Everybody else...

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:29-32 NIV)

<idle musing>
I don't know about you, but ever since I became a Christian (way back in 1972), I've heard Romans 1 used as an escalator of the increasing sinfulness of a culture. The problem with that viewpoint, is that they have to stop at Romans 1:28. But, Paul doesn't stop! He keeps going, making sure that nothing and no one escapes.

<rabbit trail>
I was reading this chapter on my iPad, and the line breaks at the verse ending of 29, making gossips stand out. Recently,Ted had a good post that mentioned gossip in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Tolle! Lege! (That means you should read it, from Augustine's Confessions)
</rabbit trail>

Anyway, what jumped out at me especially was the last indictment, “they have...no mercy.” The Greek is ἀνελεήμονας, an adjective formed from the Greek word for mercy by adding what is called an alpha privative. Huh? Let's see if I can define it...OK, here's what my computer dictionary says “(of an action or state) marked by the absence, removal, or loss of some quality or attribute that is normally present.” Think deprived and you get the idea.

So? What's the big deal about that? Well, the Greek word for mercy (ἔλεος) is the word that the Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew word חסד (ḥesed), the word for God's faithfulness/mercy/love; most translations translate it as “loving kindness.” Paul, being steeped in the Hebrew Bible would probably be thinking in those terms when he dictated this section. The word is used in one of my favorite summations of the law in Micah 6:8:

He has shown all you people what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

This post is getting a bit long, so I'll cut to the chase...As Christians, we have been shown mercy by God. We are called to show mercy to others in the same way, forgiving them for offenses (real and imagined!. In fact, James says “...judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful” (2:13b).

The question of the hour is, how often are we quick to judge others? How little do we show mercy? How often do we justify our own actions and give them a pass, all the while pointing an unmerciful finger at others?

I'm preaching to myself as much as anyone else. Sure, I could list a whole bunch of sects/people who come to mind—but doesn't that prove the very point I'm making?!

Just an
</idle musing>

We got it backwards

As usual, it puts feeling first and faith second. Now, God’s invariable rule is faith first and feeling second, in everything; and it is striving against the inevitable when we seek to make it different.—Hannah Whitall Smith

When did that get put in there?

Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. (Romans 1:5 NIV)

<idle musing>
Whoa! When did they put obedience in that verse?! I don't remember that! But it makes sense, doesn't it? Obedience flows from faith via Jesus. We obey; he empowers. Again, no transformation, no salvation... Paul starts out Romans with obedience flowing from faith. Neat!
</idle musing>

By faith, first to last

Then we believed that Jesus was our Saviour from the guilt of sin, and according to our faith it was unto us. Now we must believe that He is our Saviour from the power of sin, and according to our faith it shall be unto us. Then we trusted Him for our justification, and it became ours; now we must trust Him for our sanctification, and it shall become ours also. Then we took Him as a Saviour in the future from the penalties of our sins; now we must take Him as a Saviour in the present from the bondage of our sins. Then He was our Redeemer, now He is to be our Life. Then He lifted us out of the pit, now He is to seat us in heavenly places with Himself.—Hannah Whitall Smith

I'll take it my way

As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” (Acts 24:25 NIV)

<idle musing>
Isn't that the version of the gospel most want? They are fine with God-talk until you mention righteousness and self-control. Throw in judgment to come and that's just too much! People don't want to think that there are ramifications or consequences to their actions. When it is convenient for them, then they'll allow you to mention God...
</idle musing>

Works will do it...

But when it comes to living the Christian life, they lose sight of this principle, and think that, having been saved by faith, they are now to live by works and efforts; and instead of continuing to receive, they are now to begin to do. This makes our declaration that the life hid with Christ in God is to be entered by faith, seem perfectly unintelligible to them.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Secret truths

Documentary film makers have increasingly taken on the role of the seemingly righteous crusader who faces danger and ridicule to discover what scholars have hidden. Conspiracies strike a nerve with documentary viewers because our knowledge of human nature suggests the hazy possibility that our received traditions are rooted in lies (Goldberg 2001). Conspiracy theories stimulate the popular imagination and lead some people to believe that the world’s chaos is the byproduct of concealed truths and that recovering these secrets will set things right. They can be powerfully seductive because they validate our suspicion that not all is right in the world. The seductive allure of stories about forgotten manuscripts and artifacts grows out of the popular idea that covert forces have concealed truths that need to be brought to light by the reporter or film maker (Fenster 1999).—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, pages 119-120

Miserable...

A great many Christians actually seem to think that all their Father in heaven wants is a chance to make them miserable, and to take away all their blessings, and they imagine, poor souls, that if they hold on to things in their own will, they can hinder Him from doing this.—Hannah Whitall Smith

A foregone conclusion

...documentary films aim to persuade the audience of a particular point of view through well ordered visual stimulation, supplemented by a sound track that interprets (through the role of the talking head and voice-of-God narrative) and arouses the viewer’s interest (through music). In many cases, a well argued and defensible thesis is not a top priority. Esthetically pleasing presentations outweigh the emphasis on scholarly content, for documentaries rarely have the luxury of slowing down to clarify argumentation or provide well-developed theses lest they lose their audience and disturb the flow of the storyline.—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, page 116

<idle musing>
Sounds more like entertainment than documentary, doesn't it? And that's exactly what it is!
</idle musing>

Musings on Exodus...

Then Moses left Pharaoh and went out of the city. He spread out his hands toward the LORD; the thunder and hail stopped, and the rain no longer poured down on the land. When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses. (Exodus 9:33-35 TNIV)

<idle musing>
I've been reading through Exodus the last 2 -3 days and this jumped out at me. Not the passage itself, but the whole concept of God relenting and Pharaoh hardening his heart. Specifically, the whole concept of God relenting from a punishment/judgment and our response to it.

In Pharaoh's case, God tells him to do something; he refuses. God sends the promised results; Pharaoh “repents” and God relents. Pharaoh then decides not to follow through—in other words, he just wanted off the hook. His concern wasn't what God's will was, but what the results would be for him. Once the “ouch” of the results was removed, he kept on with the behavior.

I wonder if maybe we aren't the same? I think we might misinterpret God's relenting, in order to give us space to really act out our repentance, as his giving us permission to continue the behavior?

Pharaoh certainly kept up his behavior throughout—even after the death of the firstborn. He sent an army after the Israelites to bring them back even after the final plague. Do we do the same thing with our continued rebellion after becoming Christians?

Just an
</idle musing>

Deceived!

His will is the very most blessed thing that can come to us under all circumstances. I do not understand how it is that Satan has succeeded in blinding the eyes of the Church to this fact. But it really would seem as if God’s own children were more afraid of His will than of anything else in life; His lovely, lovable will, which only means loving-kindnesses and tender mercies, and blessings unspeakable to their souls. I wish I could only show to every one the unfathomable sweetness of the will of God. Heaven is a place of infinite bliss because His will is perfectly done there, and our lives share in this bliss just in proportion as His will is perfectly done in them. He loves us, and the will of love is always blessing for its loved one. —Hannah Whitalll Smith

One size fits all, doesn't it?

...the idea that documentary filmmakers only present their version of history is generally acknowledged (Toplin 1988; Eitzen 2005); filmmakers do not necessarily think they are presenting completely accurate history. The problem is that, whereas academic historians are armed with tools for presenting opposing interpretations of evidence, such as footnotes and peer review, the limitations of video as a medium (most importantly, time limits) means that the audience of a documentary film is often left unaware of alternative interpretations. The lack of competing historical interpretations in most popular documentary films leaves the audience with the false impression that "history is a tidy operation, that it involves little more than laying out the chronology and ‘getting the story straight’” (Toplin 1986: 1216).—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, pages 97-98

Salvation...from what?

