Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Portrait of a young pig
For my birthday, we had a Pigfest. I blogged a long time ago promising a Pigfest, and challenged you all to discover what it was. Here’s how it went.
Each person in attendance was asked to have a statement prepared for debate. It could be about theology, philosophy, politics, history, or economics. They would state their proposition and explain it if necessary. A timer set for fifteen minutes was started and the debate began, with any person present allowed to play devil’s advocate or switch sides or bring up a new aspect for debate at any time.
A Gentleman's Debate, 1781
The first proposition was that Imagination is inversely proportional to the amount of toys one possesses. Discussion included types of toys, what happens if one has no toys, the advantage of having a few toys over either extreme, whether we meant toys, or property in general (who defines toy?). The assumption that imagination is a desired goal was addressed, as well as the purpose of imagination and of toys. “Is passive entertainment ever healthy?” someone asked. We talked about different kinds of people, and the kinds of entertainment that are more satisfying because they engage the entertained to interact. Finally at the last minute it was suggested that the relationship is not inverse. If “inverse” were true of toys and imagination, no toys would produce infinite imagination, and that is not the case.
Secondly it was proposed that Evangelical Christianity should be more like Roman Catholicism in that there are wards, and one is expected to attend the nearest church, focusing on involvement in their immediate community. This would mean that problems in churches get fled, not ignored. There would ideally then be accountability in the leadership of the church. The Roman Catholic church, however, enforces accountability with a bishop who is outside of the local congregations, overseeing several churches. Who would enforce the rule? How would it be enforced? Would a Christian be able to exercise their freedom and their conscience toward doctrine? Someone suggested choosing between the three closest congregations. The condition was Evangelical Christianity, so it was argued that one’s own theology defined what one considered an appropriate church/denomination to attend, and most people present wouldn’t change the church they attend (Pigfesters at this event represented at least four churches, and I invited members of several more churches.) If community is the end goal, then why do we have church buildings at all? Why not house churches? How do you hear about/get invited to a house church? If one is going to fix problems in existing churches, wouldn’t that lead to a sort of vigilante church take-over? Wait! Is that happening in some churches already?
Our third debate was on the need for a national language, and that because the majority of the nation speaks English, and our legal and founding documents were written therein, the national language should be English. The first objection was that one would have to define English. English is evolving, as evidenced by the low comprehension we would have of a Middle or Old English document. A national language would enable integration of immigrants, encouraging unity in our country. How would you enforce the national language? How would you integrate those whose birth language was not English? What does a national language mean? Are road signs only in English? Laws? Ballots? Government documents? If one national language is such a good thing, why should we stop at that? Why not a global language? We talked about the tower of Babel, and God’s design in confusing languages.
Next was a discussion of the relative morality of nuclear weapons. The proposition stated that the morality equaled that of using hand grenades or traditional bombs. Brought up was the economics of both the use of and the recovery from nuclear weapons; the effect upon innocent non-combatants, the number of dead, and the number of miserably injured. What is the object of war? To obtain land and property? Defense? Killing the most enemy combatants? Killing the most people? Is psychological warfare moral? Doesn’t the use of morally regulated nuclear weapons facilitate escalation in that it emboldens the less principled (or sane) enemies to use nuclear weapons against innocents or recklessly?
We had a proxy proposition that Lying is justifiable to save a human life. Immediately presented were the biblical examples of Rahab and the Midwives, and contrasting example of Corrie ten Boom’s sister (Corrie nine Bang?). What was God rewarding? Is it ok to give the appearance of lying? God clearly says that He abhors lying, but we are only assuming from examples that it is ok to lie to save lives. Theology and application should be consistent with the whole revelation of Scripture. A Bible story was brought up in which God caused an attacking army to believe there was an army attacking them, even though there wasn’t. Does God use mind control? Will He use it if we don’t take initiative and lie for Him? Is lying ok in other circumstances, like surprise parties? It was argued that life is the highest end, taken from Proverbs 31 where it says to intercede for those being delivered to death. Against that was the position that God’s glory was the highest, that faith in God says that God can accomplish His purposes inside our obedience (as well as outside). What else could Rahab, for example, have done? Refuse to answer. Be creative. Die for the truth. The Holy Spirit will guide a Christian to the proper response in a given situation.
