semper parans

My name is Tyler and I'm ready to...

2012-02-11T00:04:00.000-06:00

I spent a summer running a ropes course. During that summer I challenged literally hundreds of kids, teens and adults to step out of their comfort zones. Here's what I learned:

It's not easy. Not at all. You hear the kid say, "I wanna come down. Let me down." You naturally want to let the kid down and answer that perceived need of his. And if you're persistent and you don't let him down, he gets upset with you. Sometimes he'll even still hate you after you return him to the ground safely. All for what? So he could reach his goal of walking across a wire? I really didn't enjoy that job, and chose not to apply for it for a second summer.

However, I'm seeing some parallels between that job and the pastoral ministry. Pastors can never be content with the status quo of their members, but have to constantly challenge them to step out of their comfort zones. People may not like that. They may get upset. Still, as the pastor gently nudges his members towards personal growth, we keep in mind that the reward is far greater than a child being able to look back and be proud of accomplishing his or her goal. The result of this difficult job is that the saints are equipped to step out of their comfort zones and reach people who otherwise may not be reached. While this won't be easy, the high stakes and great rewards make this work the most exciting work that I can imagine.

Can't wait.

Plan B.b

2012-02-02T12:28:00.002-06:00

Beware of doublespeak. The "Plan B" pill that is being advertised on tv frequently runs statements like, "This is not the abortion pill. Nothing will happen if you are already pregnant."

Thou protesteth too much. It's as if the company were to say, "We know there are issues of conscience here that much of our audience is going to be concerned about. Let's see how we can trick them into ignoring those!" They love to shout about how nothing happens if someone is pregnant. Noticeably absent from their website is a description of what actually happens when someone takes this pill. They never tell you how it prevents a "pregnancy".

In fact, it took me to the very bottom of the google page to actually find out what this pill does. There, I found an article that said that pharmacists opposed to carrying this drug because it prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting. Now, define "pregnant" however you want to, but to shout about how this pill isn't an abortion pill and does nothing if you're already pregnant is misleading. What this pill does, if it works properly, is makes sure that a fertilized egg is flushed out of a woman. Most Christians (who make up a large part of this country) would define that as doing something once you're pregnant.

Don't buy into the lies. As the previous post stated, that very well may end a human life. Please, do your research, and do not take this chance.

Welcome to plan B

2012-01-16T12:28:00.000-06:00

It's not very often that I get my backside handed to me in an argument. If I'm going to argue about something, it's probably something about which I'm at least fairly knowledgeable, and I can defend my viewpoint in a reasonable way. The last time I can remember this happening was two and a half years ago. For most of the time since then, I've written off this person as arrogant, liberal and crazy. However, I can't honestly do that anymore. It's been an issue that's been burning in my mind for a while; I can't ignore it anymore.

The details are a lil fuzzy (this was two and a half years ago), but here's what happened:
This lady was a medical student. She decided to start talking life issues. She made the claim that the Hebrew language and culture had no concept of sperm meeting egg, so we can't say that "conceived" in Psalm 51:5 means sperm meets egg. At this point I engaged in a little bit of academic bullying, which is something I really try to avoid. I said, "You have no idea what the semantic domain of Hebrew words is . . . blah blah blah, I'm losing this argument but I hope you don't realize it." The truth is that I had no idea about the exact meaning of the Hebrew word that is translated as "conceived" in Psalm 51:5. At that point I had been studying Hebrew for about 9 months. Believe it or not, I had neither read nor memorized the entire Hebrew bible.

Then she seemed to see that she wasn't getting anywhere with it, so she decided to beat me in a different part of the argument. So, she posed a logical question for me:
"You would say that when sperm meets egg, a human being exists that has a soul, right?" Yes ma'm.
"How many souls?" Well...one, of course.
"So, do identical twins share one soul?" Oh, crap...

She went on to explain how the morning after pill and Plan B pills are perfectly acceptable options for Christians to use because of these issues. Not only had I failed to provide this intelligent, passionate lady with some guidance, but I had also made myself look like a complete bonehead. One of many conversations in my life that I wish I had another chance at.

Well, here's my second chance. This lady, whose name I've forgotten completely, will probably never read this, it'll be a useful exercise for me. Hopefully I can prepare myself not to get my backside handed to me the next time I'm in such a conversation. I'm also convinced that this is an issue that other people struggle with. I don't think that every confessional Lutheran's high-school education taught them as clearly about birth control issues as mine did. It's something that I have a question or two about, and I spend most of my life thinking about this kind of stuff! I don't doubt that others do too. So, let's take a look at these thoughts together and see what we can come up with.

First of all, I want to consider the argument from the language. This is where I really started to lose the argument, so let's see what we can glean from the good ol' Hebrew. I'll try to make this paragraph intelligible for everyone, regardless of language training or lack thereof, but I won't be offended if anyone chooses to skip over it. It turns out that the verb in question, יֶֽחֱמַ֥תְנִי, actually is a tough one. It's only used three times in scripture and only once referring to humans. The other two places (Genesis 30:41, 31:10) refer to cattle in heat (Brown Driver Briggs). So, this word has something to do with intercourse and reproduction, but this isn't too clear. Since there isn't too much extra-biblical Hebrew literature, when Hebrew words are unclear, we can some times gain some clarity from the Septuagint. For this term, the Septuagint uses the Greek word ἐκίσσησέν, which refers more generally to pregnancy, literally to the strange cravings for food that women have during pregnancy (Intermediate Greek English Lexicon). Since the Septuagint isn't inspired, we're not tied to accept the Septuagint translation as the correct reading, but it often can help us understand how a Hebrew word was understood by Greek speakers a couple hundred years before Christ. But there's really not too much help here. So, I think I might have to concede this point to the lady that we can't necessarily say for sure that Psalm 51:5 is referring to sperm + egg = human being.

So, when does human life begin? Is it "conception"? Implantation? Some other time? I'm not sure I can answer that question with absolute certainty. Concerning this thought, Siegbert Becker said,

The Bible does not fix the exact moment when a new human soul comes into existence. There may be in the minds of Christians, therefore, some doubt as to the exact moment when an unborn child should be called a true human being. Some Christian theologians have held that the soul comes into existence at the moment of conception. Others have been of the opinion that it takes place when the unborn child is quickened in the womb. A few have even said that the soul is drawn into the body with the first breath. Whatever the opinions of men may be, the Bible clearly speaks of unborn children as real persons. . . . [The] Bible, indeed, does not tell us when this unborn child becomes a person, and we can only conclude that there is at least a possibility that a human being, a real person, comes into existence at the moment of conception. (Northwestern Lutheran January 4th, 1970)

So, maybe I'm not comfortable anymore saying that a human being exists when sperm meets egg. There are some difficulties with that viewpoint (identical twins, failure to implant), but those would not negate the clear words of scripture. Since the words of scripture do not give us the scientific definition that our 21st century minds crave, I can't condemn someone as a heretic he or she thinks that life begins at implantation. However, I'm still going to take a stand. I'll stand with Dr. Becker and "conclude that there is at least a possibility that a human being, a real person, comes into existence at the moment of conception."

So, we cannot label the morning after pill or plan B as viable contraceptive options for Christian women because there is a very real possibility that those pills kill people. Sure, we can grant the possibility that they don't, but do you really want to play Russian roulette with a soul? Who of you would take a pill, flip a switch or pull a trigger in order to make your life easier if you knew that there was a very real possibility that a person who has never heard the gospel would die as a result? I think we can agree that that's something we don't want to be doing. While this issue may not be simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker anymore, perhaps we should still act as if it is.

My thoughts on this topic have changed over the past two and a half years, largely due to an unpleasant conversation that I had. When you're wrong, you have to be able to admit that. However, it's important not to overreact. While my thoughts about certain aspects of this discussion have changed, the principle has remained the same. We don't want to take people's lives into our own hands, since God has not given us that responsibility. So, when I talk to people about this, my encouragement for their behavior will also remain the same. Don't take chances. Engage in God's gift of sex in the way that he intended, and be ready to accept everything that comes along with that. If you have used emergency birth control in the past, you're a sinner. You're a sinner just like people who have never used emergency birth control. You're a sinner just like I am. And we all throw ourselves at the cross, realizing that our God is gracious and that his blood has cleansed all of our sins.

So, while my thoughts have changed, God's have not. He still hates sin. And he still loves you. Thanks be to God that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

A "Plus One" Solves Nothing

2011-12-09T00:10:00.001-06:00

A "plus one" solves nothing. Does anyone else remember in 1998 when ESPN told us, "The controversy is over. Now the national championship will be played out on the field." No, the controversy wasn't over. The controversy is now who gets to be #1 and who gets to be #2.I find it outrageous that our solution is, "Let's make it a four team competition!" I can see the ESPN headlines now. "The controversy is over." No, it's not. The controversy now is who gets to be #1, #2, #3, and #4. If anything, the controversy has been increased.And what's been the biggest complaint about the current system that you've heard this year? "How can a team that didn't even win its conference play for the national championship?!" Ok, let's just consider what would happen if we had this "plus one" model to solve all of our problems. We'd have LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State and Stanford playing off. Now we'd have TWO teams that didn't win their conferences playing for a national title! There are two viable options:1. 16 conference winners play each other in a 4 round playoff.2. Retain the traditional BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange) with tradition in tact, and have the winners play each other.

How Far Is Too Far? -- A Lutheran Tautology

2011-11-15T22:30:00.000-06:00

Today I want to look at a topic that isn't new, but I want to look at it in a different light. I think that I've been relatively silent about this on my blog, but that's about to change. Let's talk about some conventional, Lutheran wisdom and how we can build upon that, but also how we can move on to a deeper understanding.

I doubt there's a person reading this that has not asked, at some time in his or her life, "How far is too far?" Throughout my life I've heard several different answers to that question. The most common answer that I've heard from pastors and teachers says that God has told us that we shouldn't commit adultery. Jesus also expanded on that command, saying that someone is guilty of adultery when he or she has lustful thoughts. So, you shouldn't do anything that causes you to lust.

Got it? Good. Don't do anything that causes you to lust. Simple, right? Well, you might think so. But ask someone to define lust in concrete terms, and you'll watch them struggle.

I've asked this question a lot. I think that every time I've gotten an actual answer it's been something like, "'Lust' is the desire for something sexual that is not God-pleasing." I could agree with that definition, but, unfortunately, this answer has completed a tautology. In case you missed it the first time (and I missed it probably the first hundred times), here it is:

How do we know when we're doing physical things that God doesn't want us to do? We're doing physical things that God doesn't want us to do when those things cause us to lust.What is lusting? Lust is when we want to do physical things that God doesn't want us to do.The answer that defines the term in question is the same as the question that was initially posed. We say that A happens when B is fulfilled. We say that B is when A happens. Talk about a circular argument.

Here it is. This is the point at which teachers will get caught in their tautology. Whether or not a student can articulate it in those words, the teacher will almost certainly get stuck and proclaim, "Well, if you're asking that question, you're headed in the wrong direction already!"
Horse crap. A teacher's inability to answer a question does not show the students' malicious intent in asking such a question.The students who ask such questions are likely people who have strong feelings for another person and, naturally, want to express that physically. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact that they're asking, "Where should I stop so that I don't sin against God?" is a fruit of faith. We do them a disservice by dodging the question.

I understand; teachers who answer the question this way aren't trying to dodge the question. Since they're not sure of the answer themselves, they try to provide a conservative answer to curb the kids' behavior early. But what happens instead? You end up with kids not knowing what the devil they're supposed to do and where they're supposed to stop. So often they stop just short of intercourse, because they haven't been convinced that anything else is wrong.

My intent with this post is not just to criticize teachers that I've come into contact with. My intent is to challenge teachers, single people, and all Christians to define their terms better. What is "lust"? How far is too far?

Don't answer with a tautology. And don't tell me off for asking such a question. I want to know so that I can teach the next generation. After all, this classic question won't even be an issue for me in a month and a half, except in that I'll be asked to provide guidance for others. Help me out here.

What is man(kind) that you are mindful of him?

2011-11-01T00:40:00.000-05:00

An anonymous commenter suggested that I address the topic raised by critics of the NIV2011 concerning Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6. Now, I don't make a habit of dignifying anonymous comments with a response, but the thoughts running through my head after my Bible study tonight were just too fitting to ignore.I picked up The Lutheran Study Bible for my personal use this year since I know many faithful Christians that enjoy it and propose the ESV as an alternative to the NIV2011. I'm not ready to go out on a limb and pick one over the other yet, but sometimes their similarities are more telling than their differences.People have gotten really upset about the way that the NIV handled Psalm 8/Hebrews 2. The difference is that NIV11 changes "man" to "mankind". Concerned Christians say that it makes the Messianic prophecy much harder to pick up on. I agree, but I'm not quite ready to pick up my picket over these two verses. Why? Because the NIV2011's handling of these verses only makes the Messianic prophecy harder to pick up on. It doesn't do away with the prophecy altogether.At first I was pretty upset by the fact that this prophecy was muddied a bit. I found myself thinking, "If the NIV2011 has dropped the ball on prophecies like this, there's gotta be something better out there." Well, perhaps that's true. However, I was reading the Psalms last night and came upon Psalm 16 in the ESV. When I came to verse 10, I cringed a little bit to see that it was translated as, "You will not . . . let your holy one see corruption." Corruption? When I hear that word, I think of a crook, perhaps of a computer file. The last thing I think of is a person rotting in the grave. When I hear "you will not let your holy one see corruption" I don't think "God will raise Jesus from the dead and miraculously prevent him from decaying in the grave." Even the esteemed ESV muddied the waters here.So, what's the point? You will never find a Bible translation that words every Messianic prophecy in a way that communicates entirely clearly to every Christian. So, let's not get all up in arms about prophecies that aren't worded exactly the way we'd like. The NIV2011 clearly retains the prophecies in that the New Testament parallels are translated the same way. There are bigger issues involved in translation theory, let's move on to those.

Are only sinful men enticing?

2011-08-17T13:06:00.003-05:00

One of my fears as I undertake this series on the NIV2011 is that the conversation will get caught up in the thick of thin things. People will have one or two verses that they'll argue against, and we'll spend our time talking about individual verses rather than the ideologies behind them. With that being said, I think it will be possible to take some of these examples as an opportunity to talk about the underlying principles.

In a comment on my last post, Jason Petoskey left a question regarding Proverbs 1:10. This is a peculiar change from the NIV84 to the NIV2011.
1984: My son, if sinners entice you,
do not give in to them
2011: My son, if sinful men entice you,
do not give in to them.
We've all heard about how NIV2011 is moving towards gender neutral language. Cramming a complex issue into one sentence, they don't want to create a distinction in English that would not have existed in the ears of the original audience. I will almost certainly dedicate an entire post to that later, but that should suffice for now. So, that leads a reader to wonder why the 2011 version moves to the gender specific, away from the gender neutral of 84.

They make the change for the same reason they frequently choose gender neutral language. They make this change for the same reason they made every change between these two versions. They want to communicate to the American English speaker in 2011 the same thing that was communicated to the Jews a thousand years before Christ or the infant churches of Asia Minor. Almost all of the discussion from here forward will focus on how well the NIV2011 accomplished that goal.

There may be some in the more radical camp that will preach 'til they're blue in the face that the only acceptable translation theory is formal correspondence. They'll say that we shouldn't attempt to communicate to modern readers the same way that Solomon communicated to his readers, but that we should instead retain the form of the original in our translation. Well, this issue is one that shows how difficult that is. The Hebrew word for sinners certainly is masculine. Now, does that mean that it's exclusively male? Not necessarily. So, should an English translation include the word "men" or not? We can be as literal in our translation as we want to be, but the differences between the two languages require a faithful translator to make some interpretive calls.

Now, is this change from "sinners" to "sinful men" acceptable? Yes. Why? Because Proverbs is poetry, and adding the word "men" brings out some poetic effect that was lost in NIV84. In chapter 1, the warning is against sinners (masculine). In chapter 2, the warning concerns an adulteress (feminine). Is this saying that only men can entice someone to sin? Of course not. If that were so, why would he warn against an adulteress? And is chapter 2 saying that only women commit adultery? Of course not. If that's what he were saying, why would he need to warn the man? This contrast clearly was a poetic tool used by Solomon. I, for one, am glad that the NIV2011 improved upon the work they did with this verse in 1984.

Now, this one verse is a rather small thing. It doesn't make any doctrine of the Bible more or less clear, but it reveals something significant about the choices made in the NIV2011 concerning gender inclusive/exclusive language. It wasn't driven by some agenda to abolish all distinctions between the sexes. Proverbs 1 and 2 show that quite clearly. What they sought to do was to communicate to American English speakers what the original communicated to its initial audience. In this verse, they have done so faithfully. While we may question certain choices made, it appears that this committee had no ungodly agenda concerning men and women. We'll continue to evaluate the work they have done as we look at other issues.

Thanks, Jason for the question. I hope I have answered it adequately. If anyone would like to dispute what I've written here, has further questions, or wants to bring up another topic, please do so in the comments. I simply ask that you leave your name so that we can address each other as one Christian to another, not as nameless creatures on the other end of an internet connection.

Opening up the Can

2011-08-16T12:09:00.003-05:00

I should've kept track of how many people have come up to me and said, "WELS isn't going to go with the New NIV, is it? I've heard...(insert overstated claim about gender inclusive language or translation theory here.)" Now, I don't mean to make these people sound foolish or over-zealous in any way. These are well meaning Christians who want to be able to pick up an English Bible and read God's Word. From what they've heard, the NIV2011 wouldn't allow that. And that's the problem: It seems that all people are hearing about are the inherent evils of the NIV2011. So, as my schedule allows, I intend to compose a few blog posts addressing some of the concerns that people have raised.

Now, I have no delusions of grandeur to think that this little blog will be heard over the others. My intention is not to compete with or oppose anyone. My intention is, first of all, to provide myself with an opportunity to practice speaking intelligently about this issue. Second, I want to facilitate meaningful, evangelical discussion that would not be possible in another forum. Third, I do want to present my few faithful followers with some thoughts that they're maybe not hearing anywhere else. If all three of these goals are achieved (and I believe they will be), this should be a valuable experience for all involved.

Now, I'm going to leave this post at that. I'll dive into the issues at hand in my next post. So, I'd like to open the floor for any initial thoughts or for suggestions of topics.

χάρις καὶ πίστις

The Efficacy of the Word...it's true!

2011-06-23T21:07:00.002-05:00

This past weekend I had the privilege of sharing God's Word with his people from the pulpit for the second time. Since I preached at Mount Olive both this weekend and in May, I pulled out the sermon that I wrote for class first semester. Now, I had told myself that I would never preach this sermon in a church. Yet, when PB asked me if I would preach, I couldn't turn down that opportunity. So, I spent time pulling out this sermon, knocking the dust off, and getting it to the point I would've liked it to be about seven months ago.

While I certainly liked the sermon a lot better than I did the first time, I still wasn't so sure whether or not it was good enough that I wanted to preach it in church. After plenty of nerves and a fair amount of sleep lost in the polishing and memorizing stage, I made the trek to Appleton and gave it my best shot. Well, on Saturday night my memory failed me a few times and I didn't feel like I delivered it very well. All this was stacked upon my doubts about how strong the writing was in the first place. As I made the walk down the aisle out of church, I found myself thinking, "I hope I never preach that poorly again." I understood what Professor Fredrich had said in class, "1 Corinthians 4 is what allows me to sleep at night." God asks his ministers to be faithful. He doesn't ask them to be flashy, people pleasers or flawless public speakers. He asks them to be faithful. I took comfort in that thought as I walked out of church.

I didn't have nearly as many people stopping to explain to me how incredibly proud they were of me as I did a month and a half ago. That's pretty easily explained by either that the thrill of the first time had worn off or that I simply didn't preach as well. There was one exchange I had that I was completely unable to explain, except by a doctrine I've known for a long time, but sometimes struggled to believe entirely. The efficacy of the Word is the only way I can explain that interaction. The lady shook my hand and said, "You've improved a lot since last time." At first I was almost bothered by the comment thinking that I must've really been horrible the first time. After a few minutes, I began to take comfort in it. My writing was worse this time. My memory was far worse. My delivery was less passionate. I don't doubt any of these things. Yet, somehow, this lady stated in no uncertain terms that I was significantly better than I was a month and a half ago. Instead of labeling this assertion as false and the lady is misguided, let's return home to Lutheran doctrine. "The Word of God works when and where He wills it." Why did my sermon hit home for this lady far more the second time than the first time? Was it because it was written better, prepared better or delivered better? Certainly not! For some reason, God chose to make this particular exposition of his Word speak to her heart more than the first time. That has nothing to do with all the preparation I did, and that gives me a sense of peace. God worked on people's hearts that he wanted to on June 19th, just as he did on May 1st.

While God has only promised to speak to us through his written, revealed Word, that doesn't mean that that truth won't become clearly personal to us in a special way. I'm glad that I was able to experience the truth of God's Word in this way that has removed my doubt. I hope that this truth sticks with me throughout the rest of my preaching career.

To God alone be the glory!

Sermon 5/1/2011

2011-05-08T20:39:00.004-05:00

The first sermon that I got to preach in church.

Be Serious About Your Priceless Treasure

“I said 'I love you. That's forever. This I promise from the heart.” If you listened to popular music in the late 1970's, you probably recognized that line from a popular song. If you didn't catch that one, don't worry. I'll quote a couple more that you might recognize. Here's another one: “I think you ought to know that I intend to hold you for the longest time.” And one more: “As long as I have you by my side, there's a roof above and good walls all around.” Now, these songs might seem to just be sappy love songs, but there's something significant about them:
The pop singer Billy Joel wrote all three of these songs, and he wrote them for three different women. I have absolutely no doubt that he was completely sincere when he wrote them; he was in love and found a woman he considered a treasure. But you have to wonder if he underestimated how much it would cost him to cherish those treasures forever.
Sometimes Christians underestimate how much they need to cherish the treasure they have from God. We know Jesus is important; we hear his Word on Sundays, and we put our faith to use during the week, especially when times are tough. But we can admit that there have been times when we haven’t thought all that much about God’s gifts, when we haven’t considered the tremendous value we have in our relationship with God.
In the Gospel for today, Jesus reminds us how important it is to consider his kingdom our most valuable treasure. He's talking here about his forgiveness, his love, and his willingness to take care of us—all the things that he does for us in his kingdom. He talks about these things in three parables. This is the lesson he wants us to learn:
Be serious about your priceless treasure.
x Value it
x Prize It
x Share It
Here’s the first parable Jesus told:
The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
1. Jesus tells us about a man who was walking through a field. He doesn't say why he was walking through the field. He may have been taking a shortcut from one place to another. Maybe he saw some flowers he wanted to take home for his wife. We don't really know. As he was in the field, he stumbled upon a treasure. Again, Jesus doesn't bog us down with the details. He just tells us that he found the treasure. What he focuses on is the man's reaction. When the man found it, he went away and sold everything he had so that he could buy the treasure.
So, why does Jesus tell this story? He wants us to know that his forgiveness is the most valuable treasure we have. In fact, without this treasure, we live in absolute poverty. No matter what our bank accounts may say, we are dirt poor because of our sins. In fact, we're not just broke, but we've got a huge debt. We've got so much debt that we can't even begin to chip away at it. Anything of value that we may want to bring to pay off our debt is about as valuable as old paint rags. But because he loved us, God erased the debt. God saw us in our state of poverty and sent Jesus to turn our rags to riches. By his death on the cross, Jesus gives us the forgiveness of sins and every other blessing we need. With this story, Jesus wants us to recognize exactly how valuable this treasure is. Just like the man in the field, we value this so much that we experience great joy, give up everything, and hang on to this priceless treasure.
By the grace of God, you have received this treasure through the Word. You've heard it here in church Sunday after Sunday. God brought you into his family in Holy Baptism at a time when most of you couldn’t walk or talk. You've heard the incredible treasures it contains. You know that God loves each and every one of you so much that he sent his Son to die for you so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity apart from him.
We know this treasure is more valuable than anything else. Because of its great value, Jesus encourages us to cherish it above all else and to strive for it and hang on to it with all we have.