Christians always commit the keeping of their souls for eternity to the Lord, because they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they cannot keep these themselves. But the things of this present life they take into their own keeping, and try to carry on their own shoulders, with the perhaps unconfessed feeling that it is a great deal to ask of the Lord to carry them, and that they cannot think of asking Him to carry their burdens too.—Hannah Whitalll Smith

Different goals

Much of the tension between archaeologists and the media stems from our different goals. Archaeologists study the remains of material culture to understand the past. We are not treasure hunters and we are not allowed to keep what we find. In other words, we are not engaged in archaeology for personal profit, nor are most of us involved in it to validate personal faith and beliefs. On the other hand, because for them the bottom line is money, the media (especially television and film) capitalize on the public’s fascination with events mentioned in the Bible and the public’s desire to find tangible proof of these events. Most members of the media are interested not in scholarship for its own sake but rather in topics that will make a profit...the usual program formula consists of interviewing a nonspecialist who claims to have made a sensational find related to some biblical person or event, which a scholar is brought in to refute. Usually the nay-saying scholar comes across as a skeptic who is too narrow-minded to entertain the possibility that someone from outside the ivory tower of academia made a valid new discovery, or even more sinister, who denies the validity of the discovery in order to keep this important information from the public.—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, pages 93, 94

<idle musing>
Ain't it the truth! I've had to play the nay-sayer far to many times. I'm glad that most of the times it has been with people who know me and my faith. I'd hate to have to do it in front of a camera, knowing they are going to cut all the qualifying words and go for a sound-bite...
</idle musing>

Stocks or Art?

Kersel’s essay proves what Aristotle knew to be the case in the 4th century b.c.e. and what we, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, have painfully relearned: the financial market, as a mechanism for producing profit, is ethically problematic. Her argument for the complicity of the market in the theft of artifacts offers a refinement and a confirmation of a broad, well-established, popular suspicion of the art market. In February, 2009, National Public Radio sponsored a debate entitled “On Ethics: Is the Art Market Worse Than the Stock Market?” Before the debate the live audience was almost equally divided among those in favor of the motion, those opposed, and those undecided. At the end of the debate, the majority had been persuaded that the art market was indeed less ethical than the stock market.—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, page 84

Lay your burden down...

Most Christians are like a man who was toiling along the road, bending under a heavy burden, when a wagon overtook him, and the driver kindly offered to help him on his journey. He joyfully accepted the offer, but when seated, continued to bend beneath his burden, which he still kept on his shoulders. “Why do you not lay down your burden?” asked the kind-hearted driver. “Oh!” replied the man, “I feel that it is almost too much to ask you to carry me, and I could not think of letting you carry my burden too.” And so Christians, who have given themselves into the care and keeping of the Lord Jesus, still continue to bend beneath the weight of their burden, and often go weary and heavy-laden throughout the whole length of their journey.—Hannah Whitalll Smith

Freedom!

A quaint old divine of the seventeenth century says: “There is nothing so contrary to God as sin, and God will not suffer sin always to rule his masterpiece, man. When we consider the infiniteness of God’s power for destroying that which is contrary to Him, who can believe that the devil must always stand and prevail? I believe it is inconsistent and disagreeable with true faith for people to be Christians, and yet to believe that Christ, the eternal Son of God, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, will suffer sin and the devil to have dominion over them.
“But you will say no man by all the power he hath can redeem himself, and no man can live without sin. We will say, Amen, to it. But if men tell us, that when God’s power comes to help us and to redeem us out of sin, that it cannot be effected, then this doctrine we cannot away with; nor I hope you neither.—Hannah Whitalll Smith

A near total loss

When an object is stolen from a museum, at least its existence is known and its original context (where it was found and in association with what other objects, physical remains, and architectural features) recorded for future study and reconstruction. The looting of sites is far more detrimental to our ability to understand the past because neither the objects themselves nor their original contexts will ever be known. In addition, looters routinely discard those objects that are considered less saleable on the international market, such as fragments of cuneiform tablets, even though these fragments may contain significant historical and cultural information.—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, page 18

<idle musing>
This is an important book that anyone interested in the ancient world should read. I'll be excerpting from it for the next week or two.

The saddest thing is that the locals who do the looting usually are only given a fraction of what the brokers get for the item. So the locals lose twice: once by not getting any significant cash. Second by making their history poorer. All for the sake of money...sad.
</idle musing>

What a convoluted mess...

The story of Balaam’s jenny exhibits a sophisticated literary structure. It is divided into three paragraphs (the first of which can be subdivided into three separate “encounters”). The first and second paragraphs employ role reversal as the primary literary convention. The third paragraph restores proper roles and reveals the purpose of the entire episode―to reinforce that Balaam may only speak YHWH’s words. Num 22:22–35 is outlined here as follows: I. Reversal A: The Jenny as Seer (vv. 22–27) First Encounter (vv. 22–23) Second Encounter (vv. 24–25) Third Encounter (vv. 26–27) II. Reversal B: The Jenny as YHWH’s Mouthpiece (vv. 28–30) III. Resolution: Balaam as Seer and Mouthpiece (vv. 31–35) The first paragraph (vv. 22–27) reverses the roles of the seer and the donkey. The role of the donkey (which is infamous for its stubbornness; see §§2.6.4, 4.2.3) is assigned to Balaam. The role of Balaam “whose eyes are opened” (Num 24:4b, 16b) is assigned to the donkey. —Donkeys in the Biblical World, page 184

Deliver us!

“Contemporary religious involvement with biblical texts easily devolves into the slavish application of norms derived from the religiously correct orthodoxy of our day: one accepts that which suits contemporary orthodox, one rejects what is disagreeable, and one simply ignores the many biblical texts that do not present themselves as being spiritually useful or politically relevant. In such a situation, studying the Bible contributes nothing to the formation of faith, community, or outlook; it is merely a matter of gaining a few proof texts for what we already value.”—Biblical Theology, page 24

<idle musing>
Lord deliver us from such short-sightedness! May the Holy Spirit break down the barriers and open our eyes to see new things and catch a new vision of you!
</idle musing>

Hmmm...

So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:14-19 TNIV)

<idle musing>
How many curses do you see there? Look again! How many curses do you see? Count carefully, because the results have huge ramifications for your theology of God.

OK, how many of you counted 3 or 4? Let's see those hands? That's what I thought, most of you. And so, you have a view that God cursed the woman and the man. And, consequently, you think God is mad at you and hates you. Admit it. God is an ogre looking over your shoulder, ready to bash you over the head at the least provocation.

But, how many times does the word "curse" actually appear? Twice. Yes, twice: once about the serpent and once about the ground.

Is the woman cursed?

Nope.

Is the man cursed?

Nope.

Does God hate us?

Nope.

Is God mad at us?

Nope.

If he hated us, then why does scripture tell us that he loves us? Why would he come in the form of humanity? As Michael Card said it so well, "His love would have held him there." The nails weren't necessary.

Isn't that freeing? God LOVES you. Go and rejoice in his love. Respond to his love in return. Love God and you will love life—no matter what the circumstances. Ask Valentine as he lost his head over his love for Christ...
</idle musing>

Relationships

God as a Person in his relationships and communication focuses upon personal and not propositional truth. Love is the essence of the relationship and it is centred on the heart; therefore we should not expect or focus upon precision, exactitude, and rational systems.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 220

<idle musing>
Appropriate for a Valentine's day, eh?
</idle musing>

The greatest is love

John Wesley is to be identified as a pastoral or practical theologian. The perspective from which he approached the task of theologising comes from his conviction that the essential nature of God is love and that all other facets of his nature, character and purposes are in harmony with this. Human beings are created in the image of God, and the interrelationship between God and his creation is characterised by a relationship of love. It is for this reason that Wesley can define the essential nature of Christianity as “the true, the scriptural, experimental religion” of the heart. God’s plan of salvation has to do with the restoration of a relationship of love based on trust, rather than the intellectual command of doctrines and conformity to rules and regulations. This makes personal and community transformation the critical test of correct theological reflection, formulation, and application.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 218

<idle musing>
Amen! Transformation is the outgrowth of the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts. May his tribe increase.
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord ’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made the two of you one? You belong to him in body and spirit. And why has he made you one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth. (Malachi 2:13-15 TNIV).

<idle musing>
Instead of railing about the sins of the world, maybe we should turn our eyes internally...
</idle musing>

Spirit power

Wesley sees God alone as the single and sole authority and source for all theologising. He is then free to use all, some or no means at all in communicating through the Holy Spirit his love, desire, invitation to and nurturing of a mutual relationship with persons and communities; Wesley makes this point explicitly. Arguments over the primacy of Scripture, reason, experience or tradition are pointless, as none of the means can substitute for, or be equal to, the authority of God himself. Wesley firmly believes that God normally uses the various means of grace, but they have no merit in themselves; there is only instrumental value as they are energised by the presence of the Spirit in the life of the believer and the faith community.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, pages 216-217

<idle musing>
Amen! Without the Holy Spirit, nothing is effective, no matter how persuasive, emotional, or reasonable. It doesn't matter what scripture, reason, experience, or tradition endorse unless the Spirit breathes life into them.