Then we addressed the question Does God tell you what to do and change the plans? The general answer was yes, He does. Then it was asked is God lying. The example was given of Abraham and Isaac, that God tests our surrender. Is God lying, or is our perspective not reflective of reality?
Finally, trying to mix up the topics, I selected a topic from history from my list. This was my proposal: Ancient civilizations knew about and had maps of America and Antarctica. After the strong stand taken against lying in any circumstance, no one wanted to argue with me. There was discussion on the evidence: trigonometry, maps, Columbus’s discovery of America, that Antarctica was mapped pre-ice cap (what if there was a civilization there?). We diverted into conversation on ancient technology (that we moderns don’t understand), Mormon myths, similar architecture in rings out from Babel reflecting the dispersion. From the Bible we talked about Peleg (in his days the earth was divided, whatever that means) and boundaries (between nations that are not to be moved), and the knowledge possible to be acquired in 500 years of life versus the current life expectancy. Evidence was presented that mammoths were found with dandelions that had been blooming in their stomachs as they were frozen, suggesting the climate was more temperate in the arctic and Antarctic in the past, and that it changed rapidly.
Afterward we watched Amazing Grace, the movie about William Wilberforce’s campaign to abolish the slave trade in England. It was positively inspiring. Afterward we passed around the petition to amend the Colorado Constitution defining person as a human from the moment of fertilization.
I’m told, and experienced myself, that the conversation sparked by fifteen minute segments of debate carried on into the next few days. We have all resolved to have Pigfests again.
Feel free to add to the arguments, ask questions, click on the links, host your own Pigfests, comment on your debate experiences, say hi, etc.
To God be all glory.
Monday, December 24, 2007
The federal government has more employees than is legal or necessary.
The federal government is inefficient.
The federal government unjustly over-taxes the people of America.
The federal government uses tax money (and debt) to fund illegal social, education, and scientific programs and departments.
The federal government has infringed the rights of states in several areas.
Resolved: A US president has power to rein-in the federal government.
A US president can veto excessive spending bills referred to him by rogue congresses.
A US president can speak out against the abuses performed by the federal government.
A US president can restrict, resize, or dissolve any of the executive-appointed offices and departments.
A US president can appoint secretaries, attorneys, and judges who will uphold the US
Resolved: The vote cast by a citizen of the United States for president should be affected by the above resolutions.
Resolved: The above resolutions are not the only rod by which to measure a candidate.
Inquired: Which candidates understand and affirm the above resolutions?
Inquired: Which of those who understand and affirm the resolutions have an applicable plan for reforming the federal government back into legal limits?
Inquired: Which of those with a plan would be able to implement their plan without destroying the nation? In other words, would the government and country still be able to function, or govern and defend itself?
Ron Paul is almost completely a libertarian. He offers very conservative principles to the disillusioned, betrayed conservative grass roots. His speeches are full of the resolutions above. But I have not heard him describe how electing him as president would make a difference. What changes would he make, and how would he make them? How would he deal with the fall-out? I notice in my own life that God, who certainly knows all of my shortcomings and sins, will prune them a little at a time, so that I can still function. I believe this is because He loves me, not just the mold of perfection. I doubt that Ron Paul would have the patience to reform the government in a way that would leave a working system in place. On the other hand, he has been in the legislature for some time without accomplishing anything aside from building a record for himself (not even a name for himself until he publicized it by running for president).
Rudy Giuliani does not seem interested in restricting the government at all. He is a social moderate, who therefore thinks government involvement in social matters are justified. (On a side note I do not think that murder is a social issue; neither is abortion.)
Mitt Romney is a businessman. He has shown his capabilities as an executive. Making an organization run efficiently and productively is his record. In business, you do not want to cut the influence of your company, or reduce profits. Yet in government, that is just what needs to be done.
Though Huckabee was a pastor more than a businessman, he was also an executive of a state. As governor of Arkansas did he exhibit any tendencies toward reforming the government? Granted, he was working with a congress of democrats. Is there anything he is saying now that indicates he will reform Washington?
Are these men just going to treat symptoms? Throw more money at problems? Cut out the cancer so deeply that you've amputated vital organs? Must we the voters be content with a man of the hour, who can get us through the next four years, but will leave the federal government unchecked in its decent toward tyranny?
