaming adoration of 20,000 people that can’t help but move you. It moved my kids too as Jessica hid under her coat from the noise.
  • Arnold spoke first, and for only about 10 minutes. I thought he’d speak longer, but he was only there to, in his words, “pump you up” to get support Bush. This was the only campaign stop for the Governator. He has a special relationship with Columbus, having won the Mr. World competition here in 1970. He has since made it sort of his second home. He owns part interest in a local mall and holds a fitness expo here every year.

Then Dubya spoke for about 30-40 minutes. I expected to hear the series of sound bites that have been played on the news fro the past weeks. To some extent I did, but there was more to it. I heard about what he believes in and what makes him different that John Kerry. Not just why John Kerry was bad (there was a fair bit of that) but what the difference is, in Bush’s eyes, between them. He was not the bungling idiot that you see on Letterman, nor was he very eloquent. (BTW – best quip of the night by Bush: “[Arnold] and I have three things in common; we married well, we have trouble speaking the English language and we have big biceps”) He somehow became a little more real. For that reason, in hindsight, I wish I would have gone to see Senator Kerry on Thursday to get a better picture of him as well. I doubt it would have swayed my vote, but I would at least felt that I knew him better.

A Small Step Closer to Calvinism?

Over the past months I’ve had an on again off again conversation with Jared about Calvinism and free will. Jared is an unapologetic Calvinist. I, frankly, had no idea what that meant until recently, and even now I’m not entirely sure. But thanks to Jared’s patience in answering, probably, the same question repeatedly, I’m getting there. I am still a long way away from being a Calvinist, and probably never will be entirely, but I’m finding that it is not nearly as far fetched as it seemed a few months ago. (BTW – The Calvinist belief can be summed up with the acronym TULIP. There’s an explanation of TULIP here.)
My debate with Jared began in the comments thread here. Jared had taken offense at another’s claim to sovereignty over his own life. I had written a paper on God’s putting us in control and I commented that I felt that God has given man sovereignty over his own life. (that paper has seemed incomplete ever since it was completed. There’s more to the story, but I haven’t been inspired to go back and dig into it yet. As Jared pointed out, it’s a little too ‘Deist’) A very civil conversation ensued about all things Calvin but settled down to the idea of free will or not. Jared made his points, I tried to provide examples in scripture of free will and then Jared said

Salguod, I’m not sure if you haven’t made it through my previous comments yet, but I have specifically said several times that I don’t deny the reality of the will or the reality of man’s choosing.
All you’ve done with these references is provide examples of man making choices or the call to man to make a choice. I have never denied any of those things.

If I wasn’t already confused, that did it for me. A will that is not fee? Choices but not freedom? How can this be? I attempted to understand his position, but couldn’t get it.
Then, a few days ago he posts A Will Conformed to Reality in which he makes the argument that it is our role to change our will to match God’s. I let it sit for a couple of day, but couldn’t take it any longer. So I asked

How does this idea of conforming our will to God’s square with your position that we have no free will of our own? If God’s in control of all and directing all, how can we say to have conformed our will to His, as you suggest here?

So Jared graciously explains it to me one more time and this time it clicks and I respond:

So the idea then is that we seem to have free will before we are saved, but in reality we cannot help but to sin. It (perfection or ‘being good’) is an ideal that is a lie for we are powerless to achieve it. We are perhaps more or less successful than our neighbor, but ultimately sinful beyond our control. It is only because God has given us grace in Christ that we have a chance to be saved from this depravity.
So the lack of free will is not an inability to make any choice, but rather a limitation on making all the right choices. Our freedom is limited by our tendency to sin.

It turns out that this Calvinist idea of no free will isn’t as wacky as it might seem. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
Jared, you’ve still got a long way to go on original sin and predestination, though.

Parables

Mathew 13:1-52, Mark 4:1-34, Luke 8:4-18, Luke 13:18-21
Matthew 13:13-15 – For a long time this did not make sense to me. Recently, I’ve become aware of how easy it is to think that you know what’s going on and what’s true and can be completely deceived. What my church went through in the last two years really opened my eyes. I had men around me talking of the grave sins they saw, and it sounded like utter nonsense. What world were they living in? But I knew these men and I knew they were not the type to make things up. I prayed that God would open my eyes, let me see what He saw. I began to see how we pursue correctness over love, correction over understanding, being right over treating people right. I was overwhelmed at the sin right in my midst, and in my self, so much so that for an instant I longed for the days of ignorance. I wondered if asking for God’s eyes was such a good idea. But I do not want to go back, I want to see as God sees and hopefully make a difference for His sake.