Come, Holy Spirit, and breathe life into your people!
</idle musing>

Set free!

“Therefore, my brothers and sisters, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (Acts 13:38, 39 TNIV)

<idle musing>
"Set free from every sin!" Not just forgiven, but set free! that is the gospel, the Good News! That is what the law of Moses couldn't do...
</idle musing>

Saturday's thought

And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’ “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. “ ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. (Zechariah 7:8-13 TNIV)

Thought for a Friday

A quaint old divine of the seventeenth century says: “There is nothing so contrary to God as sin, and God will not suffer sin always to rule his masterpiece, man. When we consider the infiniteness of God’s power for destroying that which is contrary to Him, who can believe that the devil must always stand and prevail? I believe it is inconsistent and disagreeable with true faith for people to be Christians, and yet to believe that Christ, the eternal Son of God, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, will suffer sin and the devil to have dominion over them.
“But you will say no man by all the power he hath can redeem himself, and no man can live without sin. We will say, Amen, to it. But if men tell us, that when God’s power comes to help us and to redeem us out of sin, that it cannot be effected, then this doctrine we cannot away with; nor I hope you neither.—Hannah Whitalll Smith

How to read the Bible

[For Wesley] The Bible sets the boundaries for what is and what is not acceptable in a relationship with God, since the whole content faithfully portrays God’s nature, character and purpose. Biblical truth was not to be found by isolating selected proof texts; it had to be read holistically (the analogy of faith) in the light of its intentions to initiate and develop a relationship of love. The central message of the Scripture was to be read in terms of love, trust and relationship, not propositions, assent and doctrinal systems.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 214

<idle musing>
Amen! Too many read the Bible looking for proof texts instead of transformation via the Holy Spirit.
</idle musing>

Deliverance, not just forgiveness

In the very outset, then, settle down on this one thing, that the Lord is able to save you fully, now, in this life, from the power and dominion of sin, and to deliver you altogether out of the hands of your enemies. If you do not think He is, search your Bible, and collect together every announcement or declaration concerning the purposes and object of His death on the cross. You will be astonished to find how full they are. Everywhere and always His work is said to be, to deliver us from our sins, from our bondage, from our defilement; and not a hint is given anywhere, that this deliverance was to be only the limited and partial one with which the Church so continually tries to be satisfied.—Hannah Whitalll Smith in The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life

Restatements of faith

He [Wesley] comes to affirm that it is the presence of God himself through the Spirit that is critical for the relationship to be experimentally real, and God has the ability to communicate directly with all persons through the Spirit. It is the Spirit himself who challenges all theological opinions and practices, approves and confirms experientially that the understanding and application are within the framework of an authentic heart experience of God. The Spirit is free to do this directly with the person or via the use of ‘means’ and this is the key to Wesley’s whole theological enterprise...Wesley initially identified these means as Scripture, reason, antiquity, the Church of England and experience. It is the Spirit’s use of these means of grace that enables Christians within their community of faith to avoid both enthusiasm (the absence of means) and rationalism (unaided human effort). In this evangelical understanding, the person/community doing the reading, interpretation and application of Scripture is never autonomous: it is always the role of the living Spirit to raise up ‘prophets’ to give fresh visions, new perspectives, and new insights; to recapture, renew, or refresh the soteriological beliefs and practices settled between the apostolic times and the early Fathers. There are no ‘new’ doctrines to be discovered, only re-statements and fresh applications.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 213

Thoughts for a super bowl Sunday

Persons often get into such a state that they are greatly interested in some worldly matters, but not in spiritual religion. Their souls are all awake while worldly things are the subject; but suggest some spiritual subject, and their interest is gone at once.—Charles Finney

Comfort

Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18, 19 TNIV)

Thought for today

“Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit God’s love for them. (Jonah 2:8 TNIV)

<idle musing>
And idols come in different shapes and sizes...
</idle musing>

Getting it right

Wesley initially seemed to uphold the emerging Enlightenment view that defined belief in terms of intellectual comprehension and faith as assent to propositional truth. His own spiritual journey led him to question this approach and he returned to the earlier view of belief in the context of personal encounter and relationship, with faith defined primarily in terms of trust. During 1738 he personally experienced the critical difference between defining Christianity in intellectual and behavioural terms and the experimental reality of a personal relationship with God through the presence of the Holy Spirit. This brings a new perspective to the whole process of theologising, centring on love and relationship rather than propositional truth and behavioural conformity to rules and regulations. It makes the heart and not the head the primary locus of God’s gracious working; in this understanding, technical information is no substitute for actual lived experience.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 212

<idle musing>
The first leads to confessionalism, which easily degenerates to the church being nothing more than a social, do-good club instead of the redeemed people of God.
</idle musing>

Further adventures in sourdough

I hadn't intended this to become a series! Oh well. I hope you are enjoying this; I sure am. So far everything has been edible, so even the ones I have decided not to repeat are not a loss. So far, I've got a 100% wheat, a 100% rye, and a cinnamon-raisin.

Today's experiment was with 50% oat flour. I used my standard wheat recipe:
1 cup starter
3 cups flour
1.5 teaspoons salt
1.5 cups water
But, I halved the flour, splitting it between oat and wheat. I was going to do a 2/3 loaf, but we grind our own flour and I guessed wrong on the oat groats; I ended up with 1.5 cups : ) Oh well; life is tough! Anyway, I let that proof overnight.

It rose fine. But, when I went to punch it down...well, let's just say it collapsed at the first touch. It only has 1/2 the gluten, so it is pretty fragile. I stirred it down and let it sit in the bowl; there was no way I would be able to form a loaf, so I poured it into the loaf pan and let it rise.

After 2 hours, it hadn't risen much, if at all. So, I waited...after 3 hours, it had risen slightly, so I put it in the oven. Normally, you get what is called "oven spring" when a loaf bakes. That's where the loaf rises in the heat of the oven before the yeast dies. This loaf just stayed flat until over halfway through the baking, then the spring started developing. It wasn't done after 60 minutes, so I gave it another five.

The bread was definitely moist; oatmeal is a secret ingredient in some breads to make them moister. It wasn't too heavy, either. But the flavor was a bit strange while it was still warm. Once it cooled down, it had a nice flavor. I think I'll make it again; at first I didn't think I would.

Evening activities

I'm researching short season tomatoes...how many catalogs do you see? There are 14; I had a hard time finding them all in the picture, but they are there. Plus, I have two in PDF on the computer. I decided to go with Glacier, Stupice, and Siberia. All claim 50 days from transplant...that's earlier than Early Girl— and they are open-pollinated, so I can save seeds from them : )

Observations on sourdough starter

Not like I'm an expert after two weeks! But, here's some observations...

As I mentioned in the first post, I used the instructions here for the first week. At the end of the week, I opted to thin my starter out; it is now the thickness of a relatively thick pancake batter. I've had better success with it as a thinner starter.

I still feed it twice a day, once in the morning and once at night. I was feeding it a 1/2 cup of home-ground whole wheat flour, thinning it with water to get the desired pancake batter consistency. Then, one day while I was experimenting with rye bread, I ran out of ground wheat flour; I was too lazy to grind some more, so I used the rye flour instead. Wow! Did it ever grow! I would say it grew twice as fast. I cut back to 1/3 cup of rye flour and it still is growing like crazy.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do long-term. I might move it back to whole wheat flour; that's what I bake with most of the time. But, it sure is fun to watch the bubbles from the rye starter!

I don't think it matters much to the bread, although the rye might give a tarter flavor. I might fork the starter and have two going for a while and do a taste test. That sounds like a fun project. But, I think I'll wait for the starter to get a bit older first. They say that the starter keeps maturing for about 30 days. After that, the flavor has stabilized.

Sourdough, part 3

Yesterday, I told about the rye bread with 2/3 rye. It was so successful that I decided to try 100% rye. I mixed up the ingredients, using this recipe:
1 cup starter
3 cups whole rye flour
1.5 teaspoons salt
1 tablespoon caraway
1.25 cups water
2 tablespoons molasses

I let it proof overnight. The next morning, I noticed that it didn't rise quite as high and the dough was thicker. I think that was more because I shorted the water to compensate for the liquid in the molasses; I might have overcompensated.

Anyway, I let it sit on the board for 20 minutes, formed it, slashed it deeper than before—the slashes have been working, but just aren't deep enough to be pretty—and let it rise. After 2.5 hours, it was doubled and ready to bake.