What do any of you readers know about these candidates or the others running? Are my assessments wrong? Do any of the other candidates meet the resolutions with strength, vision, and confidence? Can you reassure me that a vote for Huckabee, which I am intending to cast, will be for the good of America?
Can we the people do anything now to prepare the field of candidates in the future?
To God be all glory.
Words we use at Christmas tend, then, to be relics from the past, captivatingly delivered to the present still speaking of the foreign mystery of the time whence they come. Today I'm going to talk about two of those words. The first is holiday.
There has been much controversy the last few years concerning those who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Some stores forbid the mention of Christmas, because it was too religious. Christians object to the minute supply of cards that mention Christmas. "Season's Greetings," "Peace on Earth," and "Happy Holidays," are not the most expressive phrases. While I love to say "Merry Christmas," and don't think it should be forbidden, I appreciate - and sometimes use - "Happy Holidays" as well.
Holiday is a compound word. It comes from "holy" and "day." If that is not the point of celebrating, I don't know what is. The word holy is an old word meaning "that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated." A synonym is sacred. Keeping the day intact with its meaning, unviolated by the secular world, is what I'm all about. It is a day to worship my holy Savior, in a holy way.
My second word is Carol. At Christmas the songs everyone knows are carols. This word is from Greek originally, and refers to a song that is danced to. Originally the word implied that the tune was played by a flute, and the dance performed in a circular formation. Random House suggests that the etymology might also include a word for garlands worn in the hair. There is some suggestion that it is related to chara, the Greek word for joy. Related words may include: chorus, choir, carrel (meaning "cubicle" or enclosed place for study), coronation, charisma.
For more information:
Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays!
To God be all glory.
But I miss hot chocolate. Not that I never drink chocolate anymore. That I drink chai tea when I would have been sipping cocoa is undeniable. Life has changed. My tastes have dutifully broadened as an expected part of growing up. If they are broadened, they are also dispersed. Now the intensity of my appreciation for chocolate is tempered by my acceptance of vanilla chai tea.
Would my life be better if I had refused to taste chai tea? If through loyalty I remained zealous for chocolate alone, could I still be a grown up and still be happy? Would I be happier?
Life is a choice whether to try new things. Once surrendered to a new pet topic, to the diminution of my former sole passion, my experience says there is no possibility of returning to a single-passion life. A new opportunity arises, and if I am consistent, is tried. Causes ebb and flow, wax and wane now, each replacing the last for its moment in the spotlight.
Cotton Grass, Blowing in Wind Against Blue Sky, Norway
I haven’t really written anything in a while. Inspiration departed. Whenever that happens I get borderline depressed, because life seems to have lost its flavor, and my passion for each moment has waned. I don’t like drifting, shallow waves of life lapping around an unresponsive me. Leaving the metaphor, though, I keep on doing things: going to work, talking to people, checking email. Even genuine smiles come to my face.
Now, slowly, I think I’m coming out of my doldrums. A week ago Saturday night, I completely spontaneously saw a movie, August Rush. There were so few people in the theater, and I was so tired. Reclined in my seat, I tilted my head against the back of the cushion, and absorbed a beautiful movie. The soundtrack was uniquely expressive, imposing its presence and importance. Music spoke in the movie. It communicated identity, feelings, direction, summons, friendship, longings, and fulfillment.
Afterward I escaped the scent of popcorn into a fresh midnight wind. The air was too cold to linger, but I breathed it deeply, and memorized its touch on my face. I felt the cold and the current. My brother and I talked of how we love things and moments with feeling, and flavor. They say something, and mean something.
In contrast, the chocolate cake I had just before the movie was bland. The color boasted bursting flavor, when in actuality the taste was dull and muted. Not like fudge, or cinnamon, or grape juice. Those things are so bursting with flavor that they assert their identities.
Then a few days later was a day full of feeling, and a sense of doing things important, though everyday. I cried near the end, for a few friends came home. Tears break the walls of the world without passion. That’s the metaphor of George MacDonald’s Princess Lightness.
Yet when the walls are down, and I care about what happens around me, when I’m advancing my might on causes and people, there’s the probability that I’ll see the world in reality, and see myself as I am. Couple this to just turning 23, to holidays and old friends, and I am sad now – not depressed, but sad in a sentimental way, in a fightable way.