2. Why? Why does Jesus care so much that we strive for his treasure and hang on to it? He gives us the answer in two more parables.
The first of these two parables is very similar to the one we just considered. He said:
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
At first glance, it seems that these two parables are practically identical. I mean, they both are about a man who finds something valuable, sells everything he has and buys it. But there is a difference between the two. The difference is how the two men come upon the treasure. The first man simply stumbles upon the treasure in a field, but in this story, the merchant man was looking for fine pearls. This is what he did. He bought and sold valuable pearls to make a living for himself. The man had certainly seen a treasure or two in his day. But this one pearl was so impressive that he gave up all the other pearls in his collection to have this one. Once the merchant man recognized the value of this pearl, he cherished it greatly.
We see this sort of situation play out in real life too. Most people understand that there is a god, and they crave a relationship with him. Unfortunately, this often points people in the wrong direction. Some cling to worldly philosophies or other religions. But some find the valuable pearl that surpasses all others. When people are exposed to the love of God, they realize that this is far better than anything else they had been clinging to before. A person who has had to sift through the supposed pearls of this world certainly cherishes the treasure of God's forgiveness greatly.
Now, many of us may not have had to sift through many other “pearls” before we came to possess this treasure of Christianity. But Jesus wants us to compare our treasure with all the other treasures people chase after. He wants us to know that it's of the utmost importance for us to cherish this treasure.
To show us how important it is for us to cherish the treasure we've received, Jesus told another story. This time the story isn't about treasure; it's about fishing.
Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
He described a huge net going out and scooping up all kinds of fish. But when the fishermen lifted up the net at the end of the day when it was full, their work still wasn't done. They had to keep the good fish and throw the bad fish away.
Jesus doesn't leave us guessing what we're supposed to take from this parable. He says in no uncertain terms that this is what's going to happen on the last day. The people who don't cherish the treasure that they've come into contact with, will have bad things happen to them. This is eternal punishment in hell that he's talking about here. If we don't hang onto this treasure, we could find yourself ourselves among the bad fish facing punishment.
The problem with the bad fish wasn't that they weren't in the net. No, the net of God’s grace scooped them up. The problem was that they were still bad fish, despite the fact that God loved them.
And for bad fish, there was only one place: the fiery furnace. The truth is that there is a day when God will return in judgment and condemn everyone who fails to cherish him and his priceless treasure, and everyone who wonders about the value of God’s treasure would be wise to listen to Jesus words carefully.
But to those who do cherish the prize, there is a wonderful reward. When the time comes that each one of us faces death, we can face it fearlessly, knowing that we will stand blameless before the throne of our God, dressed in the robe of righteousness that Jesus has won for us. Of all the treasures, our treasure is the only one that has eternal value. Retirement funds are subject to market change. Even if things work out well for us, earthly wealth only lasts through this life. All the possessions and treasures we build up in this life are simply left to decay after we’re gone. Jesus want us to compare our prize with all the other treasures people chase after and cherish the one treasure we’ll be enjoying when all the other treasures on earth are gathering dust.
The treasure that we have, contained in the Bible, changes lives. First of all, it lasts forever. This treasure will be just as valuable to us long after we’re gone from this earth as it is now. If we hang on to this treasure, we will be rewarded with eternal life with Jesus. Second, this treasure puts everything we face in this life into perspective. Since we have the confidence of eternal life, we can say with the apostle Paul that any sufferings we face in this life are simply not even worth comparing to the glory that awaits us. I mean, think about the treasures that other people chase after. People who have family troubles often seek solace in alcohol or other temporary pleasures. And when people have been beaten down by the pressures all around them, leaving them down and out, they make themselves feel better by talking bad about other people. But we don’t need to concern ourselves with things like that. Certainly eternal life with God is far better than a few hours of dulled emotions or a few moments of fleeting social glory. So let’s cherish the treasure that we’ve found, because it provides us the sort of comfort that no other treasure can.
After all, you have received the most valuable pearl of all. There are billions of people in the world who are searching for exactly what you've got. That is: peace with God. There is nothing more valuable. Cherish it as such.

3. But Jesus doesn’t want us to stop there. Since we have this treasure that we value and cherish so much, he wants us to share it with as many people as we possibly can.
He explains to his disciples how they should share this treasure by telling them a metaphor. He said, “every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
Now, as we read this metaphor, it’s important to call to mind that these words wrap up a section of seven parables that Jesus told. At the beginning of this set of parables, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Why do you speak in parables?” The answer to that question included a condemnation of the Jewish nation. Jesus wasn’t about to speak to eh Jews plainly because they had already rejected him. They were content with their Torah and the writings of their Jewish Fathers and weren’t really interested in what Jesus had to say. Jesus was teaching new things that Jewish believers refused to understand. Jesus’ point here is that a wise student of the scriptures accepts both the teachings of the Old Testament and the new teachings that Jesus brought.
So, what is Jesus telling us here? I mean, we‘re New Testament Christians, who cherish both the Old and the New testaments. Well, Jesus wants us to learn more and more about the Scriptures. He wants us to learn about the old parts we already know as well as the new parts we don‘t know. He wants us to focus daily on his law and his gospel, but he also wants us to broaden the scope of learning.
But there’s still more here. The owner of the house didn’t use the treasures that he gained only for himself. He brought them out and presented them to his servants and guests. We do the same. As we continue to learn more and more, we don’t let that knowledge just stay in our heads. We take this treasure and share it with others. Because we know that this treasure is so valuable and we know that it is the pearl to be cherished above all else, it comes naturally that we would want to share it. So, keep studying God’s word so that you can be ready, at a moment’s notice, to bring out the gems of God’s Word that you have in your storeroom. Bring out both the ones that you’ve had for your whole lives and the ones that you’ve just discovered this week. It is these things that make up the priceless treasure that we value, cherish and share.
Brothers and Sisters, I don't want you to look back on your confirmation vows like an embarrassed musician looks back on a love song. People who have written great love songs were passionate about the treasure they'd found, for sure. But a lot of times they didn't do all that they needed to do to hang on to that treasure. But you can hang onto your priceless treasure. Be serious about your priceless treasure by valuing it, cherishing it and sharing it. When you do these things, you can understand, appreciate, and experience the joys of this treasure to their fullest.

You Can Be a Leader With Only a Title

2011-05-04T17:36:00.003-05:00

It seems silly to be blogging about the royal wedding at this point. I mean, we got Osama Bin Laden! Well, after being beat up on facebook for suggesting that a soul in hell is not a reason to celebrate, I decided that I don't need to write any more about that. I apologize that this post is coming late. I preached last weekend and that consumed most of my life. It was an awesome experience, but I'm going to stop talking about it before this post becomes incredibly incoherent.

I got home on Friday evening and I heard my sisters skyping. Their conversation was about the royal wedding. I nearly made a snarky comment from the kitchen along the lines of, "Oh, are you two talking about those two people who don't have any actual influence?" But I caught myself. I refrained from that particular snarky comment not because of its snarkiness, but because it's false. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not saying we should all become Anglophiles who are obsessed with the royal family. I don't care at all about the royal family, but I think that there is a lesson to be learned here.

For over two years now, there's been a book sitting on my Amazon Wishlist called You Don't Need a Title to Be a Leader. I've never squeezed the trigger and bought the book because I figured that it'd be a frustrating read that taught me little more than what I could learn from the title. But maybe I should have bought it, simply because it would've forced me to contemplate the content for longer than a few seconds.

In the spring of 2009 there were two events that were significant hits to my ego. Okay, all of 2009 was one big hit to my ego, but these two events especially. The first was COS elections. Now, I had only been a COS member for a few days when the elections came around, but for some reason I was still really hopeful that I'd be elected as an officer. I wasn't. I told myself, "You don't need a title to be a leader."

The other significant event was the mailing of my Camp Phillip application. My plan had been to apply for Junior Staff director. It was the job I'd really wanted since I got onto the summer staff there, and now I had a really good shot of landing it. I found myself on the phone the night before my application was due telling MB, "I realize that I'm more needed as the AC and I have full confidence in MW's ability to do the Junior Staff job. So I'm turning in my application just for AC." Sure, every word I said was true, but I still wonder to this day if the real reason I didn't apply was a fear of failure. But, going into the summer, I silenced my doubts about my choice for the summer by saying, "You don't need a title to be a leader."

Now, how did this all work out for me? Not well. I became envious of MW and started to despise my job. Although I was another year older and theoretically should have been able to have a greater circle of influence, my circle of influence decreased greatly. I became negative, hurt the people around me and had a terrible summer. I probably had more success when it came to COS, but those of you who know me well outside of cyberspace know how that one worked out for me. I didn't have a title and I wasn't a leader.

Now, the royal family might be the best example of leadership despite (meaningful) titles. Everyone knows that they're just figureheads, but people still care about them. They provide leadership in fashion and culture, simply because they conduct themselves with class in the public eye. When one of them gets married, more people watch than when the Packers win the Super Bowl. They're good leaders simply because of the people they are, not because of any intrinsically influential titles.

I think we could profit from being a little bit more like the royal family. No, I'm not going to live with a woman for nine years and then still pretend that it's a big deal when we get married and I'm not about to take up polo. But I would do well to still find ways to influence people, even if the only reason they'd look up to me is because of the person I am. After all, what other reason would you want people to find to look up to you?

Think of some ways that you can positively influence the lives of others, even if you don't have a title that makes you their superior.

Day 2 Walk

2011-04-29T19:32:00.003-05:00

&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/div&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;div&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://www.mapmyrun.com/routes/view/32981146"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Day 2 - 04/29/2011&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br/&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/div&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;div&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://www.mapmyrun.com/routes/?location=Appleton, WI"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Find more Runs in Appleton, WI&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/div&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;div&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Took me 13:54. That's an average speed of 2.85 MPH. Not too bad for a gimp.

A Real Church Problem

2011-04-27T23:19:00.003-05:00

In churches today, there are all sorts of problems that arise. You could say that the vast majority of problems arise from differences of opinion. People's opinions differ as to what worship styles should be used, what sort of art should be used in the service of the church, and what form confirmation should take. All of these are problems that trouble the church. But really, these aren't church problems. They're personal problems. People's opinions may differ concerning these issues, but they shouldn't divide the church. However, in Galatians we see a real church problem. The problem wasn't about trivial things like worship styles or art. In verses eight through ten of chapter five, we see the apostle Paul respond to people's errors concerning justification by faith. A quick look at these verses shows Christians how a pastor should respond to troubling things creeping into his church. As we look at this, we do well to consider how we might emulate the ideal pastoral example.

First of all, the apostle Paul correctly identifies the source of all false doctrines. He says, "that persuasion is not from the one that calls you." The persuasion to disobey the truth does not come from God. To do, believe or preach anything other than biblical doctrine is not a Godly endeavor. Paul wants us to be on guard against such attacks that oppose Christ.

In verse 9, he goes on to use a metaphor that has become common place in Christian circles today. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." The question that this verse raises is whether the yeast refers to a person or a person's teaching. There are biblical examples of this metaphor referring to both (Matthew 16:6,12; 1 Corinthians 5:6,13). The end of this section, where Paul voices his desire that the Judaizers cut themselves off all the way from this church might lead a person to think that this refers to people. "If there are bad people among you, get them out, because they'll corrupt the good people around you" people might think. While there is a time and a place for that sort of thinking (e.g.: 1 Corinthians 5), that is not Paul's immediate focus. The disgusting, terrible yeast that works through the whole batch of dough is not an undesirable person, but false teaching. That is what needs to be removed. So, when you address false doctrine, attack the teaching. After all, isn't that what Paul does throughout his entire letter to the Galatians?! It may get to the point that a person refuses to give up a false teaching. At that point, you must "expel the immoral brother!" Until then, treat him like what he is: a brother.

Verse 10 gives the crux of the section. "I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view." Paul, a pastor in God's church, saw God's work among his people and was completely confident that pure doctrine would win out. This plague of false doctrine that was troubling them was on transient. The Holy Spirit would ultimately confirm these Christians in what they'd been taught by Paul. So it is in Christian churches today. A pastor who has taught the gospel properly, who continually connects his members to the means of grace, need not fret about a doubt or a misspoken word among his congregants. Instead, he can be confident that God's Spirit will be at work among his people, confirming the message that they've been taught. So he doesn't have to go on the offensive searching for the slightest hint of false doctrine in anything that his parishioners stay. No, he can lovingly, calmly, gently correct any error that he may detect and he can count on God's Word to do the rest. It is only in God's Word that anyone can be confident in anything. As pastors, as Christians, let's echo Paul's confidence that the Lord will lead his people to what is right.

So, fellow Christians, don't get yourselves all caught up in irrelevant "problems" in the church. Instead, focus on what is important. But, as you do so, do so calmly, confidently and gently, knowing that God will confirm his message in his people when and where he wills.

He IS Risen

2011-04-27T00:20:00.002-05:00

He is risen indeed, alleluia.

What a terrific greeting. Some people giggle at the way that people automatically respond appropriately, without any prompting. But there's nothing to giggle about there.

Jesus has completed his work for you. He paid for all your sins on Good Friday. And he didn't stop there. He showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is God and the promised Messiah by rising from the dead. All that you need has been done.

But still, we don't say, "He has risen" or "he rose." No, we say, "He is risen." It sounds kinda funny, but it's a very deliberate choice of a tense. This rising was not something that happened once in the past, never to be thought about again except for recalling as an historical fact. Nor is it something that happened in the past. Being risen is Jesus' state of being, both 2,000 years ago and right now. We do not worship or hope in a Savior who is dead. He is risen! We worship a living God and after we are risen, we will live with him forever.

All glory be to the risen and living Lord!

Intros: The First Impression of a Musician

2011-04-17T23:17:00.004-05:00

You ever have those moments when you hear the first note or two of an intro and instantly recognize a song? One that comes to mind is the first hi-hat hit of Back in Black. Another hit of a hi-hat that is immediately recognizable is the start of Boys of Summer. Usually these intros are recognizable because of subtle nuances that may not even be consciously noticeable. These nuances are the smiles of rock music. The first impression. A confident, genuine smile goes a long way. So does a terrific, recognizable intro. When I hear that first muted cymbal crash in Back in Black, I know I have three more beats to prepare to rock like crazy. But sometimes these nuances don't have such a positive effect. When I hear gunter glieben glauchen globen lead into an "Alllright..." instead of a "Give it to me, baby" I'm turned off and can't really enjoy an otherwise good song. It's like the scowl of Richard Nixon that lost the presidency for an otherwise superior candidate.

Today I heard an intro on the radio that left a worse impression on me than any televised presidential debate ever could. It made clear to me why I never much cared for a certain song. It was an otherwise enjoyable intro for a beloved song: Come Together. When the first phrase was over I thought, "Oh man, this is that stupid Aersomith cover." As I reflected more, I realized that it was recognizable because the nuance of the riff was gone (If you listen to the two side by side, the difference is pretty noticeable.) As I kept listening, I realized that every fine point of that song had been taken out. It's just Steven Tyler's five packs a day voice screaming through a song that someone else had already made famous. This is why this cover will always be inferior to the original. I had always disliked the cover, but the intro made it clear why.

Music is just like everything else. You whiten your teeth to have a good smile. You make eye-contact and firmly shake hands to present yourself a certain way to a new acquaintance. You put on a tie so that you don't look like a hoodlum to potential employers. You practice the opening paragraph of a speech so that you can deliver it flawlessly. So, musicians: Do the same thing. If your intro sucks, the rest of your song probably will too. And that doesn't go unnoticed. We all want to smile when we hear an intro, not groan.

Chapel Devotion on Isaiah 53

2011-04-13T08:18:00.005-05:00

Do you remember when the movie The Passion of the Christ initially swept over our nation? It was released Lent, seven years ago. The film was controversial for a number of reasons and earned a Restricted-rating for its graphic, bloody content. I was a sophomore in high-school when it came out. The junior and senior religion classes got to take field trips to see the movie, but, much to my dismay, our school faculty decided that it was inappropriate for my sophomore class to go see.

While people may debate the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this shocking film, I think the fact that people wanted to shelter sixteen year olds from seeing the pierced, crushed and punished Jesus on the ultrascreen reflects something significant about our culture. You see, we're not always comfortable viewing Jesus in this state. We seemingly prefer the picture of Jesus seated on a donkey, riding into Jerusalem in majesty, but picturing him nailed to a tree turns our stomachs and our faces away! It's easier to palate a Savior that's a conquering king than a suffering servant. And we, as Lutherans, certainly don't want the resurrection and the life of Easter Sunday to be lost in the graphic horror of Good Friday.

Of course, we should always keep the resurrection in mind. But that doesn't mean we should just mentally skip over the uncomfortable day of Good Friday. You see, you would have no hope of resurrection or life if it weren't for the sacrificial death of Jesus. He was despised by men so that you can experience the loving esteem of God. He suffered so that you wouldn't have to. He died so that you will live. So when you're confronted by the uncomfortable thought of your God, numbered with the transgressors, beaten within inches of death, hanging on a cross, don't shy away. Instead, face it. Face him. And know this: “That is my savior, carrying the load that I never could, bearing my sins so that I can be forgiven.” It was this awesome act of love that gives you peace and healing with God. So let's take some time now to meditate on all this as we read a lesson from Isaiah, chapter 53.

53 Who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

and the LORD has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.

And who can speak of his descendants?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,

he will see the light of life and be satisfied;

by his knowledge my righteous

servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

Galatians 4:17-20

2011-04-11T10:06:00.002-05:00

One could argue that passion is one of the most powerful forces in the world. It has certainly shaped history. Every war that has ever been fought has been motivated by the passion of either politicians or common people. Some well-focused passion of influential people has driven revolutions. Sincere passion leads two people to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. Yes, passion is a powerful force in this world that shapes the lives of all people, but not all passion is good. Some unfortunately zealous acts have destroyed people's lives. Misguided zeal has led to the deaths of millions of people throughout history. In Galatians 4:17-20, the apostle Paul speaks about zeal. The section starts out with a warning about an ungodly zeal that was affecting the Galatians. Paul follows that up by talking about his Godly passion and concern for his people.

Paul addresses the concept of zeal immediately in this section. The very first word in verse seventeen is “ζηλοῦσιν”. Some people simply translate this as, “they are zealous.” This translation is somewhat inadequate because of the ambiguous nature of the English word zeal. Zeal can communicate an intense, inner passion, but it can also refer to brash outward actions. When Paul uses this word here, he refers to a longing of the heart. When he says “ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς,” he is telling the Galatians that the Judaizers have set their hearts on them.

It is clear that this desire of the Judaizers was not a God pleasing zeal. When Paul described this desire as “οὐ καλῶς”, he showed that the motive behind this desire was impure. Their desire for the Galatians was not to benefit them. Instead, the desire of the Judaizers was to exclude the Galatians. They wanted to separate the Galatians from Paul and his message. Their hope was that, after the Galatians were separated from Paul, the Galatians would end up seeking them. This was a malicious, manipulative desire of the Judaizers. They sought their own good rather than the good of the Galatians. Paul’s words about this desire of the Judaizers served as a strong warning for the Galatians to watch out for the wicked zeal of those who wanted to separate them from their savior.

Paul went on to explain that not all zeal is bad. In fact, he said that it is a good thing to be desired, provided that the motive is good. At the end of verse eighteen, he wanted to make sure that his ethos would remain intact during this appeal. He made it clear that his concern about the Judaizers’ zeal was not motivated by jealousy. Rather than jealousy, his concern was motivated by a deep, fatherly concern. Here the reader sees Paul’s Godly longing for the Galatians to hold on to the message of justification by faith. In fact, his heart was set on them so much that he would continually be in pain until faith in Christ was fully formed within them. This, certainly is an example of Godly zeal.

Godly longing also knows no bounds. Just like the passion of Jesus compelled him to die for the humans that he loved, so Paul’s passion for the Galatians was not a fleeting, transient feeling. He was ready to continue his concern for the Galatians indefinitely. The use of the aorist subjunctive “μορφωθῇ” launches this temporal clause into the indefinite. Paul was prepared to have these pains go on as long as was necessary until his longing had been fulfilled.

Paul’s Godly passion for the Galatians was not aimless. The purpose was clear. Paul wanted the Galatians to change their behavior so that he could change his tone. He cared about them so much that it bothered him greatly to speak like this to the Galatians. However, since his concern was truly for their benefit, he was not able to change his tone until he saw a change in behavior. His passion certainly had a purpose. This purposeful passion carefully guided his actions with the end result in mind that they would be built up and confirmed in their faith in Christ.

In this section of scripture, the reader truly saw opposite kinds of zeal. The first zeal was self-centered and malicious. Paul made it clear that this was not good. He wanted the Galatians to watch out for such zeal. The same application is appropriate for Christians today. When people desire to separate Christians from their savior, the Christian must be on guard and resistant to such an attempt. At the same time, there is such a thing as God-pleasing zeal. The reader saw an example of such zeal in the latter part of this section. The words that Paul wrote in Galatians 4 help the Christian distinguish between the two kinds and react accordingly.

(I hope) The Authoritative Engagement Post

2011-03-23T11:18:00.001-05:00

This is a touchy subject. As I begin to write, I find myself hesitant to write because I know I'll need to tread gently due to the life experiences of my potential audience. I pray that I can walk the line to speak authoritatively, but gently.
My uneasiness has not yet deterred me from this post. I haven't been deterred because I believe that it is an issue that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed because there seems to be a disagreement among people in our circles about what engagement means and what it doesn't mean. Exactly what is engagement? To whom is it a promise? Is breaking an engagement a sin? How do you react when someone gets engaged and you're not so sure about it? All of these are questions that need to be answered. I intend to answer them in this post. I hope that they are sufficiently answered in what follows.

When you become engaged, to whom are you promising? Your fiancee.
I know, I've heard people say, "When you get engaged, you're married in God's eyes." I don't think I've ever heard this from a pastor or a teacher, so I'm not sure where this thought has come from, but it is WRONG! God says that a man will leave his father and mother to become one with his wife. This isn't some bachelor movin' in with his girlfriend. No, it's a young man making his commitment in the eyes of his parents, society and God that he will be united to this woman for the rest of his life. Is this what happens in engagement? His friends may view him as tied down for the rest of his life, but has he voiced this commitment before society and God? No. Society says that in order to be committed for the rest of your life in their eyes, you need to sign on the dotted line along with an authorized representative.

I'ma just come right out and say it: Can you have sex when you're engaged?
I've never been one to shy away from the obvious question. I once made a superior laugh by asking "How far is too far?", even though it was a question that had been hinted at before.
No.
When you've made your promise to another person that you will marry them, you have promised to them that you will commit to them for the rest of your life. You have not publicly pronounced that commitment before God and his people. So, until you make that before God, his people, and his other kingdom (the state), don't do it.

So, if the promise of an engagement is not so binding that you can consummate it, can you break it off at your own will?
Certainly not.
While the commitment you have made is not one that takes place before God and his people, it is a commitment nonetheless. When you say that you will marry someone, you are making a promise. If you promise someone that you'll give them half your cheese curds at lunch and you don't do it, that's a sin. If you promise someone that you'll marry them and you don't, that's a sin too. I'm going to go on the record and say that there can be cases of casuistry and that what I said is not necessarily absolute, but I don't intend to go into those here. This is getting long enough as it is.

You just heard the news from a friend, "I'm engaged!" You're not really sure how you feel about these people getting engaged at this time. So, how do you react?
Given that we've established that breaking an engagement is not the right thing to do, once a couple is engaged, Shut your mouth. Voice your doubts when a couple is dating. If you voice your doubts when a couple is already engaged, you are encouraging them to sin. Don't be that guy. If you think it's too soon, shut up. If you're not sure if they're really compatible, shut up. If you find that person's fiance(e) annoying, shut the heck up. Instead, encourage the couple to figure out how they can love one another more perfectly and fulfill the roles that God has given them in marriage.

It's a loaded topic with a lot of questions. I think that I've covered the most frequently asked Q's, but I certainly have not exhausted the topic. If anyone wishes to discuss it further, I would be happy to. I'm certainly open to this entire post being challenged. I'm not really sure how it'll go over, because it's something that most people have stayed silent about.
If anyone thinks I'm writing at them, I'm not. I started this post shortly before I became engaged. I simply wanted to time to pass so that I could possess some ethos and not be accused of a conflict of interests.

Adverbial Similes

2011-02-14T21:40:00.002-06:00

Now, when I reference "adverbial similes", some of you might be as confused as a person contemplating the trinity. Fortunately, I think that by the end of this post, or maybe even paragraph, you will understand this like that ideal match understands you.

You see, adverbial similes have infiltrated facebook and writing in general like locust in Egypt. It became as irritating to me as the dripping of Chinese water torture. People would seem to think that these mediocre writers were as funny as Michael Scott. I'd cringe like a student listening to nails being drug across a chalk board. But, until recently, I thought that this fad was emerging like Beanie Babies in the late '90s. However, I had an epiphany the other night that hit me like a ton of bricks. I was just listening to a cd like a dude driving down the road. Then I heard it like cock crying out in the morning:
"The piano, it sounds like a carnival and the microphone smells like a beer."
Recently, I've been analyzing the lyrics of Piano Man like Jerome over-allegorizing the Good Samaritan. Somehow, this one passed by me like Allen Iverson crossing over Shaq.

Adverbial similes aren't new at all! Billy Joel used them in 1973. You may even find one or two in the Bible. They're just overused now. They can be effective, really effective. But they can be really ineffective. I bet that most readers were probably really irritated reading through those first couple paragraphs. That's often how people appear to me. So, don't be that guy.

Use your adverbial similes sparingly, just like fats and sweets.

You've Been Out Riding Fences for So Long

2011-02-14T11:27:00.003-06:00

Ever since I started working with a dude nicknamed "Hilbilly" about three months ago, I've listened to more country radio than I did in the previous nearly twenty-three years. I don't really like country music, but I can't help but relate to the culture connected to it. The people who write, perform and listen to country music tend to love their God, their family and their beer. While I'm not an all-out redneck, I can certainly appreciate parts of the culture. So, working with Hilbilly hasn't irritated me as much as it might have a few years ago.

However, there's something that I hear on country radio just about every single day that drives me up the wall:
Country Eagles Covers
What a terrible idea. Here's why:
The Eagles were only successful because they rode the fences of genre for years. But they did it well. Try to categorize the Eagles hits. Hardly any of them are overtly anything. Their most overtly rock hit is probably Life in the Fast Lane. Their most overtly country song is probably Seven Bridges Road. Everything else is almost entirely neutral.