I baked it at 350° for 60 minutes, starting with a cold oven, same as usual. It was wonderful! I can't believe the difference from trying it with yeast! This one's going in my regular rotation of breads to make.

The results here got me thinking...how about oat flour? Oat flour is heavy and doesn't rise well because it has no gluten; at least rye has some gluten. I think I'll try it, starting at 50% oat flour. Stay tuned!

Motivation

I am ashamed to think that any Christian should ever put on a long face and shed tears over doing a thing for Christ, which a worldly man would be only too glad to do for money.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Potpourri

A few interesting things around the blogosphere...

The Eerdmans blog has a post (that finishes yesterday's) on abortion. Here's a brief excerpt, but do read the whole thing (and yesterday's as well):

We need better customs and laws enforcing male sexual and paternal responsibility. But still, the brute facts direct us to the particular life circumstances of women. We need to know what is happening in so many women’s lives, and in our culture more broadly, that leads to so many unwanted pregnancies for women. We do know a few things.

We know that far too many people are having sex outside of a context in which a resulting pregnancy can be handled without resort to abortion. Our culture lacks an ethic of sexual responsibility, and women disproportionately pay the price.

Note especially that last line: "women disproportionately pay the price." As Christians we are called to defend the helpless; that includes the unborn, but also the mothers of the unborn...

Alan Knox has a good note about finding church:

It’s true that many, many people expect to find “church” in a specially set aside building, and outside of that building they do not expect to find fellowship. Yes, this is a problem of expectations. But, this same problem of expectations based on location can affect Christians who do not gather in specially designated buildings.

What? That sounds crazy, at first. But, in reality, it’s all the same. You see, it IS possible to find fellowship with brothers and sisters in Christ in “church buildings,” and it is possible to find fellowship with other believers in homes, and it is possible to find fellowship with other Christians in parks and beaches and pubs and any other location.

Expectations get in the way when we ONLY expect to find fellowship in a specific location (whatever that location), and expectations also get in the way when we NEVER expect to find fellowship in certain locations (whatever those locations).

<idle musing>
Yep. It isn't just traditional churches that are guilty; I've been in house churches where all they did was substitute a living room for the sanctuary. Once the "service" was over, no more talk about Jesus. You'd share a meal, but the talk was about anything other than God... Sad, isn't it?

God wants us always aware of his presence—talking about him and what he is doing in our life, as well as living that out. It doesn't matter whether you are a part of a house church, a traditional Sunday morning church, or a "seeker-friendly" church
; God wants all of us, all the time. Anything less is idolatry. Think about that for a minute...
</idle musing>

More adventures in sourdough

The day I made the cinnamon bread, Joel, Renee, and the grandkids came over. Debbie's been at her parents place, assisting for a week or so; they figured I needed company! They brought the main dish; I supplied the bread : )

At that point I had finished the original loaf, so I had a very dense rye, a very chewy whole wheat, and the cinnamon raisin. I sliced up some of each for everyone to try. As expected, the rye bread wasn't appreciated—by me either! But, the kids liked both the whole wheat and the cinnamon raisin bread. I gave Renee some starter for her to experiment and I gave her my revised recipe.

That night, I decided to try rye again, but using my own ideas. I took a cup of starter, 1.5 cups of whole wheat, 1.5 cups of rye flour, and 1.5 cups of water. In addition, I used 2 teaspoons of molasses, 1 tablespoon of caraway, and 1.5 teaspoons of salt. I mixed that whole thing together and let it proof overnight. The next morning, I poured it out onto the counter; it was very moist, almost too moist to work with. I put it into a parchment paper lined glass loaf pan, let it rise 3 hours, and baked it at 350°F for 60 minutes (no preheating of the oven). I lowered the temperature to 350° this time (from 375°) because of the glass pan...

Again, the parchment paper fell off the loaf when I removed the loaf from the pan. That's great for reusing; usually you have to peel it off the bread after it sits for about 5-15 minutes (Renee lets hers cool completely before removing it—I'm not that patient!). I let the loaf cool for an hour, sliced it, and tasted it. Delicious!

But, that got me thinking. With normal yeast breads, rye bread doesn't rise very well. I've talked about my experiments with rye bread before. But, this loaf rose so well, I figured I'd try a denser loaf. So, I went with 2 cups of rye and 1 cup of whole wheat. I left out the molasses, to see if the sugar had anything to do with the rising, otherwise I left it all the same. Plus, I used all the rest of the molasses in the baked beans that afternoon!

I didn't grind enough wheat flour, so I fed the starter with rye flour. The next morning, I fed it rye flour again. Let me tell you, I think sourdough starter loves rye flour! It was about ready to overflow the bowl after only 5 hours. I've read people who say that they can't get starter to grow except on unbleached flour; they should try rye!

Anyway, I let the bread rise overnight, poured it out the next morning, and made a loaf. I didn't notice any less rise than with a 50/50% mixture. I let it rise in the loaf pan; after 2.5 hours, it was ready to bake! It actually rose better with more rye flour! I baked it as usual and let it cool for about an hour. The flavor was intense! You can taste the sour of the sourdough more.

I think I'm going to go with 100% rye this time, add the molasses back in, and see what happens...stay tuned!

Interdependence

Humans are inherently social creatures. Even those of us who are relatively serious loners are only loners intermittently. We are all parts of a complex web of relationships and mutualisms. It isn’t normal, natural, or healthy for us to be “independent.” What is healthy is interdependence. In ordinary and good times, we don’t really seek true independence, but rather, enough knowledge and skills so that we can build and hold up our end of honorable interdependence. I think the same applies to even mega-hard times. —Carol Deppe, in The Resilient Gardener

<idle musing>
Excellent insight. Who wants to be totally independent? That would be a lonely life!
</idle musing>

Adventures with sourdough

I've been experimenting with sourdough for about 2 weeks now. I made my own starter using the instruction here. I used rye flour; the instructions say not to use home-ground flour, so I had no other choice. It didn't grow for 24 hours, but that's normal. After that, I fed it every 12 hours, gradually switching to unbleached flour in the fourth day. I kept it on unbleached flour for 3-4 days, then switched to whole wheat flour.

They say not to use it until it is a week old, so I didn't. But, the day it was a week old, I attempted to make a loaf. I followed a recipe that says to only let it rise 1.5 hours. It didn't move, so I let it rise another 3. It still wasn't very risen, but I baked it anyway...I didn't slash the top of the loaf, either.

The results were edible, but dense. Because I hadn't slashed the loaf, it tore along the sides. Oh well, at least it was edible! That night, I tried again. This time, I used a different recipe. Actually, I tried two; one was a rye bread and the other a whole wheat bread. The rye recipe called for 2 cups of rye, 2 cups of whole wheat, 1/2 cup starter, and only 1 cup of water. That was way too dense to even work with, so I added another 1/2 cup of water and let it sit overnight.

The other recipe called for 1 cup of starter, 3 cups of whole wheat, and 1.5 cups of water (plus 1.5 teaspoons of salt). I just mixed up the ingredients and let them sit, covered, overnight. The next morning, I poured the dough out on a floured surface, let it rest about 20 minutes before forming it into a loaf; I didn't grease the glass loaf pan. I then let it rise for about 3 hours and baked it in a cool oven at 375°F for 70 minutes.

At the same time, I was attempting to make the rye bread. It had barely risen; it was way too dense to rise much. Well, I figured it was worth a try, so I kneaded it some, formed it into two loaves, using lightly greased stainless steel loaf pans, and let it rise for 3 hours before popping it into a preheated 450°F oven.

I ended up with a very chewy whole wheat bread and 2 dense, barely edible rye loaves. The ungreased pan stuck, but I used a paring knife around the outside edge; the greased pans made the crust tough. Not too bad for the second try. Good enough to try again, anyway.

That night I made a cinnamon raisin dough. I used the same recipe as the whole wheat, but added 2 teaspoons of cinnamon, a tablespoon of unrefined sugar, and 1/2 cup raisins. It rose nicely overnight. I formed it into a loaf, used parchment paper to line the glass loaf pan, and let it rise about 3 hours. I popped it into a cool oven and baked it for 60 minutes at 375°F. The parchment paper almost fell off the loaf when I took it out of the pan. I let the loaf cool for about 1/2 hour (they say to let it stand for an hour—yeah, right!) It was delicious!