Sunday I went to Red Robin alone. They offered me a free burger for my birthday in exchange for receiving their emails, so I went to redeem my coupon. The staff was nice. I brought a book about grace. And in between sips of a chocolate shake and bites of luscious burger, I observed. The walls caught my attention, bearing an eclectic collection of posters, prints, and photographs. One fantastic picture showed downtown Chicago along the Chicago River in 1929. Already the concentration of sky-piercing towers was a marvel. Chicago is my favorite city. I can’t lay my finger on the reason, only that when I am there I feel alive. Every place is a story; every sound has a flavor; and every person has a style.
Motion of Cars Along Michigan Avenue Illuminated with Christmas Lights, Chicago, Illinois, USA
I love Christmas for the same reason. Each song is a tale, each note a rush of emotion. Every light twinkles mystery into my soul. Altered from its original intent or not, in December the whole country is united in focus. No one asks why the stores all play music about snow, bells, peace, and Jesus. It is understood when you wear red that you’re being festive. Even those who have dropped out of church make it back for the memories of candlelight at Christmas Eve services.
So today, especially at Christmas, I want to challenge you to seize the day. Breathe the moment. Live to the hilt. Pursue life. Feed on truth. Praise beauty. Remember. Cry. Hope. Laugh. Sing. Love.
To God be all glory.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Based on Isaiah 40:1-11: When God delivered Israel from Egypt, "different" was a glorious privilege. Isaiah was a prophet to a people who had become ashamed of being different. It had been centuries now, and Judah wanted to be the same as the wicked nations around her. The prophet's message, however, was one of peace.
In our world today, peace is something almost no one has: nations war; businessmen rush to work; moms hurry from school to soccer to laundry; and people wonder during the quietest times, "Am I believing in the right thing? Will tomorrow work out ok?" As Christians, we have those answers. We have peace to offer a hectic world. But so often we are afraid to tell others about the difference God has made in our lives. Isaiah tells us not to be afraid to proclaim the message of peace - not only to say it, but from a high mountain, with strength, so everyone can hear.
What are we to proclaim? "Behold your God": that God came to be with us and to lead us as our Shepherd. When God is with us, no one can stand against us. We can have peace. That is one of the things Jesus came to give us. He is called Immanuel: 'God with us' because His life and death allow us to have a relationship with God. How can you not shout it from the mountains?
To God be all glory.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
After snowstorms, it is good to be spontaneous at least twice.
I wish I played violin.
Wherever you are, be all there. - Jim Elliot
What if the pastor, instead of preaching from the pulpit tomorrow, came down, sat on the edge of the stage, kicked his heels against it, and actually talked to you like you were people he knew? (This won't happen at my church because we're having a visiting preacher tomorrow).
To God be all glory.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
"And there is none that calleth upon Thy name,
that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee:
for Thou hast hid Thy face from us,
and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities."
~ Isaiah 64:7
Isaiah had been a prophet for a long time. He had visited the throne room of God and written the prophecies of Messiah in chapter 53. Now he saw the need for God's presence among the people, because the people continued in their ways. No one stirred himself up to take hold of God, literally: to fasten onto God. Everyone was perfectly content with their same sinful ways. But Isaiah remembered God's awesome deeds and wasn't content with anything else. His prayer in chapter 64 reveals his hope for more - God's very presence in their lives. Only God's presence could restore their peace.
To God be all glory.
Friday, December 07, 2007
In case you hadn’t noticed, I am independent and strong-willed. This whole essay is like insider information.
When I was six years old, I knew the facts: 1. I am a sinner. 2. My sin needs punished. 3. Jesus died for my sins on the cross. 4. Believing in Jesus means I am forgiven. Without invitation or companionship, I grabbed a stuffed animal, sat in my little rocking chair, and prayed that Jesus would forgive my sins. I meant it, and Jesus saved me that day. By His grace my strong will was surrendered to Him.
I understand rebellion. There were many times even before I was ten when I weighed my options. If I had wanted to do something wrong, I could endure whatever the punishment would be. To be honest, the punishment was no threat. But I did not do a lot of premeditated disobedience. Why? By God’s grace, I loved people, and didn’t want to disobey my parents or my God.
Strong-willed people do not give up. He perseveres, and continues to be a friend to someone no matter what. Circumstances do not deter him or change his mind. That persistence can be an inspiration to other people. Think of the Poseidon Adventure.