So, why does this matter? The Eagles are so neutral that nearly everyone can appreciate some of their music. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't like Take It Easy. Even though Hotel California is ubiquitous, it's an awesome song. People love these songs because they're rocking enough for the rockers, chill enough for the hippies and twangy enough for the hicks.

Now, while this characteristic is what made the Eagles good, I'll fully admit that this is what prevented them from being great, or even really good. Absolutely, I wish that the guitar solo section at the end of Hotel California were faster and that the triplet beat were a lot heavier than it is. I wish that Desperado sounded a little bit more like Firehouse and a little bit less like Barry Manilow. But that's not how the songs are.

Then again, I struggle with my thesis statement because of the general view I have of art. Once it's released, it belongs to the people. The people determine whether art is adequate or obsolete and meaningful or irrelevant. I have just as much right to comment on Albus Dumbledore's sexual orientation as J.K. Rowling does. If it's not clear in the text, it's open for interpretation and speculation. If Sheryl Crow decides that Axl Rose's voice doesn't bring out the sensitive nature of Sweet child of Mine as well as it should have, she can do it for herself. Heck, if the Ataris decide that Don Henley should have made Boys of Summer a lot more fun, then they can do it!

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Did Madonna have the right to take American Pie and make it suck? For sure, but she shouldn't have. Do country musicians have the right to take Take It Easy and remove every bit of its beautiful subtlety from it? Yes, but please...don't. Don't be the one who turns the Eagles into Rascal Flatts.

Arriving as a Language Scholar

2011-02-08T00:26:00.003-06:00

I drove home after school today for a doctor's appointment. On my ride back, I switched the radio band to "FM2" which has five Appleton presets and one for Madison. The station for Madison is 101.5. Ironically, instead of being a terrific classic rock station in Appleton, it's a religious station. Well, I accidentally pressed this button (to be fair, I wasn't aware it was even a station in Appleton), and I got sucked in.

It was a sermon by Chuck Swindoll, and I was actually sucked in by his murdering of the syntax of a Greek conditional. As he went on, he talked about Greek more than any homelitician ever should, but I had an epiphany of sorts. As soon as he would make any claim about a nuance of a word or construction, I felt confident analyzing the merits of his argument, or lack thereof.

Am I saying that you'll soon be placing a "Shinnick" on your shelf next to your "Smyth"? Of course not. But, I feel like I'm arriving as a language scholar. I can use the languages to understand things better for myself and to see through facile arguments from others.

So, what's the point? I mean, I have a degree in biblical languages. I better be able to do that, right? This is the fifth year in which I'm studying Greek in depth, I'd be a failure if I couldn't. The point is:

I'm arriving.

I recently posted explaining why I initially wanted to be a pastor. While that post probably properly identified the first time I thought of it, the underlying principle was largely skepticism. I don't like when people try to sell me something that they know more about than I do. I don't like to agree to something if I don't know all the conditions. This applies to such small things as cleaning spray and a free online account. How much more would it not apply to the Word of God? It is the most important thing any of us will ever handle, how could I possibly trust anyone but myself with that? I know, you can read the Bible without being a pastor, but that wasn't good enough for me. I was afraid that the translators of the NIV were trying to trick me. They weren't, but that doesn't mean that Chuck Swindoll isn't trying to swindle me. And I know when he is. That's what I was going for, and I'm arriving at a point where I've accomplished that goal. Granted, my growth in the knowledge of the Word of God will not cease until I do, but this is a significant landmark.

(This isn't really coherent with the rest of the post, but it's on my mind.)
When I changed the name of my blog to "semper parans" (Always preparing), it was a whiny move. I was sick about getting ready to go to college, to get ready to go to seminary, to get ready to be a pastor. I was 9 years away from leaving a classroom, and I didn't like that idea. Now, I kind of embrace this idea of constant preparation. I'll never stop learning, and I'll never be completely ready, but may God, in his grace, continue to incite in me the desire to grow in the knowledge of his Word. I pray that he does. That's an idea that I can get used to.

The Unattainable Middle Road part deux

2011-02-03T22:58:00.000-06:00

I used to get in arguments all the time. I remember my senior year in high-school when I was told that my band had to change our plans for frolic, I chose to dispute it right there in front of the twenty or so people that were there. But that didn't exactly convince the necessary people. So, after a year in college and more failures to win people over to my way of thinking, I decided to try to figure this out. I read How to Win Friends and Influence People and it was terrific. People were much more receptive to my ideas. However, it wasn't long at all before some people started criticizing me for my lack of a back bone.

I stood before the MLC Student Senate, many of whom disagreed with my ideas and my platform. When they would attack my viewpoints, I'd say, "Yeah, that may be true." After the meeting, when the tie was loosened, the criticisms came. "I can't believe you didn't stand up for what we wrote." It wasn't my intent to bend over for the group of student senators with archaic views and misogynistic tendencies, but I did. Had it not been for my more assertive friend, our cause might have been lost.

I recognized my fault and attempted to fix it. I tried to be more sensitive in my approach, but still firm and assertive in my convictions. But it's still something I struggle with today.

Recently I got some text messages that irked me to no end. I responded to them thoughtfully. I even complained to some friends, which probably wasn't the right thing to do, but it did help me think through the situation. When the time came to talk the issue out, instead of standing my ground and stating my case, I did the opposite. Sure, I listened well. I preserved the relationship, but any desire I had to change this person's viewpoint was lost.

I find myself more and more coming to the conclusion that an argument isn't worth it. You can't win an argument, Carnegie says. Four years ago, my flaw was that I lost a lot of arguments, because all arguments are a loss. Perhaps now my flaw is that I lose a lot of conversations because I'm unwilling to push anyone out of their comfort zone. I don't know. I wish this middle road were easier to find.

(I hope) the Definitive Repentance Post

2011-01-26T17:27:00.000-06:00

"Make sure you repent at least once every day."
"If you don't repent, you won't be saved."
"Make sure you make a general confession to God, so that he'll forgive all the sins you aren't aware of."
"If you're impenitent, you won't be forgiven."

Why do people seem to always speak of repentance in terms of the law? I think it comes from a misunderstanding of repentance. So often people will say "If you don't repent of your sins, you won't be saved." In past blog posts, I've declared that repentance is something that you do because you are saved. Both of these statements reflect a weakness in understanding. God willing, by the end of this post, I will have stated this issue more clearly.

What exactly is repentance? People will say that repentance is feeling sorry for your sins. They'll say that it's turning away from your sins. It's not. Sure, those things may be parts or fruits of repentance, but to use those definitions is confusing. Was Judas repentant? He certainly felt sorry for his sins. He even confessed his guilt when he returned the money. But scripture makes it clear that Judas is in hell. Are we to say that there are repentant sinners in hell? No, Acts 2:38 says that those who repent and are baptized will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, Judas was not repentant. There are no repentant sinners in hell.

So what is repentance? The Lutheran Confessions say that repentance consists essentially of contrition and faith. Here is where the crux of the issue is: Repentance is not something that we do on our own. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit, but so does contrition. Contrition is the condition created in the human heart when God's law has worked on it. So, repentance is....
The working of the law and the gospel.
God's law works contrition in our hearts and causes the sinful person to realize his need for a savior. The gospel message works the faith in our hearts to believe that God has provided that Savior.

So, is repentance necessary for salvation? Absolutely. Repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit that brings the merits of Christ to the individual. But that's just it...it isn't something that we do. If "repent" is ever spoken to a person in the imperative, that's an example of what theologians call "the gospel imperative". The command is accompanied by the power to do so. When Jesus says repent, the Spirit is at work making it happen in the heart of the elect.

So, please, don't speak of repentance in terms of only the law. It can burden consciences, and can seriously confuse people concerning the doctrine of justification. Speak of it as if it is God at work in our hearts. Because it is.

Isaiah devotion

2011-01-17T12:20:00.001-06:00

Have you ever sat through a conversation that made you really uncomfortable? I'm not talking about a conversation in which the person you're talking to is a little bit awkward. No, I'm thinking more of a conversation in which the subject matter made you really uncomfortable. This person that you were talking to was telling you about all your faults. Most of you can probably think of at least a couple of conversations that you've had like this, where you just get all your faults told to you in a difficult way. It's not exactly fun.

Now, imagine what you would feel like if this conversation went on for nearly three hours. And, instead of a two-sided conversation where you might have the opportunity to defend yourself, this diatribe was written out on a scroll and you were just sitting there, listening to it being read. At the end of these three hours, you'd probably just be hoping and praying that someone would come along and spare you from this humiliating situation.

This is roughly where the people of Judah found themselves after the first forty chapters of the book of Isaiah. Isaiah had a message to deliver to them: God is angry with you because of your sins. Your sins separate you from him, and because you're so sinful, bad things are going to happen to you. You will be carried off into exile.

After hearing this message for so long, you'd have to think that these people would be desperate to hear about someone to save them from this situation. At that point, Isaiah also thought that they were ready to hear about a Savior, because that is his message in our lesson for today. But, he doesn't describe this in vague terms. He gives a detailed description of what they can expect.

He explains that this Savior will be compassionate. No matter how fragile Judah might appear to be, God tells his people that this Savior will take care of them.

God said that he will put his Spirit on this servant, and that the servant will bring justice to all the nations of the earth. This servant will make the blind see and free the captives from prison. He will be a new covenant, a light for the Gentiles. This servant is for us! All of these great things will serve not only Judah, but you and me.

For us, in the New Testament age, we realize that these prophecies refer to Jesus. In the gospel lesson for today, we will see this prophecy fulfilled. We'll see God's spirit coming upon Jesus. And we know that Jesus brought righteousness to the nations, to us, by his death upon the cross.

So, when your conscience bothers you and reminds you of all your sins, when you feel like there is no hope for you because of the wretched person that you are, know that the servant of the LORD is compassionate. Even though you deserve nothing from him, he is faithful. He sets you free from the grasp that your sinful nature tries to maintain upon you, and he will take you to live with him forever.

42 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold,

my chosen one in whom I delight;

I will put my Spirit on him

and he will bring justice to the nations.

² He will not shout or cry out,

or raise his voice in the streets.

³ A bruised reed he will not break,

and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.

In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;

⁴ he will not falter or be discouraged

till he establishes justice on earth.

In his law the islands will put their hope.”

⁵ This is what God the Lord says—

he who created the heavens and stretched them out,

who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it,

who gives breath to its people,

and life to those who walk on it:

⁶ “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;

I will take hold of your hand.

I will keep you and will make you

to be a covenant for the people

and a light for the Gentiles,

⁷ to open eyes that are blind,

to free captives from prison

and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. ¹

1 The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996 (electronic ed.) (Is 42:1–7). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Rose Bowl, baby!

2011-01-10T21:52:00.004-06:00

I went to the Rose Bowl! I was asked to blog about it nine days ago, but I have failed to do so until now. What a terrible blogger, I am. However, nine days has given me time to gather my thoughts, so hopefully it will be worth the wait.

First of all, what an amazing experience! I know, we lost the game, but everything from the Badgers fans to the airport to the discussion all the way back to Wisconsin was surreal. The night before the game, I commented to my dad, "The Badgers better win tomorrow so I can retire my Ron Dayne jersey." He responded, "Well, either way...it'll be a good time." I'm glad he made that comment because it prepared me for the disappointment and put it all into perspective.

The game itself:
As a fan of a team, it's frustrating to watch your team lose a close game when you can point to any number of things that would've changed it for you. Here's a short list:

The Phillip Welch fluke -- What the heck. A terrific kicker misses a chip shot. What are the odds? You got away with one, TCU. Be thankful.
Paul Chryst -- No matter what another person in my party of three may have said, Paul Chryst coached a terrific season. I have been on the "fire Paul Chryst" bandwagon since long before anyone knew his name. However, I jumped off of it this year. He had a chronic habit of outsmarting himself. We've always had an unstoppable running game. I'd go out on a limb and say that our running game this year wasn't that much better than it has been in the past (granted, we haven't had a 3 headed monster, but we did have the Clay/Ball combo last year already, along with the same core of linemen.) Anyway, the reason that it looked so much better was because we stuck to the run game this year more so than in the past. In the Michigan game, we ran the ball like 32 times in a row. that would have been unheard of in years past, but this year, Chryst had the discipline to stick to our strengths and do things like that. I don't know if it was the pressure or what, but for some reason, the ghost of Paul Chryst past came to haunt us on New Years Day. Had the Paul Chryst that was our offensive coordinator during the regular season showed up in Pasadena, we would have won the game.
John Clay, or the lack thereof -- John Clay is a terrific running back. He was in the Heisman trophy talks until he got hurt. He was our starter....for a reason. He got hurt and worked his way out of the lineup, but even though he was back at 100% for the Rose Bowl game, he still sat on the bench for the first three quarters! Our running game was frustrating, as the quick TCU defense got to our backs before they were hitting the hole. John Clay hits the hole quicker than Montee Ball and James White do. He should've been our primary back for the whole game. Once he finally got in there, he ran for (ca.) 65 yards in five carries and set up the (potentially) game tying touchdown. If only we'd had that all game. If only,...
The shotgun -- All throughout the game, nearly every play that we ran from the shotgun sucked. It was just no good. So, when the game is on the line, we need two yards, and John Clay just ran down the field without a problem, what do we do? We line up in the shotgun! Come on.
Uncharacteristic penalties

Anyway, we saw two terrific teams go at it and have the game come down to the last minute. It was well worth the trip out there and I would gladly do it again the next time we make it (next year?!).

My Rose Bowl experience also provoked a lot of thoughts about the college football post season in general. In my mind, being at the Rose Bowl strengthens the case for both the BCS and a playoff.

The Grand-daddy of them all. I would not want to do anything that would cheapen the experience of the Rose bowl. Even though I didn't see the traditional matchup of the Big Ten vs. the Pac 10, the tradition was palpable. In the two hours before the game, they counted down the top 20 Rose Bowl games on the jumbotron. It gave me shivers, and I do think I saw a terrific example of what the Rose Bowl is supposed to be: Two top tier teams duking it out for the pride of their respective conferences.
Now, I've long heard this objection and simply responded by saying, "Well, you can have the four BCS bowls (minus this "National Championship") and simply have the winners play each other." However, this may well cheapen the experience of fans. It was amazing to see Los Angeles become West Wisconsin, as 60,000+ fans came out there for the game. And what if we were asked to turn around and do it for two more weeks after that? Would you go all out and buy tickets for the Rose Bowl, or would you take your 1 in 4 chances and wait for the national championship? I'm not totally sold on this argument, but it's something to consider.

"That bogus 'National Championship' is on tonight. I hate Rece Davis.'" Being in Fort Worth, Texas right now, you might not be surprised to find out that I heard these exact words on the radio tonight. But, I can't disagree with the sentiment. TCU came out and won every single game they played, including a regular season game against the (then) #5 ranked team in the country. Then, they came to the grand-daddy of them all and won. They did everything in their power and deserve to be playing for it along with Oregon and Auburn. Watching the game tonight, I'm not sold that either of these teams is a bit better than TCU. I can't argue with the Auburn/Oregon matchup, given the current setup, but it is bogus.

Who Are You?

2011-01-07T21:28:00.002-06:00

Yesterday I arrived at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport to begin an eleven day Leadership Enhancement Experience. It started quickly. After a quick stop at Subway (the subs weren't bigger, but the sauce choices did include hot sauce and jalapeno ranch), we were asked to review demographic information about the area and to tweak ethnographic intervi ews appropriately. After dinner, we went out into the neighborhood and knocked on doors, asking people the questions that we had come up with.
This morning, we did an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 9:19-27 in preparation for Bible class on Sunday morning. In the afternoon, we went out into the community and sought appointments with different leaders to seek their input as to how the church can more effectively serve the needs of the community. We pray that providing some of these needs will provide us with opportunities to meet the greatest need of these people -- their need for a Savior.

The theme that our group of five is carrying throughout our Bible studies while we're here is Who Are You? Very often people focus on things that our church isn't. We're not ecumenical. We're not Church Growth. We're not the ELCA. Unfortunately, the conversation often doesn't focus enough on who we are. We are redeemed children of God. We are evangelical. We are faithful. These are all important things, and if we truly are these things, we provide something extremely valuable for all the people we come into contact with.

I find this to be an extremely appropriate focus for us to have during this time for us to think about leadership. In the book Freakonomics, there's a somewhat controversial chapter about parenting. The crux of the chapter is that he gives a one page list of things about parents that don't make a difference in their kids' lives. This is followed by a page long list of parental techniques that do make a difference. He follows it up with a powerful statement:
The first list is made up of things that parents do. The second list is made up of things that parents are.
For some reason I had never made the connection between that chapter and the leadership of a church. But now it seems obvious. You can give away cars. You can have an awesome band. You can have all the small groups you want to. None of this will make a difference if what we are isn't what it needs to be.

We are Christians.

As Christians, we have the message of Christ. The only message that can save people. It is a powerful message. So powerful that it does all the work for us. We've just been asked to get it out there. What an awesome privilege.

So, let's be faithful. This is the leadership that our families, schools, congregations and communities need. God takes care of the rest. All praise be to him.

A genuine New Years Resolution

2011-01-04T01:30:00.005-06:00

I've heard several people say that New Year's Resolutions never work because they're not genuine. If they were genuine, they say, they wouldn't start on January first. They'd start before that. They'd start as soon as the person recognized the problem. However, with this new years resolution, I recognized the problem quite a while ago. But, it is genuine nonetheless.

I resolve that I will not buy "soda", unless it is a special occasion. (soda is defined here as a carbonated beverage with calories in it. This definition does not include diet soda, since it has no calories. Quotes will designate that this definition is intended). The top two reasons for this are as follows: 1. Health, 2. Finance. First of all, it's not healthy to drink that much soda. Secondly, it cost money. A free drink here and there won't detract that much from my overall health, and I do enjoy a good "soda" here and there. A special occasion is strictly defined. If a close friend turns 21 and I want to buy a drink for him/her and myself, that's okay. If I go home for a weekend, that's not a special occasion. A special occasion is something that would happen and be special with or without my presence.

This past year, my friend and I had an agreement to track how many "sodas" we drank throughout the year. I ended up edging him out by 27. Terrific, but that doesn't leave me without concern.

I gained four pounds from the beginning of 2010 to the end of it. Using the average caloric value of a soda at 140 calories, the amount that I drank would account for 74 pounds of weight gain. So, if I would simply cut out all "soda", I would lose about 70 pounds without changing my eating patterns. My goal is to lose one pound every week, so that I'll be approximately fifty pounds lighter by my wedding. That will still put me at a higher weight than I'd like, but I want to set an attainable goal, so that I have something to shoot for that I can realistically get. Perhaps I'll use this blog to update my progress throughout the year.

I want you all to hold me to this goal. If you see me buying a "soda" and it's not a special occasion, stop me.

Anyways, this past year had a lot more to it than soda. Exciting things happened:

I got engaged
I traveled to six states (Wisconsin,Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, California)
I graduated from college.
I read 7 books as part of extracurricular pursuits: Caring by Nel Noddings; Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs, Fargo: Rock city, and Killing Yourself to Live by Chuck Klosterman; The Search for God and Guiness by Stephen Mansfield; Dateable: Are You? Are they? by Justin Lookadoo and Hayley Morgan; Technical Virgin: How Far is too Far? by Hayley Dimarco; along with portions of many other books (I tend to start many books, but not finish them unless I think they're worthwhile). Feel free to ask me to review any of these books as to whether or not you should read them.
I started seminary.
I finished reading the Bible from cover-to-cover.

While that was an amazing year, I know that so much more is awaiting me. (God willing...):

I will travel to Texas, a state I've never been to.
I will travel to Israel.
I will get married!
It will be a better year than 2010!

On New Year's Eve, December 31st, 2009, my friends and I constantly toasted, "to a better year than last!" 2010 was certainly better than 2009, but I'm determined to make 2011 even better than 2010. I hope you all join me in making this year an ever better year than this past one.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

2010-12-23T00:32:00.000-06:00

Check out my new guitar!

Church Growth from the Viewpoint of a Pagan

2010-12-11T22:17:00.004-06:00

They say that you can tell the difference between a preacher that reads and one that doesn't. Reading allows you to look at the world through the eyes of another person. You can understand things in ways that weren't obvious before.

Tonight was an example of a time that I saw something from a perspective that I hadn't considered before. I've understood that we don't measure the success of our ministry by the numbers. But, I guess I've always thought that most unbelievers would think of this as foolishness. But, as I was reading Chuck Klosterman, who professes himself to be an nonpracticing Catholic, he went on a rant about churches and pastors that are concerned about growth above all else. While his understanding of Christian doctrine is minimal, I thought that his words were interesting. He was discussing how he was hearing about a controversy concerning a gay bishop in the Episcopal church. He doesn't seem to have much of an opinion about the doctrinal practice, but evaluates the motivation. He said:

"All this business about the gay New Hampshire clergyman makes the Episcopalians sound like marketing representatives; their fear is that electing a homosexual bishop will stop people from going to church. Nothing depresses me more than hearing an organized religion worry about membership. Do they think Jesus is somehow impressed by voter turnout? Do they think God gives preference to religions that appear especially popular? It's not like God only allocates federal funding to religious organizations that meet a quota." (p.104 Killing Yourself to Live)

While a bible believing Christian would realize that a faithful church must follow God's Word concerning human sexuality, Klosterman accurately identifies a common malady today among Christians. God doesn't ask us to be the most popular people out there. He doesn't promise to reward us based on how many butts are in the pews each week.

However, where Klosterman falls short is in identifying the cure for this despicable behavior. He knows that pandering practice to popular demand isn't the way to go about it, but he doesn't provide a positive alternative. What God does ask of his servants if faithfulness. The apostle Paul says in 1 corinthians 4:
"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me."
Without passages like this, how could a servant of Christ sleep at night? But from this, we know that God isn't looking for us to be popular. What he asks of us is faithfulness. As long as we are faithful, we can stand before God with clear consciences. Even the pagans recognize that Christianity isn't about popularity. So, don't be concerned about popularity. The apostle Paul didn't; God doesn't; neither should you. Instead, just faithfully proclaim his message. This is what God asks of his servants, whether you do that publicly or privately.

You've been entrusted with the secret things of God. Prove faithful.

What Made You Want to be a Pastor?

2010-11-29T18:09:00.002-06:00

I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard that question over the past five years. Up until recently, I never quite knew how to answer. I'd just say, "It's just always what I've wanted to do for as long as I can remember." But, I may have now come to a more satisfactory answer.

I remember One day, when I was about six or seven, coming home from Sunday school after hearing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I was told that they had committed "a terrible sin", so God destroyed the cities. Now, my brother was a few years older and got the un-euphemized version of the story. When he told me what the story was really about, I got really upset. My teacher had lied to me. As my dad tried to calm me down, telling me that my teacher didn't lie to me and that (s)he just chose to emphasize the lessons to be learned from the story and not all the details, I remember thinking, "I can't trust anyone to tell me the truth about God's Word. I've got to learn it all for myself. I should probably become a pastor."

So, that's why. I think that that youthful desire to empirically know the truths that God has for us has brought me thus far. I pray that God continues to work in me a desire to know his Word better each day than I did the last.

Quia vs. Quatenus

2010-11-13T22:36:00.000-06:00

Latin in the title...I hope that didn't immediately lose all my readers. I have a minor in Latin and even I sometimes struggle to understand what people mean when they isolate words, pull them out of phrases and still expect you to know what in the world they're talking about. So, I figured that it's probably appropriate for me to take some time to explain what is meant when you hear Lutherans use the words "quia" and "quatenus". Of course, that's not all this post will be. How boring would it be to just read me translating words? It'll also be reflective. I hope that some people read it and benefit from it. If not, it'll still have been beneficial for me to have dealt with it thoroughly enough to write about it.

The words "quia" and "quatenus" describe the way that people subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions. The conservative Lutheran churches in America have a "quia subscription", whereas others only maintain a "quatenus subscription". I pray that I can explain it better than it was explained to me the first time around. I won't name the person who first explained the distinction to me, but I'll just say that he's famous for distinguishing between two other things also, and he's dead (Henceforth referred to as, "Mr. Distinction).

"Quatenus" is often translated as "insofar as". A lot of Lutherans say that they subscribe to the Lutheran confessions insofar as (quatenus) they are accurate expositions of scripture. If my readers are anything like me, they're probably thinking, "Great! While the Lutheran Confessions are terrific expositions of scripture, it's a good thing that people will only agree with them insofar as they agree with scripture." When I thought this, approximately two or so years ago, I didn't think that the Lutheran confessions were contrary to scripture. I just thought that this sounded good, because how could we agree with any human document beyond insofar as it agrees with scripture? This sounded like a really good description of how Christians should make subscriptions. I wrestled with the thought as to whether or not the WELS would require more than this quatenus subscription, and if they did, whether or not it was really the right place for me. There I sat for about two years. I was more concerned with making sure that the Lutheran Confessions really are faithful expositions of scripture than with how we describe our subscription to them. Now that I am convinced that the Lutheran Confessions are faithful expositions of scripture, I'm glad that God provided me with the opportunity to ponder anew the manner in which I will (God willing) subscribe to these confessions in three and a half short years.