Self denial

The great effort among sinners has always been to be saved in some way of self-indulgence. They are slow to admit that self-denial is indispensable—that total, unqualified self-denial is the condition of being saved. I warn you against supposing that you can be saved in some easy, self-pleasing way. Men ought to know, and always assume, that it is naturally indispensable for selfishness to be utterly put away and its demands resisted and put down.—Charles Finney

Intellectual assent

Many in the eighteenth century viewed Christianity as an intellectual system, centred on systematic theology; belief was then an intellectual quality involving the comprehension and application of propositional truth. This was certainly congenial to the developing Enlightenment approach to the study of religion and was popular with many Calvinists. Wesley believed that Calvinism erred by focusing on God’s sovereignty, with the consequent emphasis on rules, regulations and perfect compliance. While Wesley was influenced by these developments, he clearly rejected their main thrust in order to embrace Christianity as a personal encounter with God, a relationship based on trust, centred in the heart, and with an affinity for personal knowledge rather than abstract truth.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 211

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! I am not against intellectual knowledge—how could I be with all the years of schooling?—but without the Spirit of God quickening that knowledge, it is worthless ("knowledge puffs up while love builds up").
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Who is wise? Let them realize these things. Who is discerning? Let them understand. The ways of the Lord are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them. (Hosea 14:9 TNIV)

Procrastination

...they put this matter of becoming holy off to the most distant time possible. Feeling a strong dislike to it now, they flatter themselves that God will take care that it shall be done up duly in the next world, how much soever they may frustrate His efforts to do it in this. So long as it remains in their power to choose whether to become holy or not, they improve the time to enjoy sin; and leave it with God to make them holy in the next world— if they can't prevent it there! Consistency is a jewel!
And all those who put off being religious now in the cherished delusion of becoming so in some future time, whether in this world or the next, are acting out this same inconsistency. You fondly hope that will occur which you are now doing your utmost to prevent.—Charles Finney

Full salvation is for now

Many would be willing to be saved in heaven, if they might hold on to some sins while on earth-- or rather they think they would like heaven on such terms. But the fact is, they would as much dislike a pure heart and a holy life in heaven as they do on earth, and they deceive themselves utterly in supposing that they are ready or even willing to go to such a heaven as God has prepared for His people. No, there can be no heaven except for those who accept a salvation from all sin in this world. They must take the Gospel as a system which holds no compromise with sin-- which contemplates full deliverance from sin even now, and makes provision accordingly. Any other gospel is not the true one, and to accept of Christ's Gospel in any other sense is not to accept it all. Its first and its last condition is sworn and eternal renunciation of all sin.—Charles Finney

An iron collar

It has often struck my mind with great force, that many professors of religion are deplorably and utterly mistaken on this point. Their real feeling is that Christ's service is an iron collar—an insufferably hard yoke. Hence, they labour exceedingly to throw off some of this burden. They try to make it out that Christ does not require much, if any, self-denial—much, if any, deviation from the course of worldliness and sin. O, if they could only get the standard of Christian duty quite down to a level with the fashions and customs of this world! How much easier then to live a Christian life and wear Christ's yoke!

But taking Christ's yoke as it really is, it becomes in their view an iron collar. Doing the will of Christ, instead of their own, is a hard business. Now if doing Christ's will is religion, (and who can doubt it?) then they only need enough of it; and in their state of mind they will be supremely wretched. Let me ask those who groan under the idea that they must be religious—who deem it awful hard—but they must—how much religion of this kind would it take to make hell? Surely not much! When it gives you no joy to do God's pleasure, and yet you are shut up to the doing of His pleasure is the only way to be saved, and are thereby perpetually dragooned into the doing of what you hate, as the only means of escaping hell, would not this be itself a hell? Can you not see that in this state of mind you are not saved and cannot be?—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
That seems to be the attitude of far too many seeker-friendly churches...God deliver us from ourselves!
</idle musing>

Sin defined

...sin is defined as a deliberate violation of the law of love, making it voluntary, intentional and culpable. This means that infirmities, errors, mistakes, and misjudgements, that are obvious violations of the original covenant of works with Adam, do not violate the covenant of grace as long as there is confession, repentance and gracious remediation. Under these conditions, all involuntary shortcomings that would earn condemnation under the covenant of works are now graciously covered by the atonement. This makes a relationship of perfect love defined by purity of intention, singleness of purpose and a heart’s passion for God possible under the present conditions of bodily existence, but not perfect performance or conformity to a standard of conduct defined by impersonal law and sovereign decrees. Salvation is thus centred on a whole-hearted passion for God rather than perfect conformity to rules and regulations. Wesley believed this was biblical, clearly supported by antiquity, the Church of England and modelled [sic] in the lives of numerous ‘saints’ and the people called Methodists.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 211

<idle musing>
"Salvation is thus centred on a whole-hearted passion for God rather than perfect conformity to rules and regulations." Amen & amen!
</idle musing>

God as love

From the very beginning of his Oxford years Wesley had visualised God’s essential nature as love; a love displayed amongst the Persons of the Triune Godhead and to all creation. God’s desire for loving relationships then defines and shapes the expression of all the other divine attributes. Human beings, who are made in God’s image, are to be understood primarily in terms of love and relationships, both with God and neighbour. The divine-human interaction is, therefore, to be defined by love and relationship and not by an intellectual comprehension of doctrine. Nor is it to be expressed by conformity to divine laws imposed by a Sovereign God, through a series of decrees that are isolated from mercy and justice. In harmony with this conception, he consistently declared that the whole of the law and commandments can be summed up by the call to love God supremely and the neighbour as oneself. Furthermore, this requirement was also a promise, for God does not ask anything of us that we cannot implement by his grace.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, pages 210-211

Eschatology

I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this. “So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’ (Daniel 7:16-18 TNIV)

<idle musing>
A perfect summary of the end of the world. Why do we need to know more? We win—forever! The rest is just fill...
</idle musing>

Good theology

In these final years Wesley continued to maintain the vision of the Christian life that he had held from his time at Oxford. He retained his conviction that God was to be understood essentially as a God of love who desired a loving relationship with all people; all other aspects of his nature, character and purpose are to be understood in relation to love. Furthermore, there is nothing in God’s declarations or actions that would contradict the primacy of love. A love-based relationship could not exist without liberty and the power of contrary choice. In upholding the primacy of God’s initiation of the relationship, Wesley remained steadfast in his opinion that grace, truly understood, enabled a genuine human response to God’s invitation. Wesley was certain that his picture was both biblical and faithful to the early church and his Anglican heritage.Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 206

<idle musing>
And, indeed it is...
</idle musing>

Sanctification

...we cannot hope to reach this maturity in any other way than by yielding ourselves up utterly and willingly to His mighty working. But the sanctification the Scriptures urge as a present experience upon all believers does not consist in maturity of growth, but in purity of heart, and this may be as complete in the babe in Christ as in the veteran believer.—Hannah Whitall Smith in The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life

What it is

All that we claim then in this life of sanctification is, that by a step of faith we put ourselves into the hands of the Lord, for Him to work in us all the good pleasure of His will; and that by a continuous exercise of faith we keep ourselves there. This is our part in the matter. And when we do it, and while we do it, we are, in the Scripture sense, truly pleasing to God, although it may require years of training and discipline to mature us into a vessel that shall be in all respects to His honor, and fitted to every good work.—Hannah Whitall Smith in The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life

The promise

We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. A real work is to be wrought in us and upon us. Besetting sins are to be conquered. Evil habits are to be overcome. Wrong dispositions and feelings are to be rooted out, and holy tempers and emotions are to be begotten. A positive transformation is to take place. So at least the Bible teaches. Now somebody must do this. Either we must do it for ourselves, or another must do it for us. We have most of us tried to do it for ourselves at first, and have grievously failed; then we discover from the Scriptures and from our own experience that it is a work we are utterly unable to do for ourselves, but that the Lord Jesus Christ has come on purpose to do it, and that He will do it for all who put themselves wholly into His hand, and trust Him to do it.—Hannah Whitall Smith in The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life

<idle musing>
Ain't it the truth?
</idle musing>

Two roads diverged...

Wesley made explicit in his pastoral advice that all Christians had a choice to make regarding the depth and richness of their relationship with God. He noted that there was a higher and a lower rank of Christian. While both of them may be in God’s favour, “The latter avoid all known sin, do much good, use all the means of grace, but have little of the life of God in their souls and are much conformed to the world. The former make the Bible their whole rule, and their sole aim is the will and image of God.” The critical concern here is the heart’s desire for a deeper relationship with God–a matter of passion and relationship, not intellect and comprehension.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, pages 195-196

<idle musing>
I'll take the high road. What about you? Which will you choose? You don't know? Well, your daily actions are saying what your choice is already...
</idle musing>

Yes, but...

