Secular names

The last group contains secular names, a group that lies outside the present study of family religion. This group nevertheless serves to demonstrate the coherence of this scheme for grouping names. In terms of both the number of names (105 occurrences) and the number of instances (251 occurrences), the group is the fourth largest. Although the first number is (a large portion) 15.6% of all names, a percentage not much smaller than that of the names of confession, the proportion of instances is only about half that percentage (8.6%). This indicates that, although there was a great variety of secular names, they seem not to have been very popular in preexilic Israelite society.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 256

<idle musing>
The names might be secular, but I can assure you the person bearing it wasn't!
</idle musing>

Friday's thought

If there is peace within, no outward turmoil can affect the soul; but outward peace can never quiet an inward tempest. A happy heart can walk in triumphant indifference through a sea of external trouble; while internal anguish cannot find happiness in the most favorable surroundings. What a man is within himself, makes or unmakes his joy, and not what he possesses outside of himself.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Confession

The names of confession are closely related to the names of thanksgiving. What has been an experience of god’s attention, salvation, or protection in the thanksgiving names becomes a personal confession of one’s trust in god in the confession names; similar statements can be observed in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints. Thus, many of the roots—verbal in the confidence, nominal in the complaints—appear in both name groups. The names of confession constitute the third-largest group, with 119 names (17.6%) and 434 instances (14.9%).—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 254

Take this to heart

It is grand to trust in the promises, but it is grander still to trust in the Promiser. The promises may be misunderstood or misapplied, and at the moment when we are leaning all our weight upon them, they may seem utterly to fail us. But no one ever trusted in the Promiser and was confounded.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Some interesting statistics

In terms of numbers of unique names, the largest group consists of the birth names, with 192 names, or 28.4% of all distinct names. This demonstrates the importance of the often dramatic experience of birth in name giving. The group of thanksgiving names is slightly smaller, containing 164 names, or 24.3% of the total. However, in terms of the number of instances, these names of thanksgiving constitute the largest group, which includes no less than 993 instances, or 34.0% of all inscribed names. Many names in this group appear frequently, such as those derived from the roots עמשׁ šāmaʿ ‘to hear’ (133 occurrences), עשׁי yāšaʿ Hiphil ‘to save’ (103 occurrences), and רזע ʿāzar ‘to help’ (87 occurrences). Thus, the core personal names are the thanksgiving names.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 254

<idle musing>
I know, the Hebrew is backwards! Not sure why, but it appears correctly in the book...

Anyway, I find it interesting that the core of names are names of thanksgiving. I wonder if that reflects their outlook on life in general, or just thankfulness that the child survived? Remember, infant and children under 5 mortality was around 60% (that figure is from this book).
</idle musing>

It really does mean something

Some may object that, although Hebrew personal names are derived from the roots of words that express familial piety, their use was determined more by fashion than by the religious convictions of the parents. If this were the case, these names would reflect the religious environment only indirectly and would offer no access to the beliefs of Israelite families. There are, however, several indications that the bestowal of names in ancient Israelite societies reflected more than mere ephemeral fashion. Foremost among these is the fact that, many times in the Hebrew Bible, the naming of a child is followed by an explicit explanation for the choice of the name.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 246

<idle musing>
I find that persuasive. We too easily project our current way of thinking back on the ancient world. Just because we choose names based on popularity doesn't mean they did. But, then again, we worship celebrities in this culture, so maybe the popularity of a name is a refection of our personal values...
</idle musing>

A good Wednesday thought

By rejoicing in Him, however, I do not mean rejoicing in ourselves, although I fear most people think this is really what is meant. It is their feelings or their revelations or their experiences that constitute the groundwork of their joy, and if none of these are satisfactory, they see no possibility of joy at all. But the lesson the Lord is trying to teach us all the time is the lesson of self-effacement. He commands us to look away from self and all self’s experiences, to crucify self and count it dead, to cease to be interested in self, and to know nothing and be interested in nothing but God.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Personal names

In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 49–77), I demonstrated that the personal names of the Hebrew Bible do not reflect the Israelite religion in any general way; instead, they specifically attest the personal piety of Israelite and Judean families. Furthermore, although the traditions of Israel’s official religion—such as the exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai, Zion, or Bethel—seem to have had no impact on personal names, and they contain only a  few possible allusions to Israel’s political and sacred history, the verbs and nouns used in personal names show a high rate of correspondence with the verbs and nouns that were used in the individual psalms of complaint and thanksgiving and in the oracles of salvation. More than half of all the roots of theophoric personal names found in the Hebrew Bible also occur in the genre of individual prayer; and over 60% of all verbs and nouns that appear in the petitions for divine attendance and salvation or in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints or the psalms of thanksgiving and oracles of salvation can also be found in personal names. Thus, there is a close relationship between Hebrew personal names and the genres of psalms that reflect aspects of private prayer practices.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, pages 245-246

<idle musing>
I'm finding this section on the personal names extremely interesting. It's large enough that it could almost have been a separate book!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

Not that I would be understood to object to emotions. On the contrary, I believe they are very precious gifts, when they are from God, and are to be greatly rejoiced in. But what I do object to is the making them a test or proof of spiritual states, either in ourselves or others, and depending on them as the foundation of our faith. Let them come or let them go, just as God pleases, and make no account of them either way.—Hannah Whitall Smith

What? No images?