"Quia" is often translated as "because". When people maintain a "quia subscription" to the Lutheran Confessions, it means that they confess the Book of Concord because it is a faithful exposition to scripture. In three and a half years, God willing, I will subscribe to the Lutheran confessions because (quia) I am convinced that they are faithful to the scriptures. Clearly, this is an acceptable form of subscription. However, Mr. Distinction did not do a good job explaining that this sort of a subscription can only be made after all of the confessions have been thoroughly studied in light of the scriptures. It is the duty of every called worker to have completed this thorough study before making such a confession.

Now, I've demonstrated that "quia" is an acceptable form of subscription, but I've also realized that this is the only acceptable subscription. The reason that "quia" is the only acceptable form of subscription is that a "quatenus" subscription is meaningless. A quatenus subscription could be made about literally anything. A Christian could say that he subscribes to the Quran insofar as (quatenus) it is in line with scripture. Why? Because wherever the Quran departs from scripture, so does the confession. So, it doesn't mean anything to say that you subscribe to anything insofar as it agrees with scripture.

Therefore, when Lutheran church bodies make a quatenus subscription to the confessions, it is meaningless. So, I will not make a quatenus subscription to anything, ever. People should also not accept a quatenus subscription from others. If someone tries to call themselves Lutheran, but will only subscribe to the confessions insofar as they are faithful to the scriptures, it means that they're not really Lutheran! There's no Christian that won't agree to parts of the confessions. Even the Catholics found themselves in wholehearted agreement with Article I of the Augsburg Confession. The Catholics could make a quatenus subscription to the confessions, even though significant portions of the confessions exist to explain the ways that the Catholic church had gone wrong.

Long story short: Quia. It's the only confession there is. Don't settle for anything less.

If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically

2010-11-11T11:08:00.003-06:00

This was actually a facebook note that I wrote over two years ago, but I figured that I'd keep going with my How to Win Friends and Influence People series (ok, it's not much of a series. I've written two posts over the last year, but let's go for a revival here...) This topic was on my mind because of another blog post that I read this morning. So, here it is, from September 3rd, 2008:

In my IPC class we went over some techniques in handling people from Dale Carnegie. One such technique is that if you are wrong, you should admit it quickly and emphatically. Some people in my group questioned the "emphatically" part of it. So, I reviewed what my good friend Dale had to say on the subject. While I quickly and emphatically admit that I am by no means an expert in the area of admitting my faults (and I think most of the readers will be able to agree with that), I'll try to relay to you the insight that Dale Carnegie shared in his book.

One of the first concepts that he lays out in his book is that people are always looking to feel important. This concept makes sense to me, so for the purpose of this note I'll take it as accepted. If anyone doesn't accept it and wants to discuss it, the comment space would be an excellent place to do so.

Now, when you disagree with someone and it becomes evident that you are wrong and the other person is right, the way that they achieve this feeling of importance is by criticizing you and demonstrating just how right they were and how wrong you were. It makes them feel like the top dog. So, let's take that away from them. If you admit quickly and emphatically that you are wrong and they are right, they'll have to find their feeling of importance from something else.

Now, let's take the "emphatically" out of there. Let's say that you admit your error quickly by saying something like, "Yeah, I was wrong" and then attempt to justify yourself by saying something like, "but it was an understandable error." They're still going to try to criticize you and make you feel dumb for ever making the error in the first place. However, if you emphatically voice all of the criticism that he or she is thinking, they will find no feeling of importance by reiterating the same thoughts that you have just voiced. That leaves them with only one bit of leverage to make themselves feel superior. That is, to show you mercy. If you condemn yourself by emphatically admitting your faults when they're apparent, their response will very likely be to take these faults as isolated incidents, and then to consider whatever else you have to say to have greater validity.

I hope this provides a little bit of elaboration upon a concept that seems so foreign to our stubborn, human minds.

Now, I'll leave you with a couple quotes from the man himself:

"we know we are going to be rebuked anyhow, isn't it far better to beat the other person to it and do it ourselves? Isn't if much easier to listen to self-criticism than to bear condemnation from alien lips?"

"Any fool can try to defend his or her mistakes--and most fools do--but it raises one above the herd and gives one a feeling of nobility and exultation to admit one's mistakes."

The Unattainable Middle Road

2010-11-07T18:17:00.001-06:00

(This is a post I started at the end of April that I never finished. The thought crossed my mind again when I heard someone talk about, "The Lutheran middle road". It often refers to how Catholics often emphasize the altar at the expense of the pulpit, and the reformed emphasize the pulpit at the expense of the altar, whereas Lutherans attempt to give both Word and Sacrament their proper place. There are more examples of it and if someone would like me to explore this thought more thoroughly, I'd be happy to, but for now, I'd like to finish my original post.)

4/29/2010
The title of this post is taken from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which is the only secular piece of writing about ethics that has ever really intrigued me. I'd recommend for anyone who's been confused as to the basis of ethics without God. While you won't find much in the Nicomachean Ethics that people still hold to today, it's a foundation from which you can see the evolution of ethical thought over the past couple millennia.

Anyways, one concept he presents in this book is "the doctrine of the mean." Basically, the thought is that people are most often deficient or excessive. However, the ethical person takes the middle road between the two extremes.

When I read through this, I got excited because this was a concept that I've been encouraging people to follow for quite some time, even though I had never read Aristotle. Some modern day applications:
In our churches, people are very often polarized by styles of worship. So often people will only accept traditional styles and shun anything contemporary. On the excessive side of the mean, you have the "contemporary or die" crowd. For years I've been encouraging people to appreciate both sides for their value. Sure, you can have your own preference, but don't criticize what works well for others if there's nothing wrong with it.
In college you'll likely meet some deficient folks who spend all their time doing homework and neglect the opportunity to build meaningful relationships. But most likely you'll meet many more of the excessive type who (over)indulge on leisure activities and neglect their homework. Over the past four years, I've attempted to follow down the middle road, doing enough homework to learn the necessary material well, but to still make time to build and nurture relationships.

Immediately I realized that there are times when I struggle to attain this middle road, but for the most part I thought that I do a good job of following this doctrine. However, tonight I realized how often I'm pulled to one of these polarizing ways that are far from the mean. A lot of times I recognize that someone is either deficient or excessive, and I'll try to provide a counter to that. Some recent examples:
Last week someone in the cafeteria was harshly criticizing specific pastor track students for studying Hebrew during another class. (S)he, in my opinion, went way overboard. (It's definitely a struggle for me to maintain gender neutrality throughout this paragraph) (S)he said that this was disrespectful to not only their professor, but also to a guest attending their class that day as well as every one of their classmates. (S)he went so far as to say that (s)he hoped that these guys would not get a call to his/her church. While I could commiserate with her general sentiment that those guys shouldn't really have been studying Hebrew during another class, this extreme view rubbed me the wrong way and I felt like it was my responsibility to advocate the other extreme. So, I started making the case that what they were doing wasn't disrespectful, and that it was really understandable and a somewhat reasonable thing to do. Now, (s)he didn't become convinced of anything, but just got upset. Had I advocated the middle road, perhaps it would've been different.

11/7/2010
Over half a year later, I can't remember the specific recent examples that I had in mind then. However, that's alright, because I think that the conflict I mentioned is extremely typical of a way that I often depart from the doctrine of the mean. Argument is my vice. And, yes, this is an appropriate application of the doctrine of the mean. On the deficient side, you have the stereotypical post-modern liberal who won't stand up for anything. On the excessive side you have Greg Jackson, who has chosen to spend his life arguing that one of the most particular churches in America is unionistic. Now, compared to these two extremes, I look like I'm doing pretty well, but let's not call pat robertson moderate because he's not (quite) Leo X. I do tend to be argumentative and this is a departure from the middle road.

One time this summer, I was at one of the many fine establishments of Appleton and a girl at the table next to me said something like, "This guy is really pissing me off. Can you beat him in an argument and tell him that Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant?" There I was, disregarding all of Dale Carnegie's principles and said, "Absolutely". Now, do I really think that Lebron is better than Kobe? Not really. I think it's pretty even, but this was a challenge and I couldn't let it go. I went on a long screed detailing all the reasons why Lebron is indisputably better ending with an emphatic, "And Kobe Bryant's a rapist!" Now, this is, admittedly, a trivial example dealing with people who probably won't remember the encounter and whom I'll never see again. However, the girl that I wrote about six months ago probably will remember her encounter with me, and I know that our relationship has been damaged by such encounters over the past 9 years. If only I could put into action Carnegie's principle of, "You can't win an argument."

So, I have been struggling to be "Tyler, the well-balanced boy". Or perhaps I should say, "Tyler, the well balanced seminarian". Now, I do blog for my own benefit, but I hope to always present my own reflections in a way that people can relate to. I don't think that I'm alone in having a specific vice that prevents me from attaining the middle road. I might do well when it comes to academics and other things, but I still fail miserably in some specific ways. So, I'd encourage you to contemplate the ways that you struggle to attain this, and to work on it.

May God bless both you and me in this sanctified endeavor.

The Cross of the Evangelist

2010-09-16T09:11:00.004-05:00

The Theology of The Cross by Daniel Deutschlander is hugely popular right now, at least at the monastery I've been living at for the last four weeks. The theology of the cross isn't hard to understand. Quite simply, it talks about how bad things happen to Christians because we are Christians. However, what can be a little bit harder to understand is how we are asked to bear crosses in our lives today. After all, we're not persecuted these days. Overall, people are generally accepting of people having their own beliefs. It might seem like we're not asked to bear crosses like Christians used to be.

Yet, today during Hermeneutics I realized a cross that I, and most Christians, will constantly bear for the rest of our lives. That cross comes to us as we attempt to evangelize to the people in our lives. When you share God's Word with people, you're making an investment in them. Your entire being is wrapped up in wanting them to believe the message that you share. You want this person that you love to spend eternity in heaven with you and with God. However, that will not always happen. Some times those people reject the message. And that hurts. Badly. It truly is a painful cross that we must bear, and it will not go away.

Jesus tells us to bring our crosses to him. He tells us that he will give us rest (Matthew 11:28,29). He doesn't tell us that he'll take our cross away. No, the very fact that he makes this invitation indicates that we will bear crosses throughout our earthly journey. While we will still hurt, Jesus tells us that he will give us rest for our souls. That rest that he brings did not come by the removal of a cross. Instead, it came by Jesus taking up his own cross. Suddenly our crosses seem so small. Imagine the pain of the evangelist, Jesus. He has invested far more into every soul than any of us ever will into one. He suffered death and hell, just to have billions reject that sacrifice. How painful that must be. Yet, despite the pain he knew he would encounter, he took up his cross and paid the price. Let us make that same choice and willingly take up the cross of an evangelist. We know that it will bring us pain, but let us also bear in mind that the benefit will still be worth the price that we pay. Many may reject us, but if even just one comes to faith, that is a cause for celebration (Matthew 18:12,13).

So, let's forget the cost and take up the cross of the evangelist.

"Let no false doctrine me beguile;
Let Satan not my soul defile.
Give strength and patience unto me
To bear my crosses willingly.
Lord Jesus Christ, My God and Lord,
Forsake me not! I trust your Word." (CW 434 v.2)
Amen.

Romance

2010-09-12T23:06:00.004-05:00

At the seminary, we've been told that a Junior has time for extra-curricular reading. That reading, so they say, will benefit the student throughout his ministry. While I haven't read every word of every commentary that's been suggested, I've been attempting to do my share of extra-curricular reading. So, I ordered a couple books that I had been intrigued by, mostly because I knew that other people I knew had been reading them. Most of it, I have found, is rubbish. However, I came across one section tonight that I thought was quite interesting. So, I thought I'd share it with my faithful readers. Perhaps I'll make a habit of this and share excerpts from books I read along with thoughts to accompany them. We'll see.

this excerpt comes from Technical Virgin: How Far Is Too Far? by Hayley Dimarco. This book is written to females. Chapter 4 is entitled "Female Porn and You". It reads:

"Chick flicks and romance novels: female porn. They do the same things to us (females) that porn does to guys, only they play on the part of love that we crave--not all the physical stuff but the romance.x...It's female porn....
Think about it like this: when guys watch porn, they get this image in their minds of the perfect woman, one who is more than likely totally different than the average girl. And they start to expect sexual perfection....How many of us look like or act like porn stars? so how is that any different from what we do with female porn? When we see or read about romance, we begin to expect romantic perfection....We expect pure perfection out of them, and we get disappointed when that's not what we get.
Female porn does the same thing to our minds that male porn does to a guy's: it deludes us by creating a fantasy person who isn't real and was never meant to be real."

I thought it was interesting. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the book. I don't really see anything wrong with it. It, thus far, has not been heretical and will not lead you into false beliefs. However, as an intelligent, person, I find it difficult to accept at points because it's full of logical fallacies. I have yet to come across a book written on human sexuality, especially how unmarried individuals should conduct themselves, that is not full of such fallacies. Perhaps someone will write one some day. We can only hope.
I'd love for some discussion on this, but it seems like my readers aren't so much into commenting anymore. Well, the invitation is there. do with it what you will.

Life Is Good Today

2010-09-05T01:06:00.004-05:00

For the last long while, my posts have been of an intellectual nature and haven't been much about my life. So, I figured that I could take a post and give a life update. Here it goes:

If I had a dime for every time in the last six months that the phrase, "I'm excited" has come out of my mouth, I'd probably have that ring paid off already and I wouldn't have to worry about tuition payments. But, there's so much that's exciting in my life right now, it's almost unbelievable. I'm just trying to stop every once in a while and appreciate this truly wonderful time in my life.

Sure, I still can't play sports. There are some other things in my life from last year that still haven't quite returned to normal, but the end is in sight. My life will return to normal on October 1st. I can't wait to ball it up then. I pray that God gives me that ability for at least the next twenty or so years. I just want my kids to be able to have the experience of playing 1-on-1 with their dad like I did.

Anyways, I'm engaged. I don't think that has yet been mentioned on this blog. We've set a date of December 30th, 2011. I can't thank God enough that he's put such a wonderful woman in my life. I'm excited to spend the rest of my life with Callie, and I pray that I can successfully model to her the love that Christ had for the church.

I've started seminary. It's pretty sweet. I've been looking forward to seminary probably since I was about three weeks into my freshman year at MLC and was already frustrated with the literature and other liberal arts classes. As much as I disliked it, I do think that my liberal arts education has provided me with a solid education that has given me some knowledge about broad topics. So, I guess it served a purpose (Hebrews 12:11). And seminary has been wonderful thus far. Still, I realize that there will be some academic exercises that I find frustrating. I pray that I'll be able to stay focused and give my best effort in those classes as well as the majority of the classes that are terrific.

So, I can't thank God enough for the place he has put me in my life right now. I can't wait for the ride to continue. I can't wait to see the blessings he gives me through marriage, the rest of my time here at the seminary, and, God-willing, a call to serve in his church. I know that all of these wonderful blessings he's given me are only a small taste of what he has in store for me in eternity.

Years ago, when I used to blog nearly every day, I'd include random thoughts that occurred to me that didn't necessarily fit coherently into my post. I figured that'd be a good thing to do today:
Isn't it weird to think that I'm nearly half way through the time in my life during which I'll be able to play sports? If only more than a year of that hadn't been spent on crutches.

Athanasian Creed Revisited

2010-08-31T00:09:00.001-05:00

People who have followed this blog or the rest of my writings for some time have known that I've struggled considerably with the Athanasian Creed. The Athanasian Creed details many points of the Christian faith including some that I still believe to not be chief articles of faith required for salvation (I would be glad to discuss any of them with you). However, I do believe that my conflict may be resolved.

The resolution of this conflict came in class on Wednesday morning, when I found myself wanting to scream as my classmates gave their definitions of saving faith. I was outraged, not because I disagreed with their definitions, but rather because I agreed with them so wholeheartedly. Not only did I agree with them, but I realized that their definitions of saving faith did not include every point of doctrine that is listed in the Athanasian Creed.

As a result of this frustration, I did something that I should have done a long time ago. I opened my Concordia Triglotta and looked to see what the original version of the creed said. Upon further reflection, the damnatory clause, which has caused many hours of my sleep to be lost, wasn't all that different in Latin when compared with English. However, viewing it in the original did make something more clear to me than it was originally.

In Christian Worship, the damnatory clause is translated as, "Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved." This is a good translation; however, for some reason, I was not able to see the truth behind this statement until I looked specifically at the word, "fideliter". Faithfully. My mind went to the Marines. "Semper Fidelis", says their motto. When a Marine says that he is "always faithful", that does not mean that he will always be perfect in battle. Similarly, when we confess that we faithfully believe the catholic faith as it is explained in this creed, that does not mean that we will always be perfect in our understanding of it. After all, who could make such a bold confession, claiming to understand the entire counsel of God? For example, we will never understand the concept of the trinity that is confessed by this creed. Furthermore, not all people who hold to this true catholic faith will have the blessing of being taught correctly about it. For example, some may be incorrectly taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (but not the Son). If this is a weakness of faith, or a failure of understanding, that is a sin that is forgiven by God. However, the damnatory clause is applicable in the case of a person who is well aware of what the Bible says about the procession of the Holy Spirit, but chooses to ignore it. For such a person, there is no hope. He cannot be saved.

Holding faithfully and firmly to the confession found in this creed is a fruit of Spirit given faith. Just like all other areas of life, a person can be found in saving grace if this fruit of faith is lacking due to a weakness or due to a misunderstanding. This sin of diverging from the truth catholic faith will be damnable in the case that a person willingly rejects God's true revelation. For example, a Christian who struggles with alcoholism will be saved because of the grace of God that covers over such sins. But, for a person who chooses to trample the blood of Christ by ignoring what God has to say about drunkenness, there is nothing left for him but a fearful expectation of judgment. Another example would be that If a Christian accepts a liberal pastor's interpretation that a life-long commitment between to people is as good as marriage in God's eyes, saving faith can still exist within such a person. However, if a person understands well what God has to say about human sexuality, and he or she ignores it anyways, they have demonstrated a thorough lack of faith in God's Word.

Still, are some articles of faith that are explained in the creed necessary for salvation, whether or not human error accidentally creeps in along the way? Absolutely. For example, if a person believes that Jesus was simply a man and not God, they will still be found in their sins, since a person could not be cleansed from sin by another human being. Therefore, please do not take my words and run, saying that I'm saying that God's grace will save all sorts of faith. That's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that when it comes to the articles of faith that do not affect a person's view of Christ's redemptive work, such as the procession of the Holy Spirit, that God forgives those weaknesses of faith and misunderstanding, just like he does the sins of you and me of poorly chosen words, hatred of our fellow man, lust, slander and the rest.

This is the best understanding of The Athanasian Creed that I have come to. I pray that it is accurate and that I have articulated it well. Please, brothers and sisters, if my understanding is lacking, gently show me the error of my ways from the testimony of the Scriptures.

Bike ride to Wells Fargo

2010-08-28T13:13:00.002-05:00

This morning, after unsuccessfully looking for a change machine, I decided to ride my bike to Wells Fargo. I didn't want to ride on Mequon Road, since it's a busy state highway, so I decided to try to shoot across on another road. Little did I know, there are surprisingly few roads that cross the river. So, I ended up going way the heck north. On my way back, I decided to just go on Mequon Road, since I didn't want to have to go way the heck out of the way again. It turns out that there are sidewalks the whole way. So, I'll save that one away for a rainy day.

08/28/2010 Route
Find more Bike Rides in Thiensville, Wisconsin

Sem Gems

2010-08-23T18:40:00.002-05:00

No, this title doesn't refer to the lovely ladies who are married to my fellow seminarians. Instead, I thought I'd post some of the interesting or thought-provoking things we talk about here. Perhaps this could turn into a series that I'll continue as my education here.

One gem that we talked about today was that Christianity is always counter-cultural. Especially now, in this age of ecumenicism and moral relativism, being a confessional Lutheran is entirely counter-cultural. I thought about the lady cutting my hair who went extremely quiet after I told her I was going to seminary. I thought about the girl who showed interest in one of my classmates, until the moment he got the chance to tell her that he was studying to be a conservative Lutheran pastor. Certainly, living in a castle and reading dead languages with a hundred other dudes and no females goes against the grain of our culture. However, that is nothing compared to the way that the message of Christ and him crucified goes against our culture. And that's nothing new. The apostle Paul said that, "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." I pray for my classmates and all those who hold to the truths of the Bible, that they, with the help of God, continue farther down this counter-cultural path.

SALT Devotion

2010-06-15T14:01:00.001-05:00

Once I read a book called The Ten Things I Wish Jesus Never Said. It was all about things that Jesus said that the author found especially troubling. In the introduction, he confessed that the working title with which he wrote the book was Ten Things I Hate About Jesus. The publishers decided that the title needed to be changed, and they probably made a good choice, because most potential readers would likely be made uncomfortable by the title. I’m sure that many, if not all, of us would be uncomfortable if we heard someone saying they hated some things about Jesus.

Well, a lot of you spent all last week at ropes training where I’m guessing you talked endlessly about challenging kids and causing them to step out of their comfort zone. If you don’t mind, I’d like to help you step out of your comfort zone tonight. And I’d like to do that by sharing with you something that I have never told anyone. There was a time in the not so distant past when I hated something about Christianity. This isn’t like you might “hate” thinking about the doctrine of election because it’s confusing. This isn’t even like how you might hate that God has told us that we have to submit to the government’s authority. This was something that bothered me so much, it was almost unbearable.

It’s not just unbearable to me, either. This is something that’s so unbearable that most of Christianity today makes a sharp departure from the truth. This truth that the world has cast aside is what Lutherans often refer to as “The Theology of the Cross.” The theology of the cross refers to the fact that while we’re on earth, God allows us to bear certain crosses. This is why Christians can struggle with depression or mental disorders that plague them throughout their whole lives. This theology explains that Christians can be consumed by addictions. It tells us that God sometimes allows Christians to be injured or to have physical handicaps. And this is offensive to our reason. Human reason often asks why a loving God would allow this to happen to the people who love and serve him. Much of Christianity today is unable to answer that question, so they replace this theology of the cross with a theology of glory. You’ll hear things like, “Jesus will heal your broken relationships.” “If you stop worrying and just believe, God will do away with your financial troubles.” “Your faith will move the hand of God to take away your physical problems.”

For a long time, when I heard things like these, I just kind of rolled my eyes and ignored them, maybe provided some biblical thoughts if I heard such statements from people around me. But, at some point, I started asking that skeptical question for myself. These things that sounds so good, why aren’t they true? But The truth is that God does allow us to bear these crosses. And this is what I hated about Christianity. Sometimes the relationships that should bring you joy end up hurting you. When their friends turn their backs on you, when your girlfriend or boyfriend hurts you badly, when your parents seem to bring nothing but conflict to your life, it’s so easy to say, “God, I know you can fix this for me. Why won’t you?” And even when you know that you’ve sinned and messed up badly, when the consequences keep coming long after you’ve been told that you’re forgiven, we might angrily say to God, “I get it! I’ve learned my lesson. Can you just take it easy a little bit?” And when you’re hurt, or you see your family members suffering, close to death, maybe you can’t help but ask, “Why me? What did I ever do?” There was a time in my life when a number of feelings like these were adding up, and none of my questions were being answered the way I wanted them to be. And I found myself realizing that there’s nothing in the message of Christianity that would give me hope for this life. And I hated it.

There were some things that would trigger this irritation within me. For example, There were a few times when I was feeling like this that I heard the song, “Come to me” and just couldn’t stand it. The only thing that kept me from marking this song as just some more theology of glory was that it was written by our Lord and Savior himself. And this irked me even more. How could he say that he’ll give me rest, when that‘s just what I‘m looking for, and he doesn‘t give it to me? How can he say that his yoke is easy and his burden light, when he’s given us these difficult, heavy, painful crosses? But, then I realized that rather than being statements along the lines of the theology of glory, these words of Jesus absolutely confirm this theology of the cross. No where does Jesus promise that he will remove all your earthly problems. Instead, the very fact that he extends this invitation reveals that he knows we’ll have tough things to deal with in this life. Yet, the invitation remains, “come to me, and I will give you rest.” Our sinful nature still selfishly rejects that thinking that the rest he provides may not be the rest that we desire. But, by the grace of God, we realize that the rest that he gives is exactly what we need. The rest that he gives us is the peace that he brings in his Word and sacrament. He forgives our sins. And I urge you to make use of this invitation daily, this summer and for the rest of your lives. Come to him and hear his message of forgiveness and receive peace. Neither he nor I will promise you that that will make your cabin behave better; that it will help you work together better with the other staff; that it will help you maintain your relationships outside of camp better. But this one thing I do promise you: Jesus forgives. In that simple phrase we find all the peace we could ever need.

If I stopped my devotion here, not only would Matthew probably comment to me later that I didn’t even mention a thought that was brought up in my text, but I don’t doubt that I’d leave some people feeling frustrated and helpless like I did then. I can hear it now, “Thanks, Tyler. You pretty much told us that our cabins will be ridiculously difficult, we’ll have conflict with other people on staff, and our lives outside of camp may well go to crap too, but that’s ok! Jesus loves you!“ But, I don’t regret one bit spending the first eight or nine minutes of my devotion like I did.