Wesley was convinced that a genuine heart experience of God need not be tightly linked to a correct interpretation of the text, since God has full authority over the text and can apply it through the Spirit as he chooses. This affirms that Scripture, while at the core of his theological methodology, could not be substituted for the direct work of the Spirit in the life.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 169

<idle musing>
Jesus himself says that they will know we are his by our love not by our doctrine—not to minimize correct doctrine! But, the emphasis must be on love and an ongoing encounter with the living, resurrected, victorious Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
</idle musing>

Passion

...at the heart of Wesley’s whole conception of Christian perfection was a passion for God, and it was this passion that was to be the motivation for the whole of life and ministry. He believed that love was essentially attractive and this should be the emphasis in preaching and teaching, rather than on the negative aspect of cleansing or purification.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 146

Breaking the sin cycle

Were all therefore condemned to a life of endless sinning and defeat? Wesley strongly rejected this pessimistic conclusion. He argued that God had now established a covenant of grace with fallen humanity and all the requirements of the law were met fully in Christ who had now established the law of faith, so that the one who believed in him would be fully accepted by God. The “law of faith” established by Christ was fulfilled by love: “Faith working or animated by love is all that God now requires of man. He has substituted (not sincerity, but) love, in the room of angelic perfection.” Wesley agreed that it was still possible to offend against this law, since mistakes may spring from a heart of love. He reminded his people that they have no “stock of holiness” that is their own, but must always depend every moment upon Christ and so they always needed his atonement, intercession and advocacy with the Father. He was careful to maintain that we never achieved a state of grace in which we no longer needed the priestly work of Christ.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 136

<idle musing>
Amen! We always stand in need of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Any heart holiness we have is strictly Him, not us. But, heart holiness is possible!
</idle musing>

I will move you...

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ezekiel 36:25-27 TNIV)

<idle musing>
I love that! God promises to move us; it's all him...
</idle musing>

Closer to God

"...growing closer to God has a whole lot less to do with any action we might take and a whole lot more to do with positioning our hearts toward His. It's what I call intentionally positioning ourselves to experience God—and the posture we are to take might surprise most well-meaning Christ seekers and followers.

"The posture isn't standing with our hands up high or arms outstretched. The posture is the lowest possible position in which we can put ourselves with empty hands and eager hearts. In other words, communicating with our intentions, our attitudes, and even our body language that we are willing to deny ourselves."— Made to Crave, pages 59-60

Love drives out sin

The vital quality [of Christian perfection] was a heart right toward God (a relationship), seeking only to love him, glorify him and enjoy him forever, through faith in Jesus Christ. The emphasis is undoubtedly on the positive presence of love in the heart that leaves no room for anything contrary. In other words, it is the infilling of love that lies at the heart of the experience, not a negative image of prior cleansing or purification before love can enter. Wesley’s preferred picture of the experience of Christian perfection began with the person’s positive desire to be filled with love, rather than having sin cleansed away.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 123

<idle musing>
I like that. So much of what is written about Christian growth concentrates on purification—which easily turns into striving and works. This is a refreshing emphasis on desiring to be filled. I read a comparison of the Christian life with the oak tree. Oak leaves don't all fall off in the fall; they are pushed out in the spring by the new growth (if you have oak trees you know what I'm talking about! You rake leaves 3 seasons of the year). Same with the Christian; the new life of Christ drives out the old life of self.
</idle musing>

Sources for theology

...people devoid of the Spirit cannot comprehend the Scriptures as God intends. Furthermore, God can work directly in a person’s life without utilising the Scriptures (or any other means) at all. Wesley has made it clear that it is the direct authority of the Spirit that is absolutely indispensable in theologising, making God himself the sole authority in matters of faith and practice.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 103

The mark of righteousness

It is important to note that righteousness is not defined by Wesley in legal terms as obedience to law or conformity to an absolute standard, but as God’s love expressed in a right relationship with himself and subsequently with all other persons. People were created in receipt of the fullness of God’s love and with the ability to fully return that love to God and to other creatures. This is summed up in terms of humans being both holy and happy through knowing, loving and enjoying God. Holiness is active love to God and neighbour based on God’s prior love poured into the heart; happiness is the enjoyment and security in such a love.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 92

<idle musing>
True holiness manifests itself from the heart, as Wesley knew. The love that pours out of us is a direct result of the Holy Spirit pouring his love into and through us. May we all be unobstructed conduits!
</idle musing>

Love and trust

Salvation involves a reciprocal relationship of love, for God will only continue in a relationship in which we return the prior love he gives us. Failure to return the love is to experience God’s gradual withdrawal, leading to an eventual fall into inward and then outward sin. Wesley was convinced that a faithful relationship with God, grounded in grace, was possible from the very beginning. This was because its essential nature had to do with love and trust, not obedience and performance, though the latter elements would flow from the former ones and be defined by them.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 91

<idle musing>
But we try to put it the other way around, don't we? We obey and perform in a vain attempt to gain what we already have and become what we already are. We think if we just perform a little bit better, God will love us more. If we could just do this or that...all the while God is already loving us and telling us we are already sons and daughters through Christ—just love and trust. Obedience will follow out of his enabling power, not our struggles and strivings.
</idle musing>

The Righteous man

“Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor’s wife or have sexual relations with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend to them at interest or take a profit from them. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between two parties. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord. (Ezekiel 18:5-9 TNIV)

<idle musing>
Did you see that? Ezekiel just defined robbery as not giving food to the hungry or clothing the naked! I'm tempted to take the next verse as a continuation: He does not lend to them at interest or take a profit from them. But, I think that might be stretching the syntax a bit. Nonetheless, how does capitalism fare in this evaluation? Not too well, does it? Food for thought... Just another
</idle musing>

Sin as intention

A critical development that hinges, at least in part, on his developing understanding of the centrality of love, is the distinction he makes between intention and performance. The will may have a perfect intention, but the performance may be marred. If God sees the intention, then is the person condemned simply because of faulty execution? Wesley defines sin (“properly so-called”) as a voluntary breach of a known law of God and this is based on his conviction that there must be personal culpability before we can be held accountable. Sin has to do with choices made where the consequences are known. The crucial question to be decided regarding whether an act, word or thought is sin has to do with its intention – is it intended to break or harm the relationship? If it is not, then the person is not culpable, and thus not guilty of sin. While breaches of the relationship may occur without the concurrence of the will, they are strictly speaking an infirmity. This is the crucial definition on which his whole claim to Christian perfection as a reality in this life stands or falls; it will occupy his pastoral attention for the rest of his life.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 87

<idle musing>
Indeed. This is the key issue. If sin is a failure to deliver due to being human beings, then Adam and Eve were sinners before the fall, as was Jesus after the incarnation! Don't want to go there, do we?

But, if sin is a willful act, then there is hope for all of us in Christ. The Holy Spirit can cleanse us from all of the junk in the old man—after all, Romans (and other places) says we are DEAD! And a dead person doesn't have life in itself. All a corpse can do is stink...
</idle musing>

From assent to trust

If Böhler was correct in this estimation, the problem lay with Wesley’s attempts to reason his way through to a relationship with God. This was due to his continued practical understanding of faith as assent, even though he had intellectually come to see it primarily as trust. The critical phrase here is Wesley’s reliance on the propositional truth of Scripture as comprehended by the intellect, rather than a personal experience of God in the heart. Wesley, by his own confession, had a very limited personal experience of God prior to Aldersgate and all of his theologising up till this period was largely an intellectual affair...He was desperate for the experience Böhler described, but at this critical juncture he explicitly returned to the “testimony” of Scripture. It is of paramount importance to notice however, that it was not simply the written text to which he appealed, but the direct testimony of God himself through the written text. In a way that he had not yet clearly articulated, Wesley had come to realise the inadequacy of an intellectual comprehension of the text alone, and the vital importance of a direct spiritual encounter with God in and through the text, as well as in and through personal testimonies.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 81

<idle musing>
May others come to that realization as well!
</idle musing>

Judgment falls

Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it..."

While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, “Ah, Sovereign Lord! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?” (Ezekiel 9:3, 4, 8 TNIV)

<idle musing>
The true heart of a prophet is showing here. Ezekiel, rather than rejoicing that he is spared, falls down to make intercession for the ones who aren't being spared. Notice that he doesn't try to excuse them—he knows they deserve it!—but he asks for mercy on them.