Doesn’t independence lead to wandering away from God? No. The will of a Christian human being can be aligned with God’s. Jesus was not weak-willed. He made himself a living sacrifice (living to die), praying “not My will, but Yours be done.” We can imitate that. Jesus had a will to be denied. This was not mere rhetoric.
What about marriage? Can a strong-willed person enter into the relationship of mutual submission? There are few greater gifts that a person can give than to willingly submit his preferences and will. The Anglican church’s marriage ceremony includes the vow: ‘With my body, I thee worship.’ I don’t mind that idea. It’s the idea of self-sacrifice. And worship isn’t something the worshipers are forced into doing. Their strength enables them to lay down self at the feet of someone else’s will.
This question is particularly relevant in the case of a strong-willed woman, who is called to be a helper to her husband, to submit to him as the head of her household. A strong-willed woman cannot marry a man who will follow her. She wouldn’t respect a man like that enough to marry him. What she really needs is a man who will assert his strength without trying to enslave her. But she might be a follower. If there were a cause big enough, and a leader great enough, she’d be fulfilled in joining that. That’s what her faith in God is. His cause is bigger than her ideas; His strength is greater than hers. So she follows Him. And she loves Him.
Strong-willed people are like lines. They shape the world. If that’s the case, though, the more emotional people color the world. They make it interesting. I’m a lines person. I even eat ice cream inside my mouth (without getting it all over my face). But I just wish the colorful, less strong-willed people would color in the lines. When they don’t follow any predictable rules, interaction is very hard. I’m trying, though.
To God be all glory.
1. 4 movies you can always watch: Wives and Daughters, While You Were Sleeping, Two Towers, Pride and Prejudice with Kam Heskin (no, I'm not Mormon)
2. 4 bands you can never get enough of: Bands aren't my think, but oh, I like Boyz In the Sink After that we'll have to do singers: Michael Card, Steve Green, (stealing one from Woven and Spun) Beauty and the Beast Soundtrack
3. 4 towns you lived in: Blue Springs, MO; Aurora, CO; Farmer's Branch, TX; Garland, TX
4. 4 shows you like to watch: Pushing Daisies, Leave it to Beaver, Numbers, Joan of Arcadia
5. 4 websites you visit daily: Wordpress, Biblical Womanhood Blog, Amy's Humble Musings, Elect Exiles
6. 4 favorite foods: chocolate, pizza, hamburgers, strawberries
7. 4 places you’d like to be now: Chicago, Scotland, the mall, Israel
8. 4 songs that really move you: Christmas Shoes, Held, We Will Dance, Beauty and the Beast
9. 4 books you will always love:The Walk by Michael Card, Lord of the Rings, Passion and Purity, That Hideous Strength
10. 4 colors that will always be in your closet: navy blue, white, black, green
11.4 authors you’ll always love: Jane Austen, Elisabeth Elliot, Michael Card, Dr. Henry Morris
12. 4 favorite actors/actresses whose talent you honestly respect: Gerard Butler, Cary Grant, Sandra Bullock, Bill Paterson
13.4 languages you’d love to be fluent in: Hebrew, Old English, German, French
14.4 other countries you would like to live in: Scotland, Israel, New Zealand, Ecuador
15.4 skills you would like to improve: sewing, teaching, writing, cooking
16.4 items that are “a few of your favorite things”: white curtains, soft throws, my trifle dish, fog
17. 4 items you actually use like they're your favorites: laptop, car, tiny hair clips, denim skirt
To God be all glory.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
In fact a blogger who frequently supports Planned Parenthood was just complaining about the pro-life groups in Colorado who protested outside of a contractor’s house. Her definitely not endorsed article can be read at this link. I wrote the following as a comment, but I’m not sure whether she’ll post my refutation, so I’m tripling the effort by blogging it.
Obviously contractors (and their neighbors) want to avoid the public opinion that doesn't appreciate those who cooperate in the destruction of human life. A good way of avoiding that would be to not participate in the murder of the most innocent of human life. This is the point of the protests.
Political campaigning is like this. Members of the community have a right to communicate their position to their neighbors. And they have the right to try to persuade their neighbors. The fact that we have to persuade people to spare innocent children is a point in itself.