You see, the book of James was written to a group of people who were a lot like us in that they were constantly surrounded by a theology of glory. The Jews were waiting for this Messiah to come and deliver them from the hands of the Romans and to set up a kingdom once again in Jerusalem. This is what they had been hearing about and waiting for, for several hundred years. Then, Jesus came along and provided something hugely different. He came and died on the cross; rose again, and then ascended. And the Jews that were followers of Christ seemed to be no less spiritually near-sighted as we some times are. With all that Jesus had done, there they were in the first century, focused only on the earthly troubles that he hadn’t taken away from them. Aren’t we the same way? Jesus died for me. My sins are forgiven. And so often all I can do is sit here and piss and moan about how my life isn’t quite perfect, when Jesus decided to come and suffer hell on my behalf, just so that I could share in the perfection of eternity with him some day. With these thoughts in mind, let’s read James chapter one, verses two through five:

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

Right away, James puts suffering in this life in perspective. He positions suffering as something that God allows us to endure to bring us to him. Not only that, he goes on to provide even more promises on top of the gospel promise that he’s already made. He tells us, “When you’re going through these trials, if you’re not sure what to do, ask God for wisdom! He’ll give it to you!” So, when you do go through tough times this summer, because you will, don’t get all frustrated that God would dare allow you to endure such things. Instead, thank God for the grace he has always given you, then ask him for the prudence to know how to deal with all your difficult situations in the best way possible. And he’ll do just that.

Three weeks of nothing: Day 1

2010-05-17T20:10:00.005-05:00

Thus begins three weeks during which I'm neither attending school nor working. I've started a to do list and am attempting to get a good workout in every day.

Since I don't have too much else to do, here are the things I accomplished today:
Visited the DMV -- Always fun
Finished sorting through my Grandpa's books -- I've got about four book cases full of his books down in the basement. Almost all of them are theological in nature. It should be fun to get a chance to read some of them now that I have them in their proper place.
Mowed the lawn
Went on a bike ride

Not too long after I tore my other ACL, I made a post lamenting the fact that I could only bike eighteen miles. Well, if I had made it that far tonight, I would've been quite pleased. Instead, I went just under 9 miles and was plenty tired. It's time for me to get back into shape. I've mapped my ride out for you (approximately...the trail wasn't on this map). Hopefully I'll do this frequently. It'd at least be fun for me to be able to look back and see where I rode. So, I hope you get some enjoyment out of it too.

05/17/2010 Route
Find more Runs in Appleton, Wisconsin

Nostalgia....or a lackthereof

2010-04-26T01:26:00.004-05:00

There are nineteen days until graduation. Spring is in the air. My significant projects for this semester are almost all behind me. There'll only be about twenty people from this campus that I'll be with next year. It's about time for some nostalgic posts, much like what we saw when I was about to graduate from high-school, right?

To be honest, I was completely expecting this to occur. But it hasn't. This didn't really bother me at all until today. I realized that I may have been guilty of being quite inconsiderate over the past couple months. So, I figured that it'd be best to get all my thoughts out in writing so that I can evaluate it clearly.

See, I'm not even a little bit sad about leaving MLC. The only times I get a little bit sad are when I think about being separated from the (maybe) dozen or so people that I'll miss after graduation. When you think about it, Seminary is more of everything I like about MLC, and much less or none of what I don't like about it. My classes will be more focused on God's Word and the way that it applies to the pastoral ministry. Along those same lines, I won't be taking frustrating English, History or Science courses. The rules that I've opposed since long before I set foot on campus as a freshman will be gone. (My dad always told me that people often use profanity because they're not intelligent enough to express themselves without it. I've never thought that to be true of myself, but this next sentence is definitely challenging my vocabulary skills.) The overbearing women won't be around.

Besides seminary being an escape to my desired atmosphere and an escape from undesirable parts of this atmosphere, there is really surprisingly little about my current situation that I'd miss. I don't particularly care for the town. With a few exceptions, I haven't built strong relationships with members of the faculty. I'm not involved in extra-curriculars. Most of the people I've grown close to are making the six and a half hour trip with me. The more I think about it, the more this lack of nostalgia makes sense.

Yet, these feelings definitely could be and undoubtedly have been expressed in an insensitive manner. I couldn't count the number of times in recent weeks that I've expressed my excitement for seminary. But, today I realized that one of my friends may not be feeling this uninhibited joy because at the same time he'll enter seminary, he'll begin a year apart from his girlfriend. One of my female friends is going to have to deal with not always being around her boyfriend because he'll be entering seminary. Another one of my friends has made a lot of good friends in New Ulm and might soon be called to be apart from them. I can understand why these people might have a part of them that's dreading graduation, and I fear that I may have offended them recently.

So, I apologize if I have offended you at some point in the recent past. As I go through the next three weeks, I'll be more aware of this and attempt to avoid any further offense.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
My love to all of you in Christ Jesus.

Love Prevails Over Freedom

2010-03-24T23:40:00.000-05:00

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. (1 Corinthians 8:13 - NIV)
Love Prevails Over Freedom
In American culture today there is an incredible emphasis placed on rights. People are constantly concerned about what they have the freedom to do. However, the apostle Paul told us that there is something else that deserves a higher place in the mind of a Christian than his freedoms. That is, Christians should be more concerned with how they can show love to their brothers, rather than in what ways they are able to exercise Christian freedom.
Paul told Christians that, “the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it”, thereby communicating to them that no food is unclean. A Christian is free to eat anything that God has blessed him with. However, the apostle Paul made clear that this freedom does not mean that a Christian should exercise this freedom in all contexts.
Instead of boldly exercising freedom without consideration of the consequences of such behavior, a Christian should always have the good of his fellow Christian in mind. Careless exercise of Christian freedom can destroy the faith of another. What a tragedy it would be if one of our brothers, for whom Christ died, would be led into sin in the name of “Christian freedom”. It is this thought that caused Paul to strongly state that he would not eat meat again if it would cause a problem for his fellow Christian.
In our day and age, it is unlikely that what we eat would cause problems for our fellow Christians; however, that does not mean that this text is no longer applicable to our lives. While the food that we eat may not offend other Christians, it is possible that other actions could. Perhaps the way a person dresses could lead another person to sin. Maybe the rock music we listen to, even if we only listen to artists that are not obscene, would encourage another Christian to act against his conscience by listening to questionable rock artists. In those circumstances, we can speak just like the apostle Paul did and say, “If what I listen to causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never listen to rock music again!”
We allow our freedoms to be kept in check by our Christian love not because we are slaves to our fellow believers or to any laws, but as a reflection of the love of Christ. Jesus chose to give up his throne of glory in order to bring us into the family of God. In view of that grace, we also will do all we can to keep our fellow believers within the family of God. In order to do that, our Christian love will prevail in certain circumstances over our desire to exercise certain Christian freedoms.
Dear Jesus, thank you for choosing to set aside your heavenly glory for a time in order to redeem us. Please help us imitate that love and do whatever we are able to encourage our fellow Christians in their walks of faith. Amen.

The shrinking middle class

2010-03-22T10:21:00.002-05:00

No, this isn't about the economic state of our nation and how some socialist agenda is (or is not) going to fix it. I gave up politics, remember? This is about basketball, which is something I'll never give up, no matter how crippled I am.

One overwhelming trend I've noticed in this year's tournament is that teams from the mid-major conferences are competing more and more with teams from the power conferences. It's time that we recognize a legitimate possibility in college basketball: that the "middle class" could disappear.

This is a possibility in college basketball, as opposed to college football where it's nearly impossible. There are two reasons that make this a definite possibility. The first is the simple number of players required to make a team competitive in a basketball game. In order for a middle class football team to become competitive with the big boys, they'd need to recruit approximately twenty five players that could realistically play for a larger school. This is done occasionally. We see teams like Boise State who break through; however, the odds are stacked high against teams attempting to draw that much talent. Yet, in basketball, you probably only need five really quality players.

The next thing about basketball that makes an equal playing field as what people refer to as, "the great equalizer"; that is, the three point line. The three point line allows players who are physically inferior to compete with the best. (This is also why there are still white people in the NBA, but that's another topic altogether.) We've seen this this year with a team like Cornell. If basketball were still a game where offenses sought a layup every time down the floor, Cornell would be in trouble. However, they shoot the long ball as well as anyone, and for that reason, they can compete with anyone.

So, I know why this is possible, but I cannot figure out why it seems to be happening. Perhaps this reason will become more apparent if this trend continues to grow, but I can't figure it out right now. Any thoughts?

The Big East....

2010-03-19T10:30:00.002-05:00

Everyone's talking about it: The Big East went 1-3 yesterday. Now, 1-3 can be understandable here and there even for a really good conference. Sometimes you just get a bad draw. Sometimes it's just not your day. None of that can be said about the Big East's performances yesterday. They got beat, and they got beat badly.

Now, you might be thinking that me describing them getting beat as, "badly" might be an overstatement. After all, two of their losses were six seeds getting beat by a combined total of three points. However, these losses prove something about the Big East. Notre Dame and Marquette have RPI's of 49 and 50 respectively. If we're going strictly by RPI, both teams should have been looking at 13 seeds. They should've been playing teams in the tournament like Pittsburgh or Tennessee, not Washington and Old Dominion. However, they both got the seed numbers they deserved cut in half for absolutely no apparent reason except for that they play in the Big East. It's been said that Marquette is used to playing in close games and is really good at it when it comes down to the last couple minutes. Well, they simply got beat.

Georgetown was ranked #22 coming into championship week. They put together a good run in the Big East tournament and got a lot of talk about getting a #2 seed. Fortunately, the NCAA tournament selection committee only immensely overrated their work in the Big East tournament instead of absurdly overrating it. They got a 3 seed, and that seems justifiable, right? Apparently not. They came out and got dominated. Georgetown had success in the Big East tournament because they're one of the few teams in the league that plays defense. Well, they really showed the quality of that league by giving up 97 points to a 14 seed yesterday.

Villanova squeaked one out. That's all that can be said.

I really really want to conclude this rant by saying, "The Big East sucks." However, there's another day of the first round to be played. I'm sure they'll probably squeak out three more wins today against a 14, 15 and 16 seed. Maybe they'll even drastically reverse the tables and pull off an upset. Let's see what happens when they start playing teams that would be able to make the tournament even if they hadn't magically won their conference tournament. It's pretty clear that the conference is hugely overrated. I'm not saying they're not good. They've got roughly one-third of the teams in division one college basketball in the conference, it'd be pretty much impossible for them to not accidentally have include a good one in there. They're just not as good as people claimed they were. They've been out performed thus far by quite a few conferences, and I don't expect that trend to be completely reversed.

All that being said, this was a hugely entertaining first day. I had absolutely no difficulties staying in front of the tv all day once I got out of class. I hope that today is just as good.

A good loss

2010-03-14T18:14:00.002-05:00

To be honest, I really get tired of all the bracketology talk. My twitter earlier this week boldly proclaimed the fact that Joe Lunardi is the most overrated man in America. However, there is one bracketological question that I'd like to address:
Should the end of a team's body of work be weighted more heavily than the earlier parts of it?

We've been hearing over the past week or so that it was not the intention of the tournament committee to do that, and now it's painfully clear. For example, Ohio State won 9 of their last ten, with their only loss during that stretch being by three to a Purdue team that, with Robbie Hummel, was unquestionably one of the best teams in America. On the other hand, Syracuse went 7-3 over their last ten including ending the season with two consecutive, highly unimpressive losses. Yet, Syracuse got a 1 seed, Ohio State a 2.

If you look at their bodies of work over the entire year, Syracuse probably would get the edge. They've only got four losses as opposed to Ohio State's seven. They have a couple more impressive victories. However, there's no doubt in my mind as to who the better team is right now. In order to factor in a team's last stretch of the season better, the tournament committee should get a better grip on "good" and "bad" losses. If there were a tighter grasp on this concept, we wouldn't have such ridiculous things like Minnesota being in (after being wiped off the floor by Ohio State) and Illinois being out (who took Ohio State to double overtime fewer than twenty-four hours before Minnesota was embarrassed.)

I'm going to go against the grain of my soul here, but if the committee considered things like this, Wisconsin wouldn't have received their all too high seed of a 4. Wisconsin did not play well towards the end of the season. They had three very unimpressive losses over their last ten games (two of those, of course, with Jon Leuer.) After being embarrassed by Minnesota and having a win over Illinois be the exception rather than the norm, how is this team possibly one of the best sixteen in the country?

I really hope the Badgers come out and prove me wrong. They certainly have the talent to (with three top five wins this season.) But we haven't seen that team in quite a while. I hope they show up.

Evangelism Day Gems

2010-01-21T03:26:00.006-06:00

Today was Evangelism Day at MLC. It's always been one of my favorite days of the year. There are a lot of good thoughts being shared, so I thought I'd share a few of them with you on here.

The first presentation that I attended was titled "Strategies for Congregations to Reach the Unchurched". The biggest takeaway I got from this presentation was that the ultimate goal of evangelism is not to bring members into our church. Rather, the goal is to bring people into contact with Christ. I appreciated this perspective. As we see financial troubles and declining membership, it can be a temptation for people to think about how more people into the church. Even more nobly, one might think that we should always pull people into our churches because of our true handling of God's Word. While this certainly is a blessing to those who come to our churches, God has asked us to preach a message. We plant seeds and he does the rest. If he causes that person to join our church, wonderful. If he causes that person to join another church in which the seed that we planted can grow, we'll be with them in heaven. That too is wonderful.

The next presentation I attended was a discussion of evangelism through worship. In this presentation, Pastor Limmer presented a gem that expressed a sentiment I've always had but have never really articulated. In our world there is a huge emphasis on being relevant. In order to reach people who are looking for relevance, we must present them with a relevant message. After presenting that thought he simply said, "Law and gospel are the most relevant things in the world. We have all sinned. We all need a savior."

Perhaps the strongest presentation I attended all day was Professor Gurgel's presentation on evangelism and homiletics. Much of his presentation was the result of his research for his doctoral thesis on homiletics.
The presentation started out with a small group discussion resulting in a list of factors in preaching that either hold or repel attention. The thought is that in order to help people hear the message, we ought to present it in such a way that will not cause them to tune us out. This is not to say that the method of presentation creates or contributes in the creation of faith. We want to be wise in the way we act toward outsiders; making the most of every opportunity (Colossians 4:5). Professor Gurgel said, "If how we go about preaching practically invites the birds to pluck the seed of the path (Matthew 13:4,19), we are frustrating the very purpose of preaching." It's with this thought in mind that we went into this entire workshop. I don't want to hear anyone saying that this denied the efficacy of the Word. It didn't.

Now, in this exercise of attempting to find what compels and repels attention in a sermon, we had the interesting task of having a roomful of about 40 life long WELS men trying to think like people coming into church for the first time in a long time, if not for the first time ever. Therefore, if you'd like to disagree with any of these, please feel free to do so. These were just our thoughts (Well, they're technically the thoughts that were presented in the room that I thought were worthwhile):

What in preaching repels attention?:
An agenda driven by the pastor rather than the Spirit/text.
Incoherent thought
Arrogance
Poor preparation

What in preaching compels attention?:
Passion
Polished presentation
Relevant connections

This list drove much of our conversation for the remainder of the hour. The thought that was hit on the most was authenticity. It was best summed up in a quote that he presented which said, "If I'm not authentic, then they may think that Christ isn't real either." Achieving that authenticity is something that we will all strive for probably for the rest of our lives. This is something that extends far beyond the pulpit. Professor Gurgel's advice, which seems so simple, but is not always easy to carry out:
Don't preach or teach anything that you don't believe. There is nothing that's more inauthentic than faking authenticity.

The final workshop that I attended was on welcoming people to our churches and schools. The main thought that I took from this was that churches, just like people, can be approachable or unapproachable. There are any number of steps that can be taken in order to make our churches more approachable. This can be anything from presentation to strategy. It's something that should always be on our minds.

How to respond to cryptic speech

2010-01-17T20:35:00.004-06:00

It drives me crazy when people use the conversational technique of what I call, "fishing". In this conversational technique, the person casts out a line, hoping for a bite. This happens in speech, but I find it happening most often online in the form of facebook statuses or twitter updates. An example would be, "---- ------- is confused." This adds nothing to the world of facebook or twitter. All it does is hope for a bite. If someone takes the bait, Ms. (this occurs most often with females) ---- ------- will launch into a big explanation of all her problems at hand (usually having to do with boys) which the sucker who took the bait doesn't really even want to hear.

Probably since I was in high-school I have been determined to not be that sucker that gets reeled in to these undesirable conversations. I usually think that if people have something they want or need to talk about, they should bring it up and not try to manipulate me into asking about it indirectly. Therefore, I decided not to take the bait. However, there's one notorious fisherwoman with whom I have seen my relationship slide considerably over the past four years, and I think it's due to my recognition of said bait and my decision to pass it up for more worthwhile conversation. So, I've taken some time to reevalute.

When someone presents me with this bait and I refuse to be duped into taking it, it probably doesn't seem like I'm a superior conversationalist who's making an attempt to have said fisherwoman better her own conversational skills. Actually, it probably appears quite the opposite. It probably appears like I don't care about her problems and that I'm not really aware of anyone but myself. However, when I choose to take the bait, I don't appear like a fool who didn't recognize that this is a conversational ploy. I probably appear like I care about this person and I make her feel like her needs and desires are important to me.

So, I've decided that I'm going to start being a sucker. That's right; I'll take the bait. Yes, it will get me involved in undesirable conversations, and it will not encourage anyone to better themselves by taking a more direct approach to conversation. Yet, I believe that that is a small price to pay in order to communicate to other people that I care about them and that they're important to me. So, that's what I'll do.

Sign, sign....Everywhere a sign

2010-01-08T01:03:00.002-06:00

Some time ago I had a conversation with a friend about whether or not God continues to speak to us outside of his Word. That is, whether or not he communicates to us through events in our lives or anything else in order to lead us to discover his will for our lives. When I said that I didn't really think he did this, my friend told me that I was putting God in a box. While I do not deem it impossible for God to communicate with us in this way, I do not believe that we should look for God to communicate with us in this way. My reason for that belief is twofold. I will share both of those reasons and then go on to suggest a better way for us to discover God's will for our lives.

The first reason that this way of thinking bothers me is that God has not told us we should be looking for such communication from him. Maybe you could bring up a passage or two that you could reasonably take to mean something similar if interpreted with the proper pretenses, but I am unaware of anywhere in scripture where God says that this is what Christians should expect in their every day lives. However, he does tell us that his will for our lives is revealed in scripture. Let's look there.

The second reason that I don't accept this line of thinking is because of the incredible strain it would put on the conscience of a Christian. Think about it. Let's say that a Christian is presented with two choices that are morally equal (e.g.: Going to one college rather than another). If we say that God wants us to choose one of these options over the other and that we're somehow supposed to induce that from random events in our lives, does that not have maddening consequences? How can you confidently make any choice if God supposedly has a will in it and that you've got to figure it out? Do I move or stay where I am? Do I go to this college or that one? Do I take this course or that course? Do I cheer for the Packers or for Favre? Do I drink apple or orange juice? No. In all of these cases it's a matter of adiaphora, and to say that God has a will in all of these and that it's up to us to recognize his revealing that will is to place an unfounded, unnecessary, and unbearable burden upon the conscience of every Christian.

Instead, let's view most choices in a Christian's life as what they are: Adiaphora. When considering how to act, the first place we should always look is to God's Word. If that leaves us unsure of what to do, instead of looking for some further divine revelation, we should instead realize that God has already given us everything we need to make a good decision. You see, God has given you your intellect, will, conscience and emotion. They are gifts from him that ought to be used when making such decisions. As long as you use those gifts to the best of your ability in your decision making, you are making your decision to the glory of God! We need not wonder whether or not we're making the right decision between two morally equivalent options. Instead, we can be confident that no matter which path we choose to follow, that God will bless us as we follow it.

The obligatory reflective post

2010-01-01T22:30:00.005-06:00

It's 2010. Thank God. I'll leave some random thoughts about 2009 and I'll probably elaborate a bit here and there.

In 2009 I left North America for the second time in my life. In my travel and my experience with people from other places and cultures, all I've learned is that people are people. Every one of them is different and unique. I think that so often young people have a desire to gain an understanding of the whole world so that they can relate to anyone they meet. I've realized that there is one thing you need to do in order to hit it off with any person you meet: That you don't understand them. Seeking to understand a culture is a kind gesture, but what's important is an earnest desire to understand individuals apart from their culture.

In 2009 I cried five times. That's more than I did in 2004-2008 combined. I can't decide if it's because I'm coming a softy or if it's because I had a lot of difficult things to deal with. I think it's some of both.

I'm confident that in 2009 that my influence decreased in every social circle I'm in. Part of this is because I wasn't that fun to be around. Part of it is because I've struggled with negativity throughout this year and I've simply lost a desire to influence some people. I'm not one for New Years resolutions, but I think that's something that I should work on. I need to become genuinely interested in other people again.

In 2009 I grew. If, knowing what I know now, I were transported back to December 31, 2008 and was presented with a red pill that would cause me to skip over 2009 completely and that in return I would sacrifice any sort of growth that occurred over the past year, I'd take the pill. However, despite my prayers to the contrary, God did not remove my cups from me. I'll be dealing with the aftermath of 2009 for quite some time still. I know that he will use what's happened to me in order to equip me to deal with what's still coming. I just wish there had been another way; yet, not my will but his be done.

In 2009 I enjoyed school for the first time in my life. I wouldn't have been able to write that last paragraph had it not been for the growth that occurred in school. I look forward to continuing that growth in 2010 (and up through 2014).

Well, that's my post. I realize that this post is hugely cryptic, which drives me crazy when I encounter such a style in other people's writings. So, I'm sorry, but it's been done out of necessity. I can't write too much of my personal life on here when I'm sure that Gregory Jackson is waiting for the first thing he can use to slander me. So, I'll be happy to discuss anything I've written. If you've got questions about anything, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

Welcome to another year of God's grace.

Rockin' the Vote

2009-12-29T17:21:00.002-06:00

In my last post I referred to the fact that I'm not a voting man. To those who only read my blog and don't religiously follow my notes on facebook (which is probably no one, because everyone reads my notes on facebook) that might have been a surprising statement. So, I thought I'd leave my explanation of why I have sworn off voting and politics (which is almost certainly an overly bold statement that I'll go back on at some point.) Here it goes:

There are few things in life that people are more passionate about than politics. It can be incredibly divisive to the point that it's taboo to bring up in many circles. Undoubtedly, nearly everyone reading this note realizes that this passion has affected and at times nearly consumed me. That passion has affected me less in recent years as I've grown more and more frustrated by the lack of candidates that represent my views, but it has still certainly affected me. Now, I refuse to be controlled by such a passion any longer. That's not because I've given up on finding a candidate that represents me well. No, I believe that that candidate may still be out there and may show him (or her) self at some point, but that will in no way reignite my passion. The reason for my new found apathy towards any and all political figures, whether holding or running for office is that I find it all to be meaningless. Here's what led me to this conclusion:

Shortly after this past election I made the decision that I wouldn't vote in the foreseeable future. I'd known for a long time that my vote made no difference. I wasn't that naive. However, I still believed that voting was a more ethical choice than abstaining. I thought that we, as citizens, had an ethical obligation to choose our candidates. I am now convinced that this obligation only lies with the citizens if there is a decisive majority. I have been convinced of this because in any case in recent history where voters have shown any indecision, the decision has not been made by the voters, but by the courts. Therefore, the citizens have been freed of their obligation. The authority in selecting public officials lies not with the voters, but with the courts. The courts decide whether or not the voters have shown indecision, and if they believe that there is, they take it from there. It's out of the voters' hands.

If you can accept that the courts have authority when it comes to elections, you have accepted that votes actually carry no authority and that when you fill out your ballot you're doing nothing more than coloring in some fancy ovals. If you can't accept that, you must have either missed or are ignoring the implications of both the Bush/Gore election in 2000 and the Franken/Coleman election this past November. If you still want to fill out those fancy ovals, I won't be offended. I'm just explaining my own conclusions, I'm not trying to force others to come to these pessimistic views of our "democratic" system.

Since I have been thoroughly convinced that voting is meaningless, I have now come to the conclusion that supporting or opposing political candidates and elected officials is also meaningless. So, I've decided that I'm not going to do it. No longer will I encourage people to vote for a certain candidate. No longer will I encourage people to oppose a candidate based on what he or she has or hasn't done. This is simply a waste of time for both of us.

So, what does this mean? I don't intend on putting my views out there about political figures any longer. Sure, I still believe strongly in my ideologies as to how government should function. If you ask me what I think about an issue, I'll likely share my views. Perhaps I'll write an occasional letter to my representative, but I don't see it going much beyond that any time in the near future. It's just not worth my time.

There it is. I'm officially giving it up. No longer can I be accused of partiality towards or prejudice against any party or candidate, because I have none.

A Good, old fashioned, "I Hate....." post

2009-12-23T14:00:00.001-06:00

I'm home alone today. My least favorite part of being home alone is the expectation that I'll answer the phone. I just don't understand it. The answering machine takes better messages than I do. Anyways, the point of this post is to share one such encounter with you, my beloved readers. My statements will be labeled "TS". The lady's statements will be labeled "R". Statements in parentheses are my thoughts that didn't make it into words that might be prefaced with, "I'm like" if I were telling you this story in person.