Makes me wonder how I'm doing at hearing the heart of The LORD...
</idle musing>

Where's the power?

...the vital missing element in his [Wesley, pre-Aldersgate] theological understanding of salvation during this period was understanding faith as trust. The missing dimension in his own life was a personal, inward experience of God and this could not occur until he saw the dimension of trust and relationship as an integral part of a full-orbed definition of faith. The limiting of faith to assent in effect left him with no other option but to exercise rigorous self-discipline in cultivating his relationship with God, seeking to put into practice what his intellectual discoveries were showing him.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, pages 59-60

<idle musing>
And without that trust, there was no transformation and no power. He was where so many are today: intellectual assent to the gospel, but no embracing of what it means for life on a daily basis.
</idle musing>

Some thoughts on murder

Not by me, but by "T" at Jesus Creed:

Let me be clear and say that I’m glad not very many will escalate the devaluing and meanness that is so common into physical murder. Most of us will just give tit for tat. We’ll just Insult for insult. Most of us will merely reap divorces, estrangement from family and friends, and a background noise of woundedness and shame. But in so doing we will continue to maintain a garden in which violence and murder will continue to bloom.

As Christ’s church we are called to believe this seeming stretch of a connection between insult (which we routinely accept and sometimes proudly practice) and murder (which we roundly condemn and mourn). Further, we are called to model and live a different Way. We are called to bless even those who curse us. We are called to cultivate a fruit different from murder. Rather, we are to cultivate reconciliation, forgiveness, patience, gentleness and love. As we look at this most recent tragedy and rightly ask what we can do to move in the opposite direction, we need to hear and heed the warning of Jesus: murder begins with anger getting control of the tongue.

<idle musing>
Amen! I would take it a step further back, though, and say it is the heart that causes the tongue to lash out. As I tell people often, Saul didn't set out to murder the priests at Nob (in I Samuel). He started out a God-fearing ruler, but gradually moved to the point where he could—without flinching—order the massacre of the priests.

That's the way with words. We start out "innocently" enough, but it doesn't stop, it escalates like a water fight. Eventually we're shooting not just words, but bullets. It all starts with the heart. And only Jesus can clean the heart.
</idle musing>

Thought on the brink of a new year

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight. (Luke 16:10-15 TNIV)

<idle musing>
Seems capitalism fits the bill nicely...
</idle musing>

What exactly is perfection, anyway?

Since love and relationship were now at the heart of his understanding of salvation, he was beginning to distinguish between perfect intention and perfect performance. The latter was the concern of those who upheld the centrality of perfect obedience to God’s law; the former was related to the essential nature of a relationship based on love. In a relationship of love, there can be pure intention (a matter of the heart) but flawed performance (due to a corruptible mind and body). Because of intention, the essential nature of sin was seen as a deliberate and willful choice to harm the relationship; thus its ‘voluntariness’ was a crucial part of his definition of terms.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 57

<idle musing>
"Because of intention, the essential nature of sin was seen as a deliberate and willful choice to harm the relationship." That's the core, right there. Sin is not so much activity, but the intention behind it. The intention is what causes the action.

I've heard some people define sin in such a way that humanity was sinful even before the fall! I wonder about their understanding of the incarnation in those cases. If existing as a physical being is sinful, then the incarnation didn't really happen—they call the docetism (Jesus just appears to be human, from Greek δοκέω/dokew, to seem) and the church denounced it as a heresy many a long year ago...
</idle musing>

The leader must lead

Since personal piety and practical theology were intimately linked, he [Wesley] was convinced that the effectiveness of his ministry fundamentally depended on his own spiritual progress. Ministry to others could only flow from his personal experience and not from mere book learning.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 49

<idle musing>
Hmmm...sounds like a logical conclusion—but one that I am probably guilty of neglecting. I read a lot, but how much of what I read do I allow to affect how I behave? Head knowledge without heart knowledge simply puffs up.
</idle musing>

What's the role of experience?

Wesley’s focus on experience as an individual subjective consciousness is confined to the role of empowering Christian living (assurance) and sometimes to confirm doctrine – but never to derive it.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 20

and

For Wesley, doctrines were not ends in themselves but guidelines to help his people know how to tell the gospel story and live it with integrity. The goal of the life of faith was holiness, with his understanding of Christian perfection as the “most distinctive single element".—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, pages 31-32

<idle musing>
Empowering Christian living and holiness. What a radical thought! I keep asking what happened to heart holiness. I usually get blank, uncomprehending stares : (
</idle musing>

Not subjective

Lest you think, after yesterday's post, that Wesley reduced theology to subjectivity, here's a follow-up statement:

For Wesley, faith was always in God himself and not in our experience of God. This allowed our subjective experience of God to become objective knowledge of God and of our salvation.&mdashWesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 18

<idle musing>
I wish more people would realize that faith is more than feelings. If we do indeed "wlak by faith, not by sight," then what the mystics called "the dark night of the soul" is a necessary experience for real faith to develop. Our faith needs to be in God, as God, not in our experience of God. To reduce God to our experience of him is to attempt to make him finite, to control him. That, my friends, is idolatry!
</idle musing>

Real Theology

...Wesley is best understood as a pastoral theologian, whose concern is with the spiritual formation of his people. His vision of the nature God, human beings and their interrelationship is remarkably consistent over his whole ministry and is centred in love, trust and relationships, rather than the intellectual comprehension of propositional truth about God, humans and the process of salvation. This makes the heart and transforming relationship central to his theologising, rather than logical systems and precise doctrinal statements. The four critical elements (Scripture, reason, tradition and Christian experience) of his theological methodology have been correctly identified by many scholars but not enough attention has been given to the role of the Holy Spirit in the whole process. Wesley believes that it is God himself who is the only source and authority for theologising and he communicates with us through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who utilises the means given above. The element of mystery is important here, as love and relationships are not reducible to mechanical systems that are purely intellectually comprehended. This demonstrates why the quadrilateral as a model is inadequate due to its static, mechanical and hierarchical nature. There is a need to offer a dynamic model that takes full account of the ever-present ministry of the Holy Spirit within the Church and that is the aim of this exploration.—Wesley as a Pastoral Theologian, page 4

<idle musing>
A breath of fresh air! "Wesley believes that it is God himself who is the only source and authority for theologising and he communicates with us through the ministry of the Holy Spirit..." That's a statement I can support unconditionally!
</idle musing>

Understatement of the week

From Behind the Books:

It turns out that making books into ebooks isn't as easy as you might think.

Consult a qualified proofreader

I put a new light fixture in a while back. I couldn't help but notice the box:

Not sure if you can read it, but it says that the bulbs are "soldseperately." Yikes! They recommend consulting a qualified electrician; I recommend consulting a qualified proofreader!

Down comes the house of cards...

First, the conclusion of LDBT [Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts] that a linguistic history of Hebrew from the Iron Age through the Persian period cannot be recovered and therefore cannot be available for dating texts is erroneous. It is based primarily on an idiosyncratic axiom concerning the identification of late linguistic features in languages and on corollary assertions bearing on biblical manuscripts from Qumran, copyist practices vis-à-vis the language of texts from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic period, and on the vague notion of “linguistic fluidity” as a historical phenomenon. More-accurate descriptions of what is to be explained based on the agglomeration and classification of relevant data lead to significantly more-nuanced and accurate explanations of the data (see the essays of Bar-Asher Siegal, Fassberg, and Joosten in this volume.)—Zevitt in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, page 483

The ultimate tribute to fast food america

A co-worker forwarded this to me...

<idle musing>
Coming soon to a megachurch near you: Drive-thru communion so you don't have to face that person whom you refuse to forgive!
Sigh...I grieve for the church; I grieve for our society...
</idle musing>

Diachrony in Hebrew

The diachronic markers established with much acumen and sophistication by Hebraists play little or no part in the equally subtle game of dating biblical texts as practiced by exegetes. Attacks on the documentary hypothesis in the late 1970s have inaugurated a period in which it has become commonplace to date substantial parts of the Pentateuch to the Persian period or later. To the mainstream Hebrew linguist, these proposals are difficult, or even absurd. The language of, say, Genesis 15 is different from that of Ezra–Nehemiah in a way that makes it almost impossible to imagine that the two texts come from the same general period. Joosten in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, page 291

<idle musing>
Amen! I'm a philologist first and foremost. I never understood the late dating; if we date the Greek classics by the logic of some of these biblical scholars, the Odyssey would have been composed sometime in the Hellenistic period or later...crazy!
<idle musing>

How knowing Hebrew can be a help...