Who’s linking me?

Following up on a post at Radical Congruency, I checked Technorati to see who, if anyone, links to me. It found several that I knew about (Thinklings, Mysterium Tremendum, Country Keepers) but failed for some reason to find Virusdoc. It did, however, turn out two that I wasn’t aware of, Dawson Baily and Requiest. Rong of Requiest has commented here before, but I wasn’t aware that he’d linked to me. Thanks for the linkage guys. Go check them out, I will be. Oh, and if you’re doing some stealth surfing, be aware that Requiest has music playing on his site.

More Gospels – Hypocrisy

Luke 11:37-54, Luke 12, Luke 13:1-17
Luke 11:39-41 – This time through the gospels I am struck by how much Jesus emphasizes the inner verses the outer, more specifically our heart verses our outward obedience. I, of course, knew that this was our Lord’s message, but lately I’ve become increasingly aware of how quickly and easily we slide into relying on our own actions and rule following for our sense of righteousness. More so, we look at other’s lives and evaluate them by their outward actions. We fail to take a true measure of them, at heart level, which requires infinitely more work than summing them up by some outward checklist or standard of behavior.
Luke 12:13-15, 13:1-5 – Jesus always takes a situation directed at others and turns it back on the questioner. “What about so-and-so who did such-and-such?” “Nevermind them, I tell you that unless youstop doing such-and-such you will perish.”

More Gospels

Matthew 8:5-13, 11:2-19, 12:22-50, Mark 3:20-35, Luke 7:1-50, 8:1-3, 8:19-21, 11:14-36
Matthew 8:8-13 – He understood Jesus’ authority, obviously more than most because of Jesus’ reaction. But think about this. He didn’t even meet Jesus and his request is granted. Do I have such faith? Am I willing to take Jesus at His word like this? I think about all my wrestling of the last year or so and I’m not sure. I feel that I am constantly looking fro proof, for evidence.
Luke 7:19 – But even John had his moments f doubt, looking for reassurance.
Matthew 11:15 & Luke 7:29-30 – This is the constant challenge, to have ears that hear. And in Luke we see the consequences of not doing so. The Pharisees refused to give up their preconceived notions and see the truth.
Luke 7:49 – This type of forgiveness, at a man’s command I suppose, was foreign to them. I don’t think that it was the idea of forgiveness, but the idea that it could be granted in this way.
Matthew 12:33-37, Luke 7:35 – Jesus in his ministry constantly was concerned with the heart. But it’s in scriptures like these that he ties our actions to our heart.