TS: Hello
R: Hello, this is __________ [Names have been omitted to protect the innocent. Either that or I just don't remember] from the Republican National Committee. May I please speak to Miss Stephanie Shinnick?
TS: (Last I checked my mom is married. I don't know a Miss Stephanie Shinnick.) Sorry, she's not available right now, can I take a message?
R: Is this Mr. Shinnick?
TS: (I'm a man. I'm 40) Yes.
(Wait, that makes it sound like I'm married to my mom.) Well, this is her son.
R: Perhaps I'll try again later.

Time for me to rant (in outline form, like all good rants):
A. My mom hasn't supported the Republican party since they dropped the ball with the whole impeachment thing. That was ten years ago. Stop calling.
B. I'm clearly of legal voting age. The only reason that this conversation was ended so abruptly was because a son who comes home for Christmas clearly does not have money, which is what Republicans are interested in.
C. Miss RNC, you had a young person on the phone willing to talk to you. Share your message with him. Perhaps if you didn't ignore young people like this you wouldn't lose the presidency by a landslide and perhaps you'd even gain a seat in either the house or the senate instead of losing them.

In conclusion, this is why I'd hate the Republican party and would refuse to support them even if I were a voting man.

Never felt this way before

2009-12-10T17:10:00.004-06:00

I was sitting in my world religions class this morning and I looked up to the clock and saw it showing, "10:05". I thought to myself, "I can't believe there's only a half hour left in this course." Then I felt a little bit sad. I was trying to remember if I have ever before felt sadness about a course coming to an end. I suppose I was probably a little sad when my Interpersonal Communications course with Professor Paustian came to an end, since I often name that as my favorite college course up to that point. However, I was very much ready for that semester to be over. That was not the feeling I had this morning. For the first time ever, I have thoroughly enjoyed my semester. Granted, I hated Shakespeare, but the rest of my classes were awesome. While I am excited to move onto other courses next semester, I've thoroughly enjoyed learning all the things I have this semester about some topics that are meaningful to me. Thanks, MLC. We're 1 for 7 on not bogging me down with GenEd's to the point where I feel like I'm wasting my time altogether.

As I mentioned before, the one thorn in my flesh that prevented me from having a wonderful semester was Shakespeare. See, a SPaM student needs an English area elective in order to graduate. As of next week, I'll have completed three elective courses from the English department. But, the first two courses didn't fulfill the "English area elective" credit requirement. I knew this going in, but I wanted to take the courses, because I thought they'd be meaningful courses. Then, when it came time for me to buckle down and take a course from the accepted English area electives, I tried to find a course that would benefit me in some way. I couldn't, so I took Shakespeare. It was quite frustrating, not only because the course content didn't interest me, but also because I thought that the class time was largely wasted by the professor. Our usual modus operandi was that we'd get to class, have a small group discussion, watch a movie.

For the last couple weeks, I'd really been hoping that I'd have the pleasure of providing an evaluation for this course. I logged on to see my surveys today and, sure enough, there was one for Shakespeare. It asked me for general comments about the instructor and I said, "The majority of this class was taught by BBC films and small student groups."
As for the, "Other comments about this course" section, I wrote:
"I felt like I could've been mailed the DVD's over summer for the plays we'd cover, written three papers in that course of time and taken the final exam during the first week of August. That would've benefited me just as much and it would've saved me three hours a week."

Too harsh? I think not.

I'm full of empty promises I half pretend to keep this time, just like last year.

2009-12-04T03:09:00.004-06:00

I was looking at my blog archives tonight and realized that my extreme lack of blogging has continued to worsen even after the initial drop off after I graduated high-school. Every year since 2005, my blog has seen a drop in the number of posts. This is number 13 for 2009. That's pretty poor. I want to do it more. My goal is to have more in 2010 than I did in 2009.

So, this is me doing that. We're going to go with an old fashioned blog post that tells you about what I've been up to. I think that this is appropriate because the last few days have been extremely blogworthy.

On Tuesday I was talking to Jenny in his room about the outrageous ticket prices for the Wisconsin vs. Duke game (They had been running for about $175 the last time I checked on stubhub.) Then he declared that we still needed to go. So, I sent a text to Kayla saying, "I need cheap tickets for the game tomorrow. Quick!" She sent one back maybe a half hour later saying, "The cheapest I've found so far is $60. I'll call you later." I chuckled a bit inside and told her that I was just joking and that I couldn't come because I had a ten page paper due on Friday (in about 5 hours from now). But, after that I sent a text to Jenny saying, "We've got tickets lined up for $60 each." I thought nothing of it and then I took a nap. Later I get a call from an excited Matt Werner saying, "Do we really have tickets for that cheap? Brad says he'll drive." So, we told Kayla to get them and we went. We left after class at 2 p.m. and arrived in Madison ca. 7:30. That was close enough to tip off to get us onto the second tier, but not the first. I'm not going to complain. They were not bad seats at all. I could see well.

When we made the impulsive decision to go, I was figuring that at best we'd make a game of it. I was just hoping that I wasn't paying $55 to see the Badgers get killed. What I actually saw was one of the best basketball games I have ever seen. Both teams were playing on a higher level than I've ever seen in December and competed until the very end. Best of all, the Badgers came out on top! I couldn't believe it. Ever since I was little I wanted to see the Badgers beat Duke. In my mind, I was hoping to see that on television, but I got so much more than that. Amazing. Naturally, we had to go out for a bit of celebration before our return to New Ulm, but we safely rolled in at approximately 5:12 a.m.

I knew that my impulsive decision would have consequences. I knew that I'd really be pressed for time to get my paper done on time. So, I told myself that I had to get five pages done before we left. Well, after translating Greek and Hebrew, I spent the entire night writing the researching and writing the paper and I was only 2.5 pages in. I wasn't worried. I figured that most of the rest of it would be downhill. I was maybe half right. Composing the next 7.5 pages took me longer than I expected it to, but I still got it done. Now, I've just got seven more verses of Acts to translate and my homework for the week is done.

It was an absolutely amazing feeling to finish that paper. While this semester has been by far the most enjoyable semester I've ever had in school, it's also been undisputably the most work intensive. I'm sure I've come close to doubling the amount of time I've spent on daily preparation for courses, and I've also probably handed in more pages of composition than in any other semester. After handing in this Psychology paper tomorrow, I only need to hand in a World Religions paper, which shouldn't be bad at all. As much as I've enjoyed this semester, I'm ready for it to be over. I'm excited to move on to some different classes next semester, and as always to focus myself even more on the work of reading God's Word.

Random thoughts that ran through my head while I was making this post:

Is anybody else like me that when you type, "2009" you say in your head, "Two thousand nine", but when you type "2010" you say, "Twenty ten"?

I've never been one to put much into the practice that avoids contractions in formal writing. However, when I got a mark on my rough draft that I got back from the venerable professor Fredrich, I figured that it was about time for me to submit to that. So, in the psychology paper I wrote for tomorrow I made a conscious effort to avoid them. The trickle down effect is proven true once again in that I pretty much have to think about putting contractions into this less than formal blog post.

Hope you enjoyed it. I'm hoping there's more to come in the future. I doubt too many people are reading, but for those of you who are, thanks.

The Best Paper Ever

2009-12-02T02:35:00.004-06:00

I know that papers are hard to read on here. If anyone actually made it through that Acts paper, props. But, I figured that since I just posted one, I might as well post another. I realized that I hadn't posted one of my favorite papers of all time, and that made me sad. So, I decided to share it with you. This one should be a bit more manageable on the screen here since it's less than a third of the size. Enjoy.

Tyler Shinnick
Response Paper
September 21, 2009

The Offensive Nature of The Taming of the Shrew

In recent years, many people of the feminist persuasion have objected to the offensive nature of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew. It’d be difficult to argue that the play isn’t at least a little bit offensive in the way that it treats women. However, objecting to this play because of this offensive content is entirely pointless. This paper will show that this objection is pointless because of the comedic nature of this play and because of the historic, literary value that this play has.

First of all, this play does not need to be objected to because The Taming of the Shrew is a comedic work. Making a comedic work about an aspect of a culture does not necessarily represent an endorsement of that aspect of the culture. For example, the creators of South Park had an episode in the third season that dealt with the cutting down of the rainforest. The episode contains many funny moments about an issue that many people would consider tragic. This doesn’t mean the Trey Parker and Matt Stone support the cutting down of the rainforest. It simply means that they realize that this leads to many humorous conflicts between different groups of people. As an attempt to entertain people, they play off of this conflict without reflecting their endorsement of what was going on.

For another example, there’s a different episode of South Park that deals with priests having sex with young boys. While this was certainly an offensive episode that many people did object to, just as people have objected to The Taming of the Shrew, that offense and objection was misplaced. The writers both presented the situations in a shocking, hyperbolic manner. The writers of South Park portrayed Catholic priests as if all of them frequently engage in sexual activities with young boys. Shakespeare portrayed a controlling husband depriving his wife of food. In both cases, this was an exaggeration for effect. Do all Catholic priests regularly have sex with boys? Of course not. Did men in Shakespeare’s day regularly deprive their wives of food? I doubt it. However, the writers of these plays exaggerate these circumstances for entertainment’s sake and to emphasize their point. The point was not that these cultural circumstances were good, but that they were bad and that they should be changed. In South Park, this was brought out at the end by a passionate speech by one priest about how priests should be allowed to have sex with women. In The Taming of the Shrew this was brought out at the end by Shakespeare’s picture of how a loving couple interacts. Both works satirize and hyperbolize the status quo in their respective cultures in order to provide some social commentary about them. The audience need not be offended by it. The writers don’t approve of this objectionable material any more than their audiences do.
Even if The Taming of the Shrew weren’t meant as a satirical work, readers today still should not object to the offensive nature of it because it portrays, although perhaps hyperbolically, the culture of the day. When reading Shakespeare, a person must keep in mind that Shakespeare’s culture is not our culture. There are aspects of Shakespeare’s culture that people from today might not approve of. However, that was the way that life was. The literature of that time period will undoubtedly reflect those moles of that culture. That is one of the values of literature. It gives us insight into the world that people lived in during periods of history. To object to the reading of plays because the values of a past culture do not match up to the values of our culture is ludicrous. If readers want to only read literature from a time that does not reflect offensive cultural trends, they are guilty of revisionist history. Therefore, readers of The Taming of the Shrew ought to appreciate the play for what it can be. That is, a look into the past. It may not be entirely pretty, but that’s the way that life was.

In conclusion, there is some offensive material in The Taming of the Shrew. However, that does not mean that it shouldn’t be appreciated in literary circles both for its comedic value and historical insight.

The Importance of Prayer According to Luke/Acts

2009-12-01T17:33:00.005-06:00

Tyler Shinnick

REL4010
Professor Joel Fredrich
December 1, 2009

Certainly much could be said about what the Holy Spirit wanted Luke to communicate concerning prayer in the biblical books that he wrote. However, the significance of prayer according to Luke seems to be especially brought out by the circumstances in which he mentions prayer. Throughout the books of Luke and Acts, prayer is frequently mentioned when the believer is about to face times of trouble. In these difficult situations, the believer is expressing his faith in God. As he expresses his faith, he submits his will to God’s. When a believer submits his will to God, he will not necessarily be freed from all anguish. Rather, in this submission, he simply realizes and accepts that God will work out the situation according to His will. In simpler words, Luke communicates in his biblical compositions, that Jesus prayed the model prayer on the Mount of Olives when he was about to face incomprehensible adversity, yet still said, “not my will, but yours be done.”1

Jesus’ prayer in the garden truly was a model prayer that Christians should imitate in times of trouble. Jesus knew that times of trouble were awaiting him. He indicated in Luke 22:15 that he anticipated suffering in the near future. While he did experience distress because he knew that he’d soon be experiencing damnation, he chose to deal with this by praying about it rather than by worrying. This was an amazing expression of faith. He trusted God in spite of the trouble that he knew was coming. Christians should imitate this expression of faith. When a believer is facing adversity, he ought to trust in God. In line with 1 Peter 5:7, believers should cast all of their anxiety on God, just as Jesus did on the night he was betrayed.

While Jesus did trust God and cast all of his anxiety on him, this did not free him from all the anguish that he was feeling in anticipation of the coming trials. It is recorded in Luke 22 that Jesus was still in anguish after “an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.”2 Lenski pointed out that this “anguish” should not be thought of as the physical anguish of death. Rather, he said that medics used this term, “only with reference to severe mental distress.”3 His anguish was not due to a lack of faith. Ylvisaker explained a number of legitimate reasons that Jesus would still be experiencing anguish, even though he had no lack of faith because he was the perfect, God-man. One reason Jesus was experiencing anguish was because he knew he was about to experience death, which was, “absolutely alien to the attribute of His holiness”.4 Another reason was that he knew he would soon be experiencing the fullness of God’s wrath in the punishment for the sin of the whole world. When these aspects of Jesus’ experience in the garden are considered, it is no wonder that Jesus still felt this distress. While he did trust God, he still felt anguish. This anguish is comforting for believers who are about to experience trying times. A believer’s anguish in times of trial does not necessarily represent a lack of faith either. Someone may look at 1 Peter 5:7, pray, and then expect to be freed from all anguish. It is not difficult to realize that it is unrealistic for someone to expect to be completely comfortable with hardships that seem to be coming his way. A Christian may find himself bothered by the fact that he is still experiencing anguish after he has prayed as if it is sinful for him to be feeling that way. If a person is feeling that way, the affliction of Jesus even after such a prayer is extremely comforting. Feeling anguish in the face of adversity is not indicative of a lack of faith. After all, Jesus, who was the sinless son of God, experienced such anguish. In the way that Luke portrays Jesus on the Mount of Olives, it becomes clear that to express one’s faith is not to be free of all anguish.

While Jesus was not free of all anguish after he had prayed on the Mount of Olives, it is clear that he had submitted his will to the Father’s. Even in the midst of his anguish, Jesus spoke the model prayer, “not my will, but yours be done.” While he was still in anguish after he had prayed this, he went on to act in accordance with what became clear was the will of God. Christians should imitate this at every step along the way. Jesus made it clear what his will was and then he submitted that to the will of the Father. While believers should, in their prayers tell God what their will is, they should always submit that to his will. When God’s will becomes clear to a believer, he should then pray again. When a Christian says this prayer, he can be sure that, “we will receive strength, but not necessarily just what we ask.”5 When believers pray in such a way, they can be confident that God will strengthen them in their submission to his will, just as Jesus was strengthened by the angel that God sent to him.6 Having received such strengthening, believers can confidently act in accordance with the will of God. Just as God did not remove Jesus’ cup from him, God may not remove from believers the cups that he has given them to bear. However, he will give them the strength to act in accordance with his will. A believer imitates Jesus’ model prayer in such situations by praying persistently and then trusting God to give them the strength to act according to his will.

When one reads the book of Acts, he notices believers in the early Christian church behaving similarly to the way that Jesus did. He notices that Paul was facing times of trouble when he was about to go out on what is known as his second missionary journey. Paul had indicated his desire to return to the churches that had been established during his first journey. He was certainly expecting hardships along the way due to the fact that he had experienced hardships during his first journey.7 In Pisidian Antioch the Jews “spoke abusively against what Paul was saying”8 and “expelled them from the region.”9 In Iconium the disciples faced a plot, “to mistreat and stone them.”10 In Lystra, Paul actually was stoned to the point where people suspected that he was dead.11 He had certainly faced strong opposition on his first missionary journey. Now that he was expecting to return to these places where he had faced such opposition, it is only a logical step to think that he was expecting to face similar opposition again.

With Paul anticipating such hardships, the actions of the believers were similar to Jesus’ actions in the garden. After they had prayed, Paul went out, even though he did not know whether or not he would be freed from the hardships he anticipated. It turns out that Paul did face trials on this journey. He was flogged and thrown into prison.12 He was forced to remain outside of Thessalonica.13 He was mocked by philosophers.14 Yet, through it all, God gave him the strength to do that to which he had been called. That is, God gave him the strength to continue to preach the gospel. Paul may not have wanted to face such hardships, but he knew that it was God’s will for him to preach the gospel. Therefore, he prayed and then carried out God’s will.

While these two examples seem to point fairly certainly to the fact that Luke wants believers to pray and then to act in accordance with the will of God as it is made known to them, these examples must be reconciled with the seemingly contradictory account recorded in Acts 21. In Acts 20:22, Paul revealed his plans to travel to Jerusalem. He said that he was, δεδεμένος…τῷ πνεύματι. The NIV translates this as, “compelled by the Spirit.” Scholars differ as to whether or not τῷ πνεύματι refers to the third person of the trinity or not because the term can be ambiguous even when it includes the article. Some commentators have sided with the NIV that this was The Holy Spirit that was compelling Paul towards such a course of action.15 However, others have been of the opinion that this was Paul’s own spirit.16 The best interpretation seems to be that this desire is of divine origin because Paul goes on to explain in verse 24 that he wants to do this in order to, “finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace.” It’s very clear that Paul views traveling to Jerusalem as one of the means by which he will accomplish this God given task. Yet, the context does seem to indicate the Holy Spirit compelling others to give a different report to Paul.17 The problem lies therein. If Luke is trying to emphasize that believers should submit their will to God’s, and the disciples “urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem”…”through the Spirit”, it seems strange that Luke would record Paul going against that urging without any negative tone whatsoever.
The key to understanding this section lies in understanding New Testament prophecy. Paul wrote on this matter in 1 Corinthians. In chapter fourteen he said, “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.”18
Paul does not place New Testament prophecy above discernment. In fact, discerning of prophecy is said to be a gift that naturally accompanied the gift of prophecy.19 It seems that when God provided his congregations with people with the gift of prophecy, he also provided those congregations with other people to discern such prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 14:38, Paul wrote εἰ δέ τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοεῖται. BDAG directs the reader to pick up on, “the juxtaposition of active and passive”.20 If someone is guilty of this disregarding, he is disregarded by someone else. One person would evaluate the prophecy of another, and if it was not in line with the directions given by God, such a prophet would be ignored. This entire section shows that Paul did not view prophets of the New Testament age as infallible. He said, in verse 32, “spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.” Lenski explained this concept of the “spirit of prophets” by saying, “we would call these spirits of the prophets their souls, the immaterial part of their being which receives impressions from the divine Spirit and from his Word.”21 The thought that these prophets received impressions in their souls is crucial. The Holy Spirit gave impressions to these people and the prophets chose to do with it as they willed, whether it be speak, remain silent, or interpret. The impression that God gave to the prophets in Acts 21 becomes evident in verse 11, where the following actions of a prophet named Agabus are recorded, “he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, ‘The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’’” The text indicates that the impression that was given to these prophets was that Paul would be bound by the Jews of Jerusalem if he set foot there. Apparently the prophets interpreted this to mean that Paul ought to not go to Jerusalem. However, it seems that Paul had received an impression that he ought to go to Jerusalem. Therefore, Paul’s actions must not be understood as contrary to the revealed will of God, but rather that he understood God’s warning and was ready to face hardships for the gospel.22

Even in this section the believers pray similarly to the model prayer of Jesus by saying, “The Lord’s will be done.”23 While their will certainly was that Paul would not go to Jerusalem, when they realized that God was allowing another course of action to take place, they again submitted their will to God’s. Rather than contradicting the thought that believers should submit their will to God’s, this section reaffirms it all the more.

In the biblical books that Luke was the author of, when prayer is mentioned, it clearly encourages believers to follow the model prayer of Jesus by praying, in faith, that God’s will, rather than ours, be done.

1.Luke 22:42
2.Luke 22:43,44
3.Lenski Luke, p. 1076
4.Ylvisaker p. 697
5.Baugher, p. 402,403
6.Luke 22:43
7.Acts 15:36
8.Acts 13:45
9.Acts 13:50
10.Acts 14:5
11.Acts 14:19
12.Acts 16:23
13.Acts 17:9
14.Acts 17:18,32
15.Balge p.220
16.Lenski Acts p. 841
17.Acts 21:4
18.1 Corinthians 14:29
19.Lenski 1 Corinthians, p.622
20.P. 13
21.Lenski 1 Corinthians p. 623
22.Acts 21:13
23.Acts 21:14

“Works Cited”
Balge, Richard D. Acts. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1988. 220. Print.
The People's Bible.
Baugher, H. Louis Annotations on the Gospel According to St. Luke. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1895. 402-03. Print. The Lutheran Commentary.
Frederick, Danker W., and Bauer Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and other Early Christian Literature. Third ed. Chicago And London: The
University of Chicago Press, 2000. 12-13. Print.
Lenski H. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel. Columbus: The Wartburg Press,
1946. 1073-77. Print.
Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the
Corinthians. Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1935. 621-23. Print.
Lenski, R.C H. The Interpretation of The Acts of The Apostles. Columbus: The
Wartburg Press, 1944. 841. Print.
Ylvisaker, Johs. The Gospels: A Synoptic Presentation of the Text in Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1932. 694-99. Print.

Scar Tissue

2009-11-09T16:54:00.003-06:00

We're quickly approaching the fourth anniversary of my ACL tear. I've been thinking lately that I need to stop using that as an excuse. Sure, my ACL was initially responsible for my weight gain and decline in athletic ability, but I've been fully recovered for about three years now. It's time to start attributing those things to too much soda/beer and too many afternoon naps.

So, today, instead of napping I went to play basketball. I played pretty well for about three games (1's up to 11). I was shutting down a much quicker player and hit a game winning three. Then right near the end of the third game, I tweaked my knee. I was considerably slower (and that's saying something) for the next game or so, and now I'm walking with some difficulty and noticing a little bit of puffiness above my knee cap.

Would this have happened if I hadn't done a number to my knee the last time I was a senior? Of course not. Then again, would this have happened if I were in better shape and carrying less weight? Probably not. In other words, the ACL tear still influences who I am and what I experience today, but I can't blame everything that happens to me on that bad landing. As with all things that happen to me on the basketball court and pretty much in the rest of life, I try to apply this concept to a broader context. There are so many parallels I see.

The first that comes to mind is this summer. I had a really tough last semester. Coming into the summer I was still in a lot of pain. Would I have had such a frustrating summer had I not been hurting in the ways that I was from the past semester? Probably not (I mean the AC job still was never for me, but that's besides the point). Then again, would I have had such a frustrating summer if I had had a better attitude about it from the beginning? Definitely. The pain played a role in the crappy summer, but I can't blame it on that when I clearly had shortfalls of my own.

I don't feel the need to go on. I can think of more that relate to me and to others. Hopefully this can be helpful to others as well. Acknowledge influence, but refuse to make excuses.

Never say, "You're wrong."

2009-11-02T20:36:00.003-06:00

I think I might start a series of posts based on Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People" that I can revisit whenever I feel the need. This book has helped me out quite a bit n dealing with others, so I thought that I'd attempt to share some of this wisdom with my reader(s) if possible.

Recently I've found myself becoming extremely frustrated by people who see things differently than I do. Maybe I've still got a bit of youthful vigor left in me. Since I have the desire to lead people to a better understanding of Christian doctrine, Christian living, and just about anything else, I want to be able to influence them as much as possible rather than turn them off to my viewpoint. So, I thought that I'd do the same thing I did the last time that desire overwhelmed me: Read the book.

The first chapter that I felt I needed to review is summed up at the end with the command, "Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say, 'You're wrong.'"

The first point that he makes in this chapter is that we, as human beings, are likely wrong just as often as we are right. He illustrated this by saying:
"Theodore Roosevelt...confessed that if he could be right 75% of the time, he would reach the highest measure of his expectation. If that was the highest rating that one of the most distinguished men of the 20th century could hope to obtain, what about you and me? If you can be sure of being right only 55% of the time, you can go down to Wall St. and make a million dollars a day. If you can't be sure of being right even 55% of the time, why should you tell other people that they are wrong?"

When dealing with issues of differing opinion, it's easy to see yourself as being right and the other person being completely in the wrong. This is a huge issue for me. When I come to a conviction, it's incredibly difficult for me to see the issue the other way. However, if I let people know that I've come to this conviction that they are in error, this certainly does not make them want to agree with me.

So, how can I show respect for someone else's opinions if I'm thoroughly convinced that I'm right and that they're not? Carnegie makes the point that you can show someone that you believe they're in error just as eloquently "by a look or an intonation or a gesture" as it can in words. If that happens, "you may then hurl at them all the logic of a Plato or an Immanuel Kant, but you will not alter their opinions, for you have hurt their feelings."

He recommends that, "If you are going to prove anything, don't let anybody know it. Do it so subtly, so adroitly, that no one will feel that you are doing it." Perhaps statements like these are the ones that have led to people calling me a manipulator, but I'm not concerned with that. Another book I read made the point that if you're going to influence someone, it ought to serve both both your good and theirs. That's not manipulation; it's leadership.

He quotes Lord Chesterfield saying, "Be wiser than other people if you can; but do not tell them so." I've got the first part down (I jest); I just need to work on the second. One way to do that is to straight up admit the possibility that I may be wrong. It won't get me in trouble. If anything, it will encourage open mindedness on the part of my opponent.

The one quote in this chapter that really changed the way I view the world was, "Few people are logical. Most of us are prejudiced and biased. Most of us are blighted with preconceived notions, with jealousy, suspicion, fear, envy and pride." Once you hear it, it seems so obvious. Yet, how often don't we expect others to be persuaded by impeccable logic, no matter how abrasively it may be presented. That won't convince on anyone.