In 2 Kgs 6:11, ֶשׁ is placed in the mouth of an Aramean king, even though ֶשׁ is not used in Aramaic. In Jonah, ֶשׁ is placed once in the mouth of the sailors (when they speak among themselves), once in Jonah’s mouth (when he addresses the sailors), and once in God’s mouth. The use of ֶשׁ in God’s mouth alongside an immediately preceding רשׁא suggests that ֶשׁ is used for rhetorical effect: to support one of the author’s theological points, that YHWH is the God of non-Israelites as well as Israelites. Holmstedt Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, page 118, footnote 28

Language learning

..learning a language is seen as language development [in complex systems theory] rather than as acquisition. In other words, language is a process of dynamic adaptation (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 157) rather than something that, once learned, is “possessed” for all time. From a complexity point of view, language can never be in an entirely stable state, so it cannot be “acquired” once and for all."—J. Naude in  Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, page 64

<idle musing>
Indeed. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it's true even of English. Every day I'm learning a new nuance to a word or an entirely new word. If that is true of English, how much truer it is of a second/acquired language!
</idle musing>

Mélange

Here's a collection of posts to wind down the clearing of my draft folder:

From Jesus Creed, the day after Thanksgiving:
Only 3.5 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 59 do the minimum amount of physical activity recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services: 150 minutes a week of moderate activity. Among those over age 60, the percentage is even lower: 2.5 percent. 

<idle musing>
The previous figures had been based on self-reporting. Guess what—they were wildly inaccurate. What a surprise—NOT! Nobody wants to admit they sit around all day and play video games or surf the Internet or watch TV...sure, you're tired when you get home from a long day at work. That's the best possible time to get out and move! When you move, you feel more energetic afterwards.

Of course, diet plays a part, too. The standard American diet (called SAD in many nutrition books!) leaves you lethargic and not desiring to move. Studies on lab rats have shown that a whole-foods, plant-based diet causes them to voluntarily exercise around 20% more frequently than rats on a standard diet. On the other hand, a diet high in sugars, whether high fructose corn syrup, white sugar, unrefined sugar, or honey, causes less activity and more lethargy.
</idle musing>

About two months ago, Alan Knox did a good three-part series on mutual edification. Part one is here, part two is here, and part three is here.

And, for those of you who are starting you study of the Septuagint, here's a good little primer on using the Göttingen LXX.

Finally, I saw this yesterday on Ben Myers' blog:

A says, “My sins cry out against me!” God replies, “What sins?”
God says, “Your sins cry out against me!” B replies, “What sins?”
That’s the difference between costly grace and cheap grace.

<idle musing>
What more can be said...that says it all.
</idle musing>

But it's my right, isn't it?

In a word: No! it isn't your right! From Jesus Creed:
"The bottom line is this: too many Christians want to win; they are not focused enough on peace, justice, love, wisdom, and reconciliation. They want the right way to win. The culture war approach is about winning. It’s a losing strategy."

<idle musing>
Ironic, isn't it? To focus on winning will almost always mean losing in the real war for the hearts of people. Focus instead on winning them to Jesus via love and people want to know how you can forgive and love the unloveable...
</idle musing>

Too true!

How about all that sensationalism in reporting and writing? I'm delighted that someone is taking a stand against it:

When I started my first professional job at a local alternative newsweekly, lo, so many years ago when we still pasted up the paper, the first lesson my editor taught me was that our responsibility was to the reader. While the ad department was around to keep the lights on, without the reader, the whole shebang wouldn’t exist. I hang onto this belief and all that it implies—respect the readers’ intelligence, give them an engaging reading experience, recognize them as a community—with a fervor that borders on the religious.

And, here's the formula that is the all too common alternative:

1. Make a blatantly ridiculous statement.
2. Watch your buzz grow as your intended audience works itself into a lather about it, generating a lot of web traffic (fired especially by social media).
3. When asked to defend your blatantly ridiculous statement, point to the less ridiculous arguments in your writing, and/or take a superior attitude and act as if your detractor isn’t smart enough to understand hyperbole.

<idle musing>
I'm glad I work for a publisher that takes the time to check footnotes and facts! It is indeed a sacred responsibility to publish things that are correct and that matter...
</idle musing>

No easy answers

There are no simple answers, although we would love there to be...even the "cycle" of Judges isn't really there—as Lawson Stone points out:

But has familiarity bred blindness? This “voice” in Judges has been buried under convention and easy cliché, most notably, that the book presents an unaltering, cyclical pattern, and secondly, that the book is consistently derivative from, and imitative of, Deuteronomy (i.e. deuteronomistic). Both are actually imprecise to the point of being mistaken. Contrary to most interpretations, Judges does not present the reader with an unaltering “cycle” or pattern. First of all, elements appear in the stories that do not appear in the introduction, and vice versa. Thus, the introduction tells us that Yahweh “raised up” deliverers, but only Othniel and Ehud are explicitly said to be “raised up” by Yahweh. Other means of manifestation appear for subsequent judges, raising the intriguing question of how directly they express the saving action of God. Likewise, the semantics of the verb za‘aq  (to cry out) orient more toward an intense, emotion-laden cry of anguish or even accusation, but with no inherent connotations of repentance. The pattern in Judges (if there is one) is not “sin-punishment/ repentance-deliverance” but simply punishment followed by mercy. Yahweh, it seems, delivers his people out of his compassion and grace, to show his power and to claim Israel’s allegiance. Only in 10:6-16 does the outcry find expression in confession and remorse, and that passage is fraught with conflict and ambivalence. The omission of the outcry from the programmatic introduction of 2:6–3:6 and from the Samson story reinforces the fact that Yahweh’s action derives not from Israel’s meeting some condition (repentance), but from Yahweh’s simple compassion for them. Additionally, the Spirit of Yahweh—and, less frequently, the angel of Yahweh—plays a role in the stories that has no place in the introduction or the frameworks, and ironically, the Spirit plays no role in the Ehud story or the Deborah story, the two judges with the most unreserved praise from the author. By contrast, the Spirit’s involvement with Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson raises more questions than it answers. So we do not have a pattern that is mechanically repeated but rather a collection of features and formulas that are deployed variously to direct our attention to other factors in the stories.

<idle musing>
You know what? I'm glad mercy triumphs! While the pattern made for a good teaching tool and easy remembrance, I think the fact that God showed mercy repeatedly is more important.
We need to remember that the Bible is designed to point people to their need for total dependence on God. It isn't a book of patterns to imitate or people to emulate—except in so far as we emulate their total reliance on God!
</idle musing>

Grace

The backlog clearing continues...

From Grace Works

There is a vast chasm of difference between receiving God’s grace and trying to activate it. One involves human effort and striving. The other involves surrender, transparency and accepting oneself in their own brokenness. One leads to shame instead of wholeness, self-denial instead of true maturity, and ultimately fruitlessness instead of abundant life.

How does one tell the difference between striving and surrendering? Someone who is striving is trying to live up to a standard and needs God’s help to do it. Someone who has surrendered knows they will never live up to the standard and is actually strengthened by knowing they are loved anyway. The true essence of holiness is love. One doesn’t love until they know love. Knowing how much God loves you also changes how you view others. Everyone becomes worthy, everyone. The love of God lives inside you and now the “righteous requirement of the law” is fulfilled because you don’t need rules to guide your conduct, your love guides you.

Amen! I couldn't have expressed it better—scripture says that love is the fulfilling of the law. First John says that perfect love casts out all fear. Love is indeed the true essence of holiness. Which leads to the next item...

...from Alan Knox's blog, way back in May!:

Scripture cannot produce love. We do not love because we read Scripture, memorize Scripture, or meditate on Scripture. We only love because of the power of God working through us as we yield ourselves to his will.

However, Scripture can help us recognize whether or not we are loving – that is, whether or not we are yielding ourselves to the will of God and allowing the power of God to be demonstrated through love. If we approach Scripture as a mirror, God can use those writing to show us how we are currently living compared to how we live when we are submitting to him.

And the opposite:

If something is missing in people’s spiritual growth, instead of changing current activities, the church organizations simply add another program. Eventually, every night of the week is filled with different programs, meetings, committees, etc.

As always, please read the complete post to get the whole context...