When Martin Luther King, Jr. was peacefully and pointedly protesting the discrimination according to race, he was applauded (though resisted). If the people do not gather to speak, their voice will not be heard. Looking back we don't feel bad about the teachers, clerks, drivers, and city officials who were made to feel uncomfortable about the policies of racial discrimination. What they were doing was wrong. The people knew it. And the wrong was changed.
Our constitution precludes lines being drawn about free speech, but I wonder where Planned Parenthood’s supporters would draw it. The protesters are not on private property, but on public sidewalks and streets. They do not prevent normal neighborhood activity like driving down the road, receiving mail, eating dinner as a family. We are surrounded everyday by images and messages on benches, roadway signs, signs in yards, slogans on t-shirts. Some are even directed at certain companies, policies, groups, or people. Yet there is little outcry against these manifestations of First Amendment rights.
The pro-abortion blogger used the word bully. A schoolyard bully threatens the extortion of property or the physical health of his victim. Debate and truth-telling, with no promise of repercussion, is not bullying. There is no violence being done. No theft is involved. People are speaking their minds. This is the patriotism on which our country was founded, by which it literally came into being.
Pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice-to-take-another's-life protesters are not objecting to the shame Planned Parenthood and their contractors feel over their projects. We have serious concerns about the legality of deceiving the city officials and the public, of subverting zoning ordinances, and of potentially slandering the name of other companies (in the case of the Rocky Mountain facility, Planned Parenthood filed their permits under the name United Airlines, which unfairly correlates the murder of babies to them). No one is questioning why Planned Parenthood wanted to hide their plans. We simply object that they did. Cities have ordinances to prevent such things.
To God be all glory.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Understand yourself. Are you strong-willed? How do you make decisions? How do you communicate and learn?
Understand your child. Love him unconditionally. Be humble. Rely on God. Be willing to let Him be the ultimate authority in your child’s life.
Until conversion from dead in sins, a child has two options: either he is subject to influence, in which case a parent has an easier time getting a child to obey, but risks producing a child who follows whichever prevailing influence, be it human, media, or substance. Or the child is what is called strong-willed, which means he worships something. No threats of punishment; no bribery of food, toys, privileges, or love will avail. To such a child there is no question of comprehension (he knows what you mean) or the easy way out. He doesn’t want the easy way. He doesn’t want fun, or gentleness. At least he might, but it is not his primary will.
You can tell this child what to do. Tell him what you expect. Tell him consequences. And follow through. If you do not follow through on his expectations, he will see that what you tell him about rules are not facts, but manipulations. This must not be a contest of wills, you against him. Never punish any child for doing something you simply didn’t want him to do. If you didn’t tell him it was a rule, he wasn’t disobeying you. If you were displeased, simply tell him so, make a new rule if necessary, and move on.
Facts are influential here. The fifth commandment is repeated in the Bible several times, rephrased. In one place it says, “Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” The last part is a statement of fact. “This is right.” Tell your child what is right and what is wrong. He may still do what is wrong, but decisions are made on facts, and eventually the facts might bring him to change his mind. Know that “because I said so,” won’t go a long way with him, though.
If a strong-willed child asks you why, he is seeking more facts. His decision-making faculties need more information. Some parents see this as a challenge to authority. From one light it is. From the child’s perspective, authority is largely irrelevant. He isn’t demanding you give him an answer or else he won’t obey you. He is learning to make decisions of his own. He will make his decisions on his own, and he will acquire his facts from you if he trusts you and you’re available, or from someone else, if you’re not. Take his “why?” as a sign of trust and respect. He considers you qualified to answer.
You’ve no idea how many times I took tests and saw trick questions because there was insufficient information. I wanted to interrogate the questioner, to get all the facts.
Unfortunately most of the authors of questions didn’t see things my way. They were actually testing my ability to assume what they were asking. True or false questions were the exception. Those were my kind of challenges. One word could be different or omitted, and the statement would change. There was the place for trick questions to be detected.
Tell him stories. Don’t tell him allegories or fables. Strong-willed children will see through these. But tell him stories about noble characters. Tell him Bible stories. If your child remembers facts, this is a sign that he is going to be influenced in the same way.