Ultimately, if you can't convince someone of your point of view, that's ok. Carnegie tells a story about Martin Luther King. Once he was asked how he could be an admirer of an Air Force general, even though King was a pacifist. He replied, "I judge people by their own principles--not my own." While I don't think that we should necessarily apply this when it comes to matters of clear sin among Christians, there's still something important to be learned there. We shouldn't try to make people the same as we are in all aspects. Instead, we should attempt to lead them to uphold what is important to them. So, if they see something differently than we do and we can't change that, we can't think of them negatively for carrying out their convictions.

All this will certainly help us when dealing with people that we disagree with. This review has certainly been beneficial for me. I hope that others will also benefit from it.

Life's not fair

2009-11-02T10:53:00.001-06:00

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I’d like to share with you the play by play of an interaction that took place too many times to count at my family’s dinner table between my dad and me. You see, when I was between the ages of about twelve and twenty, I was regularly frustrated by events that took place in my life in which I perceived myself to be getting the short end of the stick. Whether it was a decision that my dad was making, the “no band shirts” rule in high-school, some new or old governmental policy, or just about anything else, I would find myself extremely worked up. So, when dinner would roll around, I’d start complaining. I’d expose every flaw in the situation and my discourse would usually end with a passionate statement of, “It’s just not fair.” My dad would usually then respond with, “Life’s not fair; get used to it.” And I can see it so clearly in my mind: My angsty, rebellious, adolescent self would get red in the face, probably start shaking a little bit and then just say, “Dad, that’s ridiculous! Just because there are things in life that are unfair doesn’t mean that we should just sit back and accept them and not work towards making life more fair.” And the argument would go on. In my mind I would win it every time, but it remained unresolved and would come up yet again the next time the world was out to get me.

Then, one day, I saw a quote on my brother’s facebook page. It said, “Life isn’t fair. It’s far better than we deserve.” And that really put things in perspective for me. God has blessed us more richly than we could have ever asked for. Every one of us has broken God’s law in countless ways. We don’t deserve anything from him. We don’t even deserve this time of grace on this earth that he’s granted to us. But, despite all that, he chose to send his son to endure hell in our place. That was truly an incredible, unfair blessing beyond anything we could think to deserve that God graciously chose to give to us. Anything that God chooses to give to us beyond that is just our loving God giving us even more blessings that we don’t deserve. Yet, so often all we can focus on are the things that he’s chosen to withhold from us.

With the state that our church body, the economy and your personal life may be in, it can be easy to focus on the ways that God has chosen not to bless us; and that may seem unfair. Maybe we find ourselves looking at the way that the ministries of some heterodox church bodies are thriving and wonder why God isn’t choosing to bless us financially. And we probably don’t think that this is fair. After all, we’re one of two orthodox church bodies on this continent, you’d think God would help us out, right? Maybe you’re finding yourself struggling or unable to make tuition payments because you couldn’t find a job this summer because of the condition of the economy. I mean, you’re studying for public gospel ministry. It doesn’t seem fair that God allowed all those jobs to be taken by people studying for “less noble” vocations? And don’t we find ourselves amazingly frustrated when our lives aren’t playing out as smoothly as we’d like them to? Why would God allow bad things to happen to people who serve him with their lives? Why does he allow people we love to be taken from us? Or our parents to split up? Or our relationships to fail? It’s just not fair! Let’s be honest, there are a lot of difficult things in our lives that God has chosen not to free us from, and that may lead us to question how much God has really blessed us in this life in times when it seems like he isn’t being fair.

But in all of this questioning, we ignore the incredible blessings that God has given to us in addition to his redeeming grace. When we find ourselves wondering why he hasn’t financially blessed our orthodox church body so that we could carry out our ministry the way that we think would be best, we ignore his guiding hand that has graciously guided us into orthodoxy. When we’re frustrated about our own financial instability, we ignore the way that he provides for us day to day, giving us immensely more than we need to sustain our bodies. And when we find ourselves crushed by God taking from us the people and the relationships we can’t imagine our lives without, we ignore the blessings that God did provide us with through them. In all of these situations, we ignore the incredible fact that even though God has already blessed us infinitely more than we deserve by giving us eternal life, he even extends incredible blessings to us in this life.

Sometimes we still may be overwhelmed by the difficulties of life and the way that it seems unfair. But, when we feel that way, we need to remember that God being unfair was the best thing to ever happen to us. It’s not fair that God would die in our place, but thanks be to God that life isn’t fair! So, when the rest of our earthly lot seems unfair, instead of focusing on what God hasn’t given us, bask in the grace of our God. He has blessed us more than we could ever deserve, both in this life and for all of eternity.

Let’s focus on these blessings as we read our text for tonight:

He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains.
11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 The birds of the air nest by the waters;
they sing among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from his upper chambers;
the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work.
14 He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.

Dear God,
Thank you for blessing us infinitely more than we deserve. Please forgive us for the times that we have selfishly focused on how we would like our lives to be different rather than on how you’ve blessed us. Please help us to focus on the incredible blessings that you’ve given to us for this life and the next.
We pray in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Accidental association part deux

2009-09-09T02:02:00.003-05:00

One of the last times I wrote a blog it was a rather whiny post about accidental association. I've noticed that it's happened again. Ironically, it happened in connection with the time period I referred to in that post. During that time I would often get sad, so one of the healthier ways I dealt with this sadness was to listen to one playlist on my computer repeatedly. It was the, "Be Happy" playlist. It's a good one, including songs from Five Iron Frenzy, Bowling for Soup and Weezer among others. Tonight I was feeling like I could use a little pick me up, so I put that play list on again. When I listened to it, it took me back to that time when I was so frequently sad.

Be careful with your use of the doctrine of affections. This can make some good music less enjoyable.

The hours wasted watching tv and drinking beer

2009-05-11T13:46:00.007-05:00

I woke up about 25 minutes before my first exam this morning and found myself in a surprisingly reflective mood. Perhaps it just hit me that I'm 3/4 done with college. My first thought this morning was honestly, "If I had these three years to do over again, what would I do differently?" My thoughts ran to two things immediately. I would have been more gentle in my approach to people and their decisions to drink during my freshmen year, and I would have made better choices during my sophomore year.

I have never once bought it when someone said, "I have no regrets." I've always thought that maybe the lessons are appreciated, but if you could have learned the lessons in another way, you'd do it. Yet, for some reason this morning, I could commiserate with that thought process for the first time in my life.

If I changed one of those things, it would greatly change where I'm at today. If I hadn't struggled in my life of sanctification as I did last year, I probably wouldn't have become friends with Callie like I did. Then I carried the thought further and asked, "Well, couldn't God have just found another way to bring us together?" Of course. Nothing is impossible with God. However, I recognize the huge blessing that it was that Callie and I were good friends before we started dating. I cannot think of another way that this friendship could have developed on such a meaningful level. Even if it could have, this was the way that God chose for it to happen. I guess this is just another example of how our gracious God will bless us even in the times where we make decisions that upset him.

So, I guess in the future I'll focus on the ways that God has blessed me through the events that have happened in my life rather than thinking about what I would change if I could. I also think that this is beneficial to always be looking forward rather than back. When we have a mindset that looks forward rather than back, we can consider how we can please God in our lives today.

"One thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead"

Accidental Association

2009-05-05T21:01:00.004-05:00

Accidental Association. What an interesting phenomenon. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, I think it's best explained simply by giving examples of it. The first one that comes to mind is how I can't drink blue powerade without gagging because I always remember throwing up after I chugged two and a half liters of it. Perhaps you have a similar aversion to other beverages. It's not that I don't like blue powerade, I just can't drink it because I can't separate it in my mind from violently throwing up right outside the cafeteria and having my stomach hurt for two days after that. This is accidental association. When you accidentally associate something with another thing that's usually unrelated, but for whatever reason you can't shake the connection in your mind.

Have you ever thought about that the way you feel about the seasons of the year might be more connected to events that have occurred in those seasons in the past than with the actual characteristics of that season? For example, maybe summer's your favorite season because you've enjoyed not being in school for three months. Maybe you dread fall because it means that you have to return to the confines of school.

I think most people have probably realized associations similar to the ones listed above. Let's take it a step further. Consider, for a moment, personal associations with each of the seasons. For example, this is the first spring since I was in high-school where the feel of the warm air and the smell of a spring camp fire hasn't made me acutely aware that I was single. Is this because spring actually has anything to do with romance? Not really. However, it had been associated with that in my mind because I spent the spring of my freshman year wanting to be with someone. Then, last year everything that represented spring in my mind reminded me of that and how it went wrong. For another example, this winter was the first time in four years that I didn't feel down simply because of the hours of dark and the ice. It's as if I've been emotionally hungover because of getting burned in a three way script and tearing my ACL.

So, what about the future? Will I still hate winter? Probably. I can't help but think that winter has now been accidentally associated in my mind with being alone, being bored and not feeling like I had many good friends. Oh well. Maybe some day I'll go more than two years without having a winter that really really sucks.

P.S.: Sorry for whining. I didn't really realize how whiny this would be until I was well into it. I just thought it was an interesting concept.

They won't play this song on the radio

2009-04-29T19:39:00.004-05:00

You know what irritates me? Songs that talk about how they won't be played on the radio. What's the point? I'm guessing that most bands that do this aren't trying to say, "Yup. This song is crap." More likely it seems they're trying to prove that they're part of some sub-culture that's too good for the radio. Save it. If you really were content with not getting mainstream recognition, you wouldn't sing about it.

2009-04-11T22:11:00.003-05:00

It's hard to start blogging again when you haven't in a long time. I also find myself feeling unqualified to have a blog. Why would people read what I write? Perhaps to keep up with what's happening in my life, but just a small amount of facebook stalking could do that just as well. I'm feeling less and less like I have the authority to shed new light on important subjects. It also seems like people don't quite have the interest to hear the thoughts that come out of my mind. Perhaps some day soon I will have some great epiphany and I'll have something that I need to share with the world, but for now, I'm having trouble getting over this writer's block.

Word of the Day

2009-01-11T20:50:00.003-06:00

Puberulent: Covert with fine pubescence.

E.G.: I found myself wanting to sing along with the Fine Arts piece, but unfortunately I was too puberulent.

The Wages of Work is Taxes

2009-01-05T03:44:00.002-06:00

Rumor has it that cigarette taxes will be increased by $2 a pack nation wide in an effort to get people to stop smoking. This leads me to wonder:

If the government expects the result of a hiked tax on cigarettes to be that people stop smoking, what is the expected result of a hiked tax on wages?

2008-12-22T02:44:00.002-06:00

I went Christmas shopping today. I realized that I've now passed the age where store clerks harass me as soon as I walk into a store because they expect me to steal everything I can whenever given the opportunity (16-20 year olds, take note....you can't walk into a store without being harassed). I'm now at the age where they simply ignore me because they don't expect me to spend much money. I think I'd rather have them assume that I'm going to steal stuff, because at least I have someone to talk to when I can't find stuff. For real, how am I supposed to locate that hard to find item in a huge store? I can't wait until I have them fooled into thinking that I might actually spend a fair amount of money. Little will they know....

Homecoming

2008-12-18T23:46:00.003-06:00

I came home today. That's always an interesting experience. It seems that there are new buildings that have been built by my house every time I come home. I think that tonight I was first able to put my finger on one thing that I love about Appleton. When we pulled onto good old US 41, the northbound lanes had enough traffic that the three lanes were full, but we were still able to cruise along close to 65. That's just a perfect feeling. You feel like there are people around you, that you're not in the middle of nowhere, but you don't have the inconvenience of having to wait in traffic forever. I've never spent time in another city with that feeling. Just one of the many reasons that I love coming back home.

The old bastard had a paradigm arrest

2008-12-16T13:48:00.002-06:00

I was reading through some of my old blogs, and I read one about Ben Folds' song, "Bastard". (Kids today gettin' old too fast they can't wait to grow up....) I wrote it after I realized that his song was ripping on people like me who were young and had conservative political views. I proudly ended the post by saying that I am that old bastard and that I would be for the rest of my life. Guess what. I was wrong.

Two and a half years later I am now no longer that old bastard, but am the young person that Ben Folds thinks that young people should be. (I'm not looking back on my past self grudgingly, I'm just noting the changes that have taken place.) Winston Churchill was liberal when he was a young man and said that this is a natural part of life. I used to think that I had somehow transcended that, but I have not. The only thing preventing me from changing my political views to "liberal" on facebook is the twisted view of the word "liberal" that people have because of the democratic party today. Perhaps it's the emotional nature of being young and growing up, but I look for more than the so called "conservative" solution to problems. I believe that people should be free and that government is the problem. Perhaps some day I'll believe that the government is wiser than the average individual and I'll become that old bastard, but I hope not.

Fire Ted Thompson

2008-12-07T19:36:00.004-06:00

The Packers went from 13-3 and one slipped pass away from the Super Bowl to a team that's 5-8 and almost certainly not going to make the playoffs. So frustrating. We can blame this on any number of factors, but one things remains: The only big difference between the personnel of the two teams is the quarterback. This can be traced back to one man. Ted Thompson. Fire him.

84 days......

2008-12-04T02:08:00.006-06:00

I'm not sure I've ever published these thoughts before, but 2:11 AM when your mind is overwhelmed by a thousand other things is the perfect time for meaningful disclosures to a blind audience.

Over the past three years or so I've become very much unpatriotic. People are so proud of America and think that it's the best country in the world because it's "the land of the free". I can't buy into this thought. Maybe we've lost it; Maybe it never existed, but the America that we've been told about since we were three years old is not the America that we have today. The people here are simply not free. Their lives are controlled by the government just like the lives of people in other countries. It was smoking bans that led me to realize this. It's the drinking age that's kept it going.

Ronald Reagan once said,
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Doesn't it just give you shivers? That Ronald Reagan had a way with words. Well, it's because of men like Ronald Reagan that I'm stuck hearing from my parents and grandparents what it was like in the United States where men were free. Maybe they say that men are free, but I'm not seeing it. Ronald Reagan pushed the legislation that blackmailed the states into raising the drinking age to 21. How could a man with this view of freedom do such a horrible thing?

But, it'll all be over in 12 weeks, right?

Wrong. An injustice that doesn't affect me is an injustice none the less. Oppression that isn't aimed at me is still oppression. I'll never be able to appreciate Ronald Reagan as I did before I knew about this dirty little secret. I'll never be able to appreciate America like I did before I first walked into a forcibly smoke free bar.

I pray that some day I see the America that I was promised. But I doubt it.

God Bless America.

Hail to the Chief

2008-12-02T15:29:00.001-06:00

It's been almost a month since the election and I've stayed conveniently silent about the results. I didn't vote for Obama. I don't need to pretend like I did. I'll support him in the sense that I'll recognize his authority as God's representative. This doesn't mean that I'll pretend to be happy that he won. If I hear one more person say that people should get behind our president in response to a person who voices their frustration in our nation's choice, I might be physically sick. Where has that been for the last 6 years?

One thing I can promise you is that I will honestly evaluate every decision he's made and won't immediately write off everything he does simply because I didn't vote for him.

So, even though the man hasn't gotten into office yet, I'd like to comment on a couple of things he's done during this transitional period.

According to NPR, Barack Obama has had his staff reviewing the federal budget line by line to eliminate unnecessary programs or inefficient parts of certain programs. Praise the Lord! That's the kind of fiscal discipline we haven't seen in the last eight years, and it's exactly what our country needs. In the approximately 3 minutes that I considered voting for Obama, the most attractive thing about him was that he doesn't have the misconception that so many republicans seem to that it's ok to cut taxes and raise spending. So, way to go, Mr. President elect. You're one up on our last president already.

I am, however, terribly amused by one of his decisions for his cabinet. He's decided that Gates will stay on board as defense secretary. Barack, you ran your whole campaign until the stock market fell by criticizing the war and how it was being run. You kept saying that the surge was a failure. Now, you're keeping the person who is perhaps most responsible for these things. This shows me that you're willing to say whatever people want to hear in order to get elected, but don't feel that you have to stick to that once you're in office. While this does not speak well for your character, it greatly increases my confidence in you as our leader. Perhaps you won't mess things up as badly as you said you were going to. Now, let's just hope you follow suit when it comes to taxes as and health care.

I'm interested to see what he's going to do in office. It'll be fun to watch. Let's hope that these couple things aren't the only good things that come out of the Obama presidency.

I'm Tyler Shinnick and I approve this message

2008-10-27T10:28:00.002-05:00

Many people have asked me whom I'm going to vote for, and I've dodged the question pretty well for a long time, but it's come time for me to make an endorsement.

When choosing whom to vote for, I generally look at what I anticipate being the most important issues over the next four years, and I consider who is best to deal with them. I have identified these issues as:
1.The budget
2.The economy
3.The war

I'll evaluate each issue and share why I've chosen the candidate I have based on that issue.

The budget:
Over the past eight years, we've taken a considerable surplus and squandered it, resulting in a tremendous deficit that is one of the biggest issues that needs to be addressed. We simply cannot elect a candidate that will spend in the same, irresponsible manner that George Bush did while in the presidency. Now, which candidate will actually give us a fighting chance at a balanced budget? Well, if you listen to Barack Obama speak, everything is about increasing funding. Even with the proposed tax increases, the new or improved programs he's promised will drive us farther into a deficit. How about John McCain? We hear again and again that he'd be, "more of the same". Let's evaluate whether or not that's true. The biggest criticism that McCain has received from conservatives throughout his career is that he typically doesn't support tax cuts unless there are related spending cuts. Since he has proposed tax cuts, it seems as if he is intending to curb federal spending. Therefore, the candidate that is better equipped to deal with the budget is John McCain.

The economy:
Since the stock market went down a few weeks ago, the economy has been the issue that has turned the election in the favor of Obama. He has blamed George Bush and his failed economic policies for the problems we see in the stock market today. To be honest, I'm not looking for my presidential candidate to fix the stock market. I figure with the paranoia the way it is, our government will end up throwing billions of dollars at the stock market trying to solve the problems that happened four weeks ago, which would never happen again anyways. Unfortunately, we have no presidential candidate that will wave a magic wand over the stock market and make all of our problems go away. Neither predicted this. Neither is fit to solve it.
However, what we should be concerned about with the economy is the precarious position in which we are now in. Very often after the stock market drops the country enters a recession. That's almost inevitable at this point. However, the next president's economic policies will play a part in how great of a recession that is. Which candidate will drive us into a greater recession?
Never in my life have I seen a candidate whose economic policies are more pro-recession that Barack Obama. With his ridiculous taxing of the upper classes, he plans to take so much money out the pockets of the American people that we will see a considerable recession because there simply won't be as much money floating around to be spent. If you want the biggest recession we've seen in 60 years, vote Obama. If you want to see the economy stimulated by money being put back in the pockets of the American people where it belongs, vote McCain.

The war:
I think that the war is an issue that has helped people jump so blindly behind Obama's slogan of "change". Well, no matter who's elected president, the handling of the war will change. The change you see is up to you. If you want the troops to come home defeated and disgraced, vote for the candidate that will duck and run and pull the troops out (Obama). If you want a president who will not stand for a half-assed war attempt, but will persevere and push towards as quick of a victory as possible, vote for the veteran (McCain).

One more thing:
I just want you all to be aware that if you vote for Barack Obama, you are voting for a socialist. Not only a socialist, but one who has a majority in both houses and will be able to easily enact many socialist policies. We're talking redistribution of the wealth, government controlled health care, more economic regulation than you can imagine. If this is what you want, go ahead, vote for him. But be well aware of what you are doing to the country you live in.

So, I encourage you all to vote for John McCain. While he has not campaigned well, he is certainly the most equipped of the given candidates to carry out the duties of the presidency at this time.

Vote John McCain 2008.

I'm Tyler Shinnick and I approve this message.

Don't fly faster than your guardian angel can fly

2008-09-04T20:19:00.002-05:00

You know what I say to you, Mr. Guardian Angel?

Race me.

Hiccups

2008-08-28T14:49:00.004-05:00

Have you ever noticed that everyone you meet is an expert when it comes to getting rid of hiccups? If you ever have the hiccups and you're around other people, I can almost guarantee that you'll get all these suggestions of techniques that are supposed to be new and different and better than anything that you could come up with. For real. Sometimes it's ok to just sit back and let a person fix their own hiccups.

You can’t expect protection if you won’t accept concern

2008-05-11T16:45:00.001-05:00

Concern can manifest itself in many different ways. There are two ways in which concern seems to be shown more than others, especially when dealing with the male gender. If a male believes that a female is in danger from an external source, whether it’s physical, social or emotional danger, his concern is very likely to show itself in that he’ll become very protective. If a male believes that a female is potentially in danger of causing herself harm, he’s likely to demonstrate that by talking to her, attempting to understand where she’s coming from, and explaining his concern to her. In both situations, the driving force behind the action is concern for another individual. It is ultimately the same concern, only the danger is perceived to be from different sources.

In my life, I’ve noticed that girls are very often quite accepting of protection from outside sources, as long as it’s done within reason and doesn’t interfere with her desires. It makes her feel safe. It makes her feel like the guy cares about her. However, I’ve noticed that when a guy shows concern about a girl’s actions, there is much more of a mixed reaction. This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, I guess. It’s human nature to always believe that you’re in the right. After all, why would a person do something if they didn’t believe it was right, or at least justifiable? Even Al Capone, who was one of America’s most notorious public enemies, considered himself to be a public benefactor. So, why should we expect the people we deal with to be any different? Even if we have a very legitimate concern and know that they’ll end up hurting themselves, we shouldn’t expect them to see it the same way. So, understanding this, males should attempt to understand the actions of the friend that he’s concerned about and communicate those concerns in a way that is not attacking, but realizing that the actions of the girl are not irrational. After all, anything worth disagreeing about has two reasonable sides to it.

While the way in which guys bring up their concerns about the actions of a female are admittedly less than perfect, I’m bothered by the reactions that their concerns are often met with. I’d encourage any women out there to realize that the concerns that men bring to them are purely motivated by the care that those guys have for them. I’d encourage you to stay away from responses similar to, “It’s my problem.” “It’s not your concern.” “I can take care of myself.” Those responses are a problem because the concerns are motivated by the care that a guy has for you. That’s the same care that you’re so ready to accept and expect when it comes to protecting you. If you tell them that your problems are not their concern, it’s only a matter of time until that becomes far truer than you’d like. So please, ladies, accept the concerns that your male friends bring to you. If you refuse to do that, you can not expect them to offer you any sort of protection.

Monday night Christians

2008-05-05T21:18:00.004-05:00

At some point last year, I got into the habit of going to church on Monday night. Perhaps it was because I'm lazy and I like sleep, but I started going on Monday night just about every week. As I went more and more, my appreciation for Monday night worship and Monday night worshippers grew. It seems that Monday night worshippers are often forgotten about by most people in the congregation. They don't usually get the choirs to sing, and the people who go there regularly are somewhat separated from the rest of the congregation. On top of that, they come in on a weeknight, when they're probably tired from work or whatever they do, when they have a million other things they could be doing. Despite all this, they still come. Many of them are there every week. There are no ulterior motives. They're not here because people will admire them for being in church every Sunday. They're people that I've come to appreciate, and I hope that I'll continue to have an appreciation for them throughout my ministry.

So, here's to the Monday night Christians. I salute you.

So many choices

2008-04-30T12:48:00.003-05:00

At MLC, most of the sets of urinals in the bathrooms come in even numbers. Ridiculous. Anyways, this causes problems, because there's often no obvious urinal to choose, especially when no one else is in the bathroom. Today, I walked into the bathroom where there's a set of two urinals and no one was in there. My thought process in choosing a urinal up until this point has always been subconscious. However, today, I noticed it. I definitely chose the urinal where it appeared that the urinal cake would be more destroyed when I was through with it. There's just something about being responsible for the complete demolition of a urinal cake. There's nothing better.

Yep, that'll hold

2008-04-21T17:31:00.003-05:00

The printer in the 4th floor Concord computer lab has not been working for the past few days. Since the computer in my room hasn't been working, I've been in here a fair amount. It seems every time someone came in here to print something, they'd look at it, open it up and attempt to fix it. The computer hasn't been working for four days, what makes you think you'll have the magic touch, especially if you don't know a thing about technology? I think it comes along with the Y-chromosome. If you see something not working, it doesn't matter what level of expertise you have, you've gotta try to fix it, or at least look like you're trying to fix it. Last weekend I was attempting to fix someone's car. I was doing everything I could, and the techniques I was using were correct, but every time a guy walked past, he had to stop and try and help. Usually it'd just be something along the lines of, "Yeah, that's right." Every so often there would be someone who'd stop be and say, "Let me try." Then they'd either proceed to try the same thing I was, or doing something completely wrong. I guess it's just sort of a funny tendency that we have to need to prove ourselves.

I guess that the female readers can learn a valuable lesson: If you ever want to have guys swarming around you, simply open your hood and stand by it.

It's in the air

2008-04-18T01:23:00.005-05:00

I'm a fan of spring time. There's nothing like getting back outside after a long winter and just doing stuff. Spring time to me means putting off school work, grilling out, hanging out around a fire, smoking cigars and just enjoying God's creation. That being said, there seems to be something in the air that all of a sudden seems to make everyone become incredibly nostalgic. I haven't quite figured out what it is. Perhaps it's that spring time is always associated with an end and with change. Two years ago in spring time I was dreading graduation and moving away from all my friends. Last year I was one of those freshman that could hardly believe the year was over and thought I'd miss all my friends so much over the summer. I've got no reason to be nostalgic this year, really, but I found myself slipping into that mood. I was out driving around tonight and I said something like, "Man, this has really been an interesting year." All of a sudden I felt the nostalgia sweeping in like the breeze on a warm spring evening. It was weird.