Some Thoughts on Church Discipline

UPDATE: See my updated thoughts here.
The leadership team at my church is talking about how we can be unified on the idea of church disciplline of sin. The text that we’ve focused on is Matthew 18:15-17. The following is my initial thoughts on the issue. I know that some church members read my blog so I wanted to make it clear: We have not come to any consensus as a group and these thoughts are only my own. However, I thought some of my readers may have some thoughts that would be helpful.
Although Matthew 18:15-17 is directed at sin between two people, I think that it is appropriate for principles to be applied to any sin in the church. I would like to see us practice policies and develop an atmosphere that encourages people to do steps 1 and 2 on their own. We should train the disciples in resolving these issues in this manner. It’s my conviction that, as a leadership team (Deacons and Ministers), we should not be involved in these types of things until verse 17. This is to protect the sinner as he or she deals with their sin. Let them do so in private, telling only those they wish to. This shows love and respect for the sinner.
I believe that in the past we (corporately) have been too quick to tell others about someone’s sin. Frankly, it’s gossip and the Bible has much to say against it (Proverbs 11:13, 20:19, 3 John 1:10). This sort of sharing paints a picture of that person that is etched in the mind of the hearer. Does Sam need to know that Fred struggles with pornography? Is it beneficial for building up either Sam or Fred (Ephesians 4:29)? Now Sam’s image of Fred is unnecessarily polluted by the words that were spoken. Perhaps you think that Sam can help Fred deal with this sin. That may be, but the respectful and loving thing to do would be to ask Fred if he minds having Sam involved. Perhaps he would rather not tell Sam, but thinks that George might be of help. Fred gets help and feels loved and respected. It simply shows that you care.
I want to see us develop and environment with this kind of respect is the norm in our church and is a high priority. I think we can do so if we as the leadership make it our own personal conviction to be determined to avoid gossip and that we reinforce that, one on one, with others. I do not want an environment where my sin, yours or another’s might be broadcast, even with good intentions, to others. I was once in a situation where a married couple was having difficulties. One spouse shared openly about their struggles with the other and their perception of the other’s sin. In concern, that was shared with the leader of the group who shared it with others, with the idea of getting advice or having them pray. It got back to the spouse who was deeply hurt. They felt that the situation was misunderstood and that they were judged without having been heard. They were then reluctant to get together to get help with their marriage because it seemed that they were automatically going to get laid out. Had Matthew 18 been followed and gossip avoided, this could have turned out much better.
So, in terms of how we should, as a leadership team, confront sin, my thoughts are that we turn people to these scriptures first. First we should if at all possible make sure that the person bringing it to our attention does their best to do so anonymously. Cut them off before they say a name out of respect to the accused (what if it is false?). Then go through the steps outlined here. Have they approached the person privately? If not, they should do so first. If the have and it has not gone well, have they brought in someone close to both of them? We should encourage the second or third brother or sister to be a neutral party, preferably someone each person agrees on. In the past we have treated this as a ‘climb the ladder of authority’ system that can create mistrust. If you won’t listen to the bible talk leader, we’ll get the zone leader to deal with you. Instead we should strive to create as neutral an environment as possible where everyone feels that they will be treated fairly. Only if that hasn’t worked, then both persons involved in confronting that person should come together to the leadership team and get us involved.
Our Lord told us that loving each other is the most important thing we can do outside of loving Him. We must remember the definitions of love in 1Corinthians 13 when dealing with sin. It is patient and kind. It keeps no record of wrongs. It rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts and always perseveres. And love never fails. I am convinced that an atmosphere of love, which must be free of hurtful and damaging gossip, will set us up to truly help people be victorious over their sin. That is the goal, isn’t it?
What if they refuse to listen to us? Matthew 18 says to treat them as a pagan or tax collector. I used to assume that meant they were shunned. Then I remembered how Jesus treated the tax collectors. He ate with them (Matthew 9, Luke 5). He hung out with them (Matthew 11:19, Luke 15:1). He loved them. He didn’t necessarily call them his disciples, but he did not shun them and in His love, he influenced them (Luke 7:29). The world will abandon the one who sins against them. If we do the same, how will they be saved? If they deliberately refuse to repent, I think it is entirely appropriate that we ask them to leave the church for a time. We should not encourage or condone the shunning of these people, however. On the contrary, we should encourage the other disciples to serve them and love them, continuing to show them God’s love in spite of their sin. In 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 Paul say that we are not to associate with men who do not obey, but also says to warn them like a brother, not an enemy. So I believe we can exclude them from our fellowship but should encourage people, especially those close to them, to maintain a relationship and love them even more. In fact, for those who are close I would even challenge them on their lack of love if I saw them abandoning and shunning the sinner. 1 Peter 4:8 reminds us to love each other above all else, because love covers a multitude of sins.

God-Thinking Theology

I recently discovered another blogger in my ICOC family of Churches. His site is pinakidion.com I’m not sure what that means, but I’m glad I found his site. He has been wrestling with much of the same things I have over the last year or two. He’ll make it onto the links at the left in the coming days.
I’ve been going through his old posts and came across this post from a couple of weeks ago about ‘God-Thinking Theology’. In it he talks about how Barnabas’ vouching for Saul is what led to his acceptance in Jeruselem, not anything Saul did to prove himself. In fact, any attempt by Saul to prove himself would have probably backfired. Barnabas is one of my favorite NT characters because of how he stood up for Saul like he did. He didn’t have to and he had little to gain in doing so.
Pinakidion’s point is that just as Barnabas was Saul’s advocate before men, Jesus is our advocate before God. And just as Barnabas eliminated the need for Saul to prove himself before the apostles, Jesus means we have nothing to prove to anyone. God accepts us because Jesus vouches for us. Go read his post, it’s very good.

On This Day

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Meta