Don’t confuse an affinity for facts with a dismissal of concept. If concepts are reality, they are facts as well, and your child will comprehend them. My mother and sister learned math by memorizing formulae. “It’s magic,” my mom’s geometry teacher taught her. Math was a series of tools, a means to an end, but not a truth to her. To me math is a reality. I follow concepts. When I was learning to reciprocal fractions in order to divide them, I could not understand because my mom/teacher gave me rules, but not facts. The rule was to invert the second fraction, then multiply. But the concept was as simple as the top number is divided by the bottom number. Notice the difference in those statements. One has the infinitive, “to invert,” implying a command or an action. The second is a statement of fact indicated by “is.” There is a third type of person, the creative, who sees outside the box. I encountered my deficiency in geometry. My mom memorized theorems. I learned concepts, could anticipate theorems. But doing proofs was incredibly hard, especially if it involved adding a fact (constructing one or more lines).
For theology the same applies. Don’t just teach simple facts. You can teach concepts that are realities. Just be ready for a lot of questions (don’t get worried about them; your child is not losing his faith, but owning it, allowing it to expound into his decision making).
To God be all glory.
After lunch we moved inside (side note: earlier this week sleet and snow and freezing weather were predicted for today, but the actual weather was a chilly, clear morning - rain came way after the rally) and heard again the history of this Planned Parenthood facility, and its sister facility with sister tactics in Aurora, Illinois. Mostly for me it was a time to figure out who these leaders are, what they're about, and what they'll continue to do.
Keith, who is always a quiet person, showed real emotion, between excitement for the turnout, enthusiasm for the cause, and appreciation for leaders of the pro-life movement. And he quite often was heart to say, "Praise God." Will was softspoken and direct, like Gandalf veiling his potency in a thin cloak. A few weeks ago I heard him answer a neighbor of a contractor who complained he was tired of our protests, "Forty years and 50 million lives! We're tired of babies being murdered!" I am fully aware that my quote has not the slightest hint of the fervor with which it was originally spoken. Eric told us about the ongoing efforts in Illinois, and how God providentially had the people in place to respond to the last-minute call to forestall Planned Parenthood's opening there. Joe gave the Christian admonition to carry on in faith (relying on God), hope (that there are real victories being won through our willingness to be involved and outspoken), and love (for the babies, obviously, and also for our "enemies," whose souls are at stake.
Tom the lawyer talked about first amendment rights, testifying of the progressively improving standing pro-life groups have in court. He advised to always do what a police officer says, even if there isn't a law. If our rights are clearly intentionally violated, then we can meet with an officer's superiors or write letters or if the offense is very direct, we can call a lawyer. A lot of these people have been in jail. Sometimes I think of that as civil disobedience, with which I disagree. The Bible teaches to obey the ordinances of man. But apparently most of these people weren't breaking ordinances; they were making authorities uncomfortable, so they arrested them without charges.
Anyway, I signed the petition ('cause we're not allowed to sign the ones that we're circulating) defining person as beginning at fertilization. Some of the speakers had pretty direct ways of backing pro-choice people into a corner to admit that a baby in the womb is still a living human being. They report that the abortionists have admitted that they know they are destroying life. But they don't tell the women that, because abortion is a business.
The plans in Colorado are:
1. Pressure contractors (particularly Weitz Company) through phone calls, emails, and neighborhood protests to cease construction on the Planned Parenthood mega-clinic.
2. Increase city, state, and neighborhood awareness of the facility and the dishonest practices employed by Planned Parenthood.
3. Preach to those who are working on the building, praying they will, when educated about the project, turn away.
4. Define person in the Colorado constitution as beginning at fertilization (collect signatures for the petitions, campaign for the ballot measure).
5. Continue to intercede outside of abortion clinics.
Reported by one of the speakers today was the statistic that the average age of an abortionist in the US today is 65 years, because no new med students want the kind of stigmatized life the abortionists face - a direct result of pro-life protesting. If there is no abortionist available, even if it is legal, women will not be able to kill their babies. If there is no facility available, no babies will be murdered either. The little protests count. They're building.
Pray that the pro-life people of Colorado will be able to expose the lies and greed and ruthlessness of Planned Parenthood and that the facility would be halted and never opened. Pray that the Christians would stand up for what the Bible clearly teaches. Pray that the people would understand what abortion is, and reject the practice as barbarous child-sacrifice. Pray that God will send a revival, using His ambassadors who are surrendered to His service, to Colorado: millions need to experience God's saving grace for their lives.
To God be all glory.