What caused this momentary nostalgic feeling? I'm not sure. I've had a good year. I've grown a lot. I've made new friendships and strengthened old ones. I don't think I should be longing for the way things were before this year happened. On the other hand, I've made mistakes this year. I've hurt people. I've damaged relationships. I've seen friends make mistakes. I've had friends who've left. It's not like I've had a perfect year. I'm not dreading the end of it as if nothing could ever be better. So, this nostalgic feeling to me simply does not make sense.

Perhaps the weather is simply reminding me of last spring. The good times I had. The pain I felt. Maybe it's just causing a rush of memories that are a bit overwhelming all at once, so they're felt in a bundle. I don't know.

For whatever reason it may be, I have a tendency to feel this way at this time of year. Now that I realize this, I'm going to try to avoid this feeling. I've got no reason to feel that way. Life is going well. I've got great things waiting for me this summer. I'm going to come back here in fall and make things even better here. Why feel so down?

Let my love open the door

2008-04-07T01:48:00.004-05:00

Tonight I was approaching the front door to Concord/Augustana. It's common courtesy that if you're standing in front of the door, talking to someone before you go through the agony of departing to go to separate dorms, you open the door for whoever approaches. Well, tonight I was walking up and a certain couple apparently found themselves so enthralled by each other that they were unable to take a step forward and open the door. It's not hard. The door's not even heavy. They probably could've even just leaned over and pushed it open, without even moving their feet. But, no. They were so interested in what apparently could not wait a second and a half that they left me and my fellow walkers to unlock the door for ourselves. That's just rude. If I had been in a more confrontational mood, and it wouldn't have embarassed the people I was with, I probably would've knocked and waited for them to open the door.

Don't leave your fellow students in the cold. You can do it. You can postpone your already frequently interrupted conversation another second and a half. You can even postpone that embrace you've been hoping for all day. But, for goodness' sake, open the freaking door.

Why I blog

2008-03-31T16:19:00.003-05:00

Today I kind of stumbled back upon some older posts that I made like during my senior year. It reminded me why I blog. These blog posts are a glimpse into my life. Whether you're reliving something that you experienced with me, hearing about something I did when you weren't with me, or if it provides me with an opportunity to reflect back on my life and relive some of my own experiences, it sheds some light into my thoughts and feelings at the time of posting. At some posts I'm simply amused by what some have referred to as my "youthful indiscretion" that was so present during that time. Other posts remind me of the pain and nostalgia that was very much weighing on me as I was separated from my basketball career and my friends earlier than I would've liked. I love reliving the simplicity of my struggle with the drinking age. No matter what the posts remind me of, it's valuable for me to look back and remember the experiences that have molded me into the person I am today.

So often these days, I won't write a blog unless I have something absolutely profound to say. I'd love to return to just writing every day or two just with whatever was on my mind. Perhaps it's time to get back to just writing random thoughts every once in a while. Alright, here goes nothing:

I use the phrase, "kind of" way too much. I noticed this during my speech today. Maybe it was because I wasn't as confident in my research as I should've been (this is probably due to doing the vast majority of it on Wikipedia), but it was as if I were afraid to make a strong statement, so I'd just throw in a "kind of". Perhaps this is just a further proof of the fear of commitment that I discovered in my last post. I guess I should just be more confident in my speaking. I'll just be like: "This is how it is. There's no kind of about it."

Life Lessons from a Cheddar Quesadilla

2008-03-22T15:01:00.004-05:00

Over the past couple of days I've spent a lot of time on my own. My dad and my brother went to visit my brother's fiancee both yesterday and today, and I, being the basketball addict that I am, chose to stay at the hotel and watch basketball. With the exception of about a ten minute phone call, a few too many text messages, and random conversations with hotel/restaurant employees, I've been left to myself interacting only with my internal monologue. I think it's good to spend some time by yourself every once in a while. It gives you a chance to reflect without too many distractions. Sometimes you learn things about yourself from objects you'd never expect. I understand myself a little better now, because of an experience I had with a cheddar quesadilla at the Del Taco across the road from the hotel.

My dad left me with more money for lunch than I needed, so naturally, I got more food for lunch than I needed. I ordered a #6 meal from Del Taco, which is similar to a #7 meal from Taco Bell. You get a quesadilla and two tacos. I also ordered a grilled chicken soft taco, since that's something that's not offered at Taco Bell. Of course, when I got my food I went straight for the quesadilla because they're the shizzit. I started on the outside, with the little piece. It was way too hot. So, I ate the chicken soft taco. Then I went back to the quesadilla, still too hot. So, I ate one of the two tacos that came with the meal. I tried the quesadilla again, it was at a slightly uncomfortable eating temperature, but the cheese was at just about perfectly melted. I decided that I would hold out on it until it was at a perfectly comfortable eating temperature. So, I ate the last taco. When I returned to the last half of my quesadilla, it was a little cold and the cheese had become harder. It was far from the ideal quesadilla experience.

What did I learn about myself from this over-sized lunch?
I have a fear of commitment.

I've joked from time to time about having a fear of commitment, but I didn't think it was real. Well, it is. I didn't want to eat the quesadilla when it was good and ready to be eaten because I didn't want to miss out on the perfect quesadilla experience. In my search of perfection, I didn't receive excellence. Instead, I received a sub-par eating experience. Could this really be bigger than just eating a quesadilla?

Maybe this explains some of the sub-par speeches I've written this year for my speech class. I'll get a good idea, but I don't want to commit to that idea because something better could come along. Whether or not a better idea comes along, I so often spend so much time searching for that great idea, that I'm left with so little time that I end up writing a mediocre speech.

Perhaps it explains the lack of romantic relationships in my life. Let's say that I start to like a girl and she shows interest in me. Although I may desire a relationship, I'll often find reasons why it's not quite right to pursue at the moment. Maybe she's not quite perfect enough. Maybe she's got a couple flaws that I'd like to have her work out before I start anything. Maybe there are other people that I'm more ready for. The point is that I'm afraid to commit to any one person until I'm convinced that everything is perfect. Then, the ideal circumstances come and go, and I'm distracted by everything else I've got on my plate.

The goal of self-analysis is, of course, not only to realize tendencies, but to fix the ones that need fixing. So, I shouldn't get so distracted by the tacos on my plate that the quesadilla becomes cold. Alright, we're gonna give that a shot.

Georgia, the whole week through

2008-03-18T22:15:00.002-05:00

I spent the last week on a TCW (Travel, Canvass, Witness) trip in Georgia. Quite the experience.

It was enjoyable to be able to help the church out with some work they needed done. I often get frustrated that I spend so much time studying at school, and it feels like it's almost time wasted. Sure, I'm learning a lot and will be very well prepared to serve some day in a congregation or some other setting, but what about now? It seems that sitting up on top of that hill is really accomplishing very little at this time. I know that preparation is important, but I often feel like I could do more with my time. That's why I feel that it's so important to spend my summers accomplishing some kind of service. It's so refreshing to get out there and actually do something that matters now. Even if it's just doing grunt work and moving the pastor's desk into his new office downstairs. Although it might not be exactly what I have in mind that I'm preparing for, it serves as a reminder that some day, I will be out there and doing the Lord's work full time. I can't wait.

I learned a lot about the public ministry:
It's interesting to see the many ways people find to work in less than standard settings. The rewards are great. When I got a lady's contact information as a serious prospect for the church and pre-school, it was quite the feeling. It was such an honor to have been used by the Holy Spirit in that way. I pray that he chooses to do that in the future. There are also many challenges. I think I might struggle in a setting like that simply because I'm not as creative as many people are. So, I'll learn as much as I can about what seems to work and what doesn't. Hopefully I can pick up enough ideas that I'll know what to do if I'm ever put in a situation like that.

This confirmed my suspicion of what the social life of a pastor can be. It's been my fear that the life of a pastor could be lonely. That he is always "the pastor", and it takes other people a lot to get past that. Since we spent a lot of time with people at least somewhat close to the pastor, I noticed that they still viewed him as "the pastor" more than a friend, even when they were completely outside of church work. That concerns me, as a person who is preparing to enter the public ministry. At least at this point, I'm kind of afraid to go into a profession where I'll have very few true friends. That's one reason that I really want to get married before I graduate from the seminary. I think I'd have a tough time serving in a congregation with no one to go through it with me. Maybe I should get on finding someone to accompany me on that crazy journey....

Oh yeah, it was a good time too. Spending all that time with a good group of guys, getting to meet some cool people from the congregation, and hitting up downtown Atlanta (before the tornado came through).....it made for an enjoyable week.

If you have the opportunity to go on such a trip, do it.

Gotta love the midwest

2008-01-29T10:08:00.000-06:00

Yesterday on campus we had a high of about 40 degrees. It was nice that it was finally getting warmer out. The high for today thus far is 27. The crazy part is that that was recorded at 12:00 am. Since then it has plummeted 32 degrees down to -5. Where else could you get this craziness but the midwest? It's the craziest thing out there. Half the snow is melted, but there's a windchill advisory. What the H? Under no circumstances should the weather be declining so quickly that yesterday's low and today's high were recorded a minute apart from each other. Why couldn't it have just stayed warm? I enjoyed walking around in a t-shirt.

I know it's considered by social experts to be a worthless, easy way out to talk about the weather, but something had to break the silence on my blog, and this provided me the perfect opportunity to complain about something while I was at it.

The role of Terrance and Phillip in South Park

2008-01-02T00:47:00.000-06:00

When I was younger, I didn't like South Park because all I could pick up from it was the vulgarity. I failed to see all the social commentary that is such an integral part of the show. As I've gotten older, become more comfortable with vulgarity and started evaluating tv shows below the surface, South Park has become one of my favorite tv shows. However, there was one portion of the show that I could not appreciate until very recently. That part was Terrance and Phillip. Now, I realize the role of Terrance and Phillip in contributing to the show, and I certainly appreciate the show and the brilliance of the writers more now, so I'd like to share my thought on the topic with you.

Terrance and Phillip are two Canadians that have an extremely vulgar tv show that the kids all watch. At first, there doesn't seem to be anything clever at all about Terrance and Phillip. It's just immature, toilet humor that offers very little to stimulate anyone's mind. It's everything that people criticize about South Park. That's why I couldn't bring myself to appreciate it. Then it hit me. I realized that Terrance and Phillip are what people criticize about South Park. It's as if the writers are saying, "Sure, South Park is vulgar, but it's not stupid. If you want to see stupid toilet humor, we'll show it to you." It's subtle, but it's meant to show that South Park really isn't the mindless humor that people often make it out to be. Although such humor does exist, South Park is not an example of it.

I hope that this helps you better understand one of the best tv shows of our generation.

Happy Xmas

2007-12-25T14:04:00.000-06:00

Why do we say, "Merry Christmas"? Who even says "merry" anyways? Has it ever even been said in a context other than referring to Christmas? What a worthless word. I don't think I'm going to say it anymore. And so, happy Christmas.

That reminds me of a song! It is such a sad reflection upon our culture that we allowed John Lennon to write the defining Christmas song of the back half of the 20th century. Especially when the first line of his most famous song is, "Imagine there's no heaven." I guess it shows how secular this holiday has become (not that I necessarily feel that the over-commercialization of Christmas is an entirely bad thing.) Oh well, it's a good song nonetheless. I can appreciate it, even if it isn't announcing the Savior's birth. A lot of conservative Christians might make a big deal about Christmas songs being religious, but if you read the post I've linked to above, you'll see that I believe that it's got its positives and negatives.

Another such thing that gets many Christians up in arms is the shortening of "Christmas" into "Xmas". This one's a bit more ridiculous than the previous complaint of the mostly secular shift in Christmas celebrations. "Keep Christ in Christmas" they say. Sure, it's a good idea to keep the focus of Christmas on the coming of the Christ child, but to demand that "Christ" be spelled out is a bit far and, dare I say, often ignorant. I feel that few people realize the the X in "Xmas" is the chi in "xristos". When you realize that, it makes the whole situation much more palatable.

Happy Christmas. Just let it happen. Don't make a big fuss about the secular world not celebrating Jesus' birth on the same spiritual level that you do.

The 12 reasons that I need to break up with you

2007-12-21T02:40:00.001-06:00

A little bit of festive lyrics for the season (to the tune of the 12 days of Christmas):
by Ryan Halter

The twelfth reason that I need to break up with you...
12: you left New Ulm
11: you suck at scripture
10: you're from Milwaukee
9: you're not German
8: you work at Perkins
7: you went to Prep
6: you hate everyone
5: we're completely different people
4: you're always right
3: I'm always wrong
2: you're a feminist
and you're not very WELS

The Bull Crap Series

2007-12-04T01:48:00.003-06:00

I've never been one to hate the BCS. Sure, there are problems with it. For example, that only two teams per conference can play, leading to such atrocities as in the 2006 BCS where the #7 ranked, 1 loss Badgers were replaced by the immensely overrated tenth ranked Irish from Notre Dame only to be destroyed by LSU (but I'm not bitter). But, overall I think it's good that they attempt to provide some kind of a post-season where the best teams play each other.

As I watched the Bowl selection show on Sunday night, I thought that all was going well, until the Orange Bowl came around. That was a crime. They chose #8 Kansas over #6 Missouri, when Missouri beat Kansas in a decisive fashion at a neutral site not eight days before the selections were made. That is unacceptable.

Something has to be done to prevent such future crimes against college football as we know it.

Stability of the Eye

2007-11-24T01:53:00.001-06:00

Tonight I watched the videotape labeled "FVL vs. Clintonville 1/3/06" since I first got it. That tape contains my last basketball game in a Foxes uniform. Midway through the second quarter, I tore my ACL.

I noticed the strangest thing while watching. The play on which I went down is different than I remember. It's weird. That pivotal moment in my life happened differently than my vivid memory of it. If it weren't for me asking for a copy of that tape, I would have remembered that moment inaccurately for the rest of my life.

What else happens differently than we remember? If I incorrectly remembered this pivotal moment in my life, what about all the trivial moments? What about all those things you remember saying? Did you really say them? Did you use the exact diction that you remember using?

Do your parents remember what it's like to be your age? Do you remember what it's like to be in high-school?

Since most of life has no videotape to reference, the next time you're in an argument about who said what, realize that the memories of everyone involved have most likely been altered from reality by your psychological ideal.

Changes.....

2007-11-22T00:58:00.002-06:00

One of the craziest parts of coming home is seeing all the ways Appleton has changed. None really compare to what I noticed when I came home this time.

There was this one crappy old house just north of where you get off of the highway to go to my house. It stuck out a little bit because it's surrounded by a highway on one side and commercial buildings on the other. They'd always put out huge signs with the angriest liberal messages on them before elections. These signs accomplished very little but earn a few middle fingers and convince me to not vote for anyone that was found on the rare sign showing support for a candidate.

When I went out this morning, I noticed that the house was gone. The next time I went out, I asked my dad when that happened. He told me that someone found upwards of 40 cats living in that house, many of them undernourished to the point where they had to be euthanized. It turns out that this house was so infested with cats that it had to be condemned.

Next time you see an angry liberal message and are tempted to take the emotional bait, just think to yourself, "Do I really want to end up being an old lady with so many cats in her home that the house has to be condemned?"

Let this serve as a reminder to you all.

You wicked servant

2007-11-06T21:15:00.000-06:00

Today, when I got back to the dorm after Biology, I scanned my ID, then looked back to see whether or not there was anyone close enough behind me that I should hold the door. I saw that there was someone in what I've determined to be the ambiguous range of 8-10 seconds back. I could reasonably hold the door, but to let it shut wouldn't be considered rude. I decided to take a few seconds out of my day to make the life of this freshman guy a little bit easier. I held the door for him.

How is this blogworthy? A lot of people hold the door, even when in the ambiguous range. Well, as I was walking into the dorm after holding the door for said freshman, I noticed that he followed me in, letting the door shut even though someone was behind him in what nearly everyone considers the expected 4-6 second range.

I felt like the master in Jesus' parable of the Unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35). To quickly refresh, the master canceled a huge debt for a servant, then the servant refused to forgive a much smaller debt to another servant. So, the master handed him over to be tortured.

You wicked freshman! We should torture rude freshmen that fail to hold doors for an even shorter time than a door was held for them. Ok, maybe not.....how about a prison?

If someone extends courtesy to you, could you not at least extend a smaller courtesy to another individual? I shouldn't even have to threaten imprisonment. Just do it.

Here's to you, Brett Favre.

2007-11-06T21:13:00.001-06:00

This blog presents Real Men of Genius (Real men of genius)
Today we salute you, Mr. Brett Favre (Mr. Brett Favre)
Fans everywhere adore you because of your competitive edge.
Week in and week out, you provide the game with an energy rarely ever seen
(a 38 year old competitor)
You hold the record for touchdowns, victories, completions, attempts, and just to keep you human, interceptions (but who gives a damn?)
Some may ask, "is he the greatest quarterback ever to play?",
to which I respond "Eff yeah he is. He's Brett Favre" (I'd do number four)
So crack open an ice cold Wisconsin brew, Mr. Three time MVP winner.
Because you are all that is man (Mr. Brett Favre)

Get your asterisk outta here!

2007-11-02T17:14:00.002-05:00

Barry Bonds says that he will boycott the Hall of Fame if there's an asterisk next to his home run ball (Bonds will boycott). Woody Paige says that he might as well boycott the Nobel Peace Prize, because he's not going to be a part of either.

What should be done? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, especially because I am far from a baseball expert.

Here's my take:
The decision concerning the asterisk should be made entirely separately from the ramifications it could have with Bonds boycotting. The Hall of Fame is an honor extended to exceptional baseball figures. It should not be something that we have to bargain to get people into. If Bonds wants to decline the greatest honor given to athletes in his sport, that's his choice. If people feel that there needs to be explanation about Bonds' home run record, they should explain it. Just think about it, why would they fail to explain suspicious behavior simply so that a player will allow himself to be honored. It doesn't make sense.

Barry Bonds, I hope you're doing this purely on principle, because your decision is likely to carry little weight.

necessarius est blogare

2007-10-29T17:14:00.001-05:00

I need to blog more. I have no writing class this year, so I've only handed in one written assignment thus far. Sure, I write on people's walls a few times a day, but that's about the extent of my composition. On top of that, I'm taking a course in classical Greek which has me ruminating Greek forms and constructions at an unhealthy level. Because of certain Greek constructions, when I attempt to compose in English, my words often come out in a ridiculously awkward order. So, I need to blog more often. That will be my prescribed remedy for my poor writing.

I need your help:
If anyone still reads this, you should leave a comment directing me towards what I should blog about. I'm up for anything.

Cecilia.....you don't make any sense

2007-10-26T09:50:00.000-05:00

This morning, the song Cecilia by Simon & Garfunkel was stuck in my head. I've always known that this song doesn't make sense, but now I'm confused by it on a whole new level.

We've always known that the guy is stupid. First of all, what was he doing that required him to wash his face? Secondly, what made him think that it's ok to just get up in the middle of love making to wash his face? Any reasonable man would've stuck around to finish the job despite his dirty face. He deserved to be replaced.

But, upon further rumination concerning this song, I now realize that we must also understand this man to be a pansy. Even if I had an unreasonable moment and went to wash my face before I finished the job, if I returned to someone finishing my job, I'd pull him off and be all like, "Get your hands off my woman, motherf***er!" Then, of course, the next logical exclamation would be, "Get the f*** outta my house!" If it were her bedroom, it'd be different, but what kind of man would allow that to happen in his own territory? It just doesn't make sense.

So, sorry Simon & Garfunkel. As much as I enjoy your music and this song, I simply can not get past the irrational and cowardly actions of this man.

The Sun is a mass of incandescent gas

2007-10-23T00:24:00.000-05:00

Since this blog has often been referred to as "The 'I hate everything' blog", we'll keep that up.

I hate.....
getting up while it's still dark out.

Under no circumstances should I be required to leave my bed before the sun is shining. God made the greater light to govern the day, so my day shouldn't start until that light is governing it.

Today was the first day during which I was accutely aware that it was dark out for a greater period of time than it was light. It'll be that way for the next five and a half months. Let's chalk this one up as another example of how much Minnesota sucks.

God Bless America

2007-10-11T11:46:00.000-05:00

A few weeks back, I was involved in the standard Friday night activity for sober MLC students. That's right, I was bored out of my mind. So, for a while I simply wallowed in my boredom with some fellow students in the Congustana lobby. Becoming fed up with that at approximately 2:30, we decided to go on an adventure. We just started driving, and at about 3:30 we found ourselves in Janesville, visiting the site of the creepy doll. Since there's really nothing to do at the creepy doll house, we just looked at it for a few minutes, then decided to smoke cigars. We walked down the street a bit, and that's when the conflict arose.....

We were there, minding our own business, not causing any trouble. Then a police car drove past. Since we weren't doing anything illegal, I thought little of it. Then, she circled around the block, stopped in front of us and shined her spotlight on us as if we were criminals running to avoid arrest. She rudely asked us what we were doing, why we were out so late, and refused to believe that we had nothing better to do. Then she demanded that we find a residence and stay there until morning.

Not wanting to cause a fuss, we moved back towards our vehicle. She drove behind us as we walked as if she were a parent making sure we got safely to our destination. Although we made little fuss, the rebellious, authority despising nineteen year old within me was livid. So, I took the opportunity provided by her driving behind us to voice my opinion. I loudly sang through "God Bless America". Although it almost certainly had no effect on her, it'd be nice to think that it caused her to think a little bit.

The whole situation just blows my mind. This was a police officer, whose job is to keep the peace, enforce the laws and ensure that no one's liberty infringes on that of another. How could she so blatantly undo her drawers and piss on the documents that founded our country?!

When we were back in the car, I was voicing my frustrations to my fellow adventurers at the rate of 1000 obscenities per hour. Somehow, in the middle of it all, a sentence escaped clear of any foul word. It was, "This is why I hate America!"

Did I mean that? Yes. But, did I speak too harshly? Of course. I don't hate America. More accurately, I am infuriated by the hypocrisy of the older generations. These are the people that have preached to us since we were born that the United States is superior to every other nation because of the freedom it provides. Now, they expect us to believe that, when they time and again take our freedoms away? That's what I hate.

People try to put us down Just because we get around
The things they do are so damn cold.
I hope I die before I get old.

Mutiny

2007-10-08T02:44:00.001-05:00

Why does the management of the Packers suck so bad? Forgetting all the blunders of years past, this year's atrocities have just blown my mind. First of all, we decided that we didn't need to replace Ahman Green. I can see how that conversation went:
"Our running back is gone."
"Ah, F**k running backs! Who needs 'em? Let's draft some defensive players!"
Stupid. Naturally that will turn into our Achilles' heel this season. That is, unless our coaching messes that up some more.

Tonight during the game Brett Favre throws one interception. After that, Mike McCarthy starts this bullcrap of conservative play calling that leads to four consecutive punts for Green Bay. Way to go! We didn't get any productivity at all until the reigns were handed over to Wisconsin's Messiah, Brett Favre for the last two minutes. Even then, our Savior was almost able to save McCarthy's hide once again. But, he can only do so much. He is, in fact, human (I think).

We're a team that moves the ball by passing it. Why would you desert that which had you in the driver's seat to a 5-0 start because of one bad play?!

Terrible. That's why I'm up at 2:56.

Put your punctuation inside the quotes; it's easier than thinking.

2007-10-02T14:04:00.002-05:00

I've lost count of the number of teachers and professors who have marked me off because I don't follow one rule they give. That rule is, "Always place punctuation within quotation marks." At the expense of a few points throughout a course, I don't follow that rule, and intelligent people shouldn't.

Why?:
No matter what any Modern Language Association handbook says, it's bad writing. I'm not going to write poorly just because it will minorly improve my grade.

How is it bad writing?:
This is where the second part of my title comes in. Just think about it. If what you're quoting has your desired punctuation already within it, put it inside the quotes. For example:
A person on their death bed may find comfort in the phrase, "To hell with your faith! Look at your Savior."
Since the period is part of the quotation and it ends my sentence, it goes inside the quotes. But, what if the quotation doesn't contain a period? Does it then still go inside the quotation marks? No. For example:
Paul gave good advice to Timothy when he said, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young".
Since I, and not the inspired apostle Paul, placed that period there, it can not go inside the quotation marks. This may seem trivial, but it can be much worse than this, and could even make your writing confusing. For example:
What did Paul mean when he told Timothy, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young"?
I'm asking the question. Paul is making a statement. If I place the question mark inside the quotes, I've misquoted him.
So, just think through whether or not the punctuation is part of the quote. If it is, place it inside. If it's not, place it afterwards.

What's my point?
It's a sad reflection upon our society that even our educator demand on making a rule, rather than letting students apply a principle. Our society is obsessed with laws. Sure, they may be easier to enforce, but this doesn't improve our schools, our minds, or our culture.

So, I'll willingly take a mark on a paper if it means allowing me to think rather than conforming to this blind legalism.