Patterns discerned in the domestic assemblages of Israel and Judah that suggest that religious practices were performed by or in nuclear or extended families are essentially identical to patterns seen in domestic assemblages from Jordan, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria. One apparent difference is the occasional occurrence of clearly divine images in the households of Ammon, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria; images of this sort have not been found in Iron Age Israel and Judah.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 226

<idle musing>
Seems the ban on images in the scripture was taken seriously, no?
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

I have seen Christians, with hardly one Christ-like attribute in their whole characters, who yet were so emotional and had such ecstatic feelings of love for Christ, as to think themselves justified in claiming the closest oneness with Him. I scarcely know a sadder sight.—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
Many will say "Lord! Lord!" in that day...remember that without holiness, it is impossible to see God...
</idle musing>

Pretty much the same

...the widely held assumption that there was a strong distinction between official religious practices and those performed in private or family environments—which has led to their being seen as competing arenas of religious activity (Holladay 1987; Nakhai 2001: 203)—is highly problematic. By analyzing the differing contexts of four-horned altars from Tel Miqne, Gitin (2002: 113–17) examined the intersections between public and private religious activities and identified five examples of coexistence and duality in the cult practices of Ekron.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 223

<idle musing>
Time to reexamine some widely held opinions, isn't it?
</idle musing>

May it be so

Once it was I and not Christ; then it was I and Christ; perhaps now it is even Christ and I. But has it come yet to be Christ only, and not I at all?—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
May it be so in my life and in yours!
</idle musing>

Security

It may be concluded that this period [Iron II] of an increased number of political crises that affected the ongoing existence of many households increased the perceived need for ritual objects that symbolized characteristics such as power, fertility, and plenty.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 175

<idle musing>
The grab for security is nothing new, is it?

What are you grabbing for as security? It probably is an idol, isn't it?!
</idle musing>

Cry for help

Help! Anybody know where the lint filter on a Whirlpool washing machine, model LSR6332KQ1 is? The parts list doesn't list one, but there's got to be something holding the lint...

Cornbread

I love cornbread. How in the world did a northern boy come to love cornbread so much? Simple; I spent 1.5 years in Missouri while in first grade. We had it everyday at school lunch and I have loved it ever since. At least that's what my parents tell me : ) My dad was working on his doctorate, and we lived outside Columbia, Missouri while he did his classroom work. The school was rural and I don't remember much about the school lunches except the cornbread.

When we went whole-foods, plant-based, I went looking for a decent recipe that didn't use oil, eggs, and milk. I found one that was tolerable (see here), but not one that I liked enough to make real often. Then, about a month ago, it stopped turning out. Not sure why, but it might be because I changed from honey to unrefined sugar in the recipe. But, when I went back to honey, it still didn't turn out. So, I went looking again...

Not much out there...so, I thought about how in the 1800s, the pioneers would have done it. They usually didn't have eggs or milk, and—at least according to the Little House books—sugar wasn't exactly a common item. They must have done something.

I was mulling it over in my mind and asked the Lord for a bit of insight. I believe it was an answer to prayer, because what I did tastes even better than the original eggs, milk, and oil recipe. Here's what I did:

1 cup whole wheat flour (freshly ground, of course!)
1 cup cornmeal
1 cup water
1/4 cup applesauce (unsweetened and home canned from Jonathan apples—an oil replacement)
3/4 Tablespoon baking powder
1.5 Tablespoons unrefined sugar
1 teaspoon flax meal (freshly ground)
1 Tablespoon water

The flax meal and tablespoon of water are used as an egg replacer. Put them both in a small custard cup and microwave on high for 10-15 seconds, or until it boils. Our microwave takes 12 seconds, but yours might be different (this works well as an egg replacer for other recipes as well)

Turn the oven on to 350°F. Mix the remaining dry ingredients together. Once the oven is preheated, add the applesauce, cup of water, and the flax meal mixture. Mix everything together well, but not too much (you don't want to develop the gluten too much). Pour the batter into a 9x9 glass pan and bake 30 minutes (if you are using metal, increase the temperature to 375°).

For a variation, I sometimes add a small can of chili peppers. You should see the baking powder go nuts when I do that!

Serve warm or cool. We often make a tomato sauce to put over it—1 pint stewed tomatoes, half a small can of tomato paste. Then I take some dried green peppers, dried onions, dried garlic, oregano, basil, grind them all up in a coffee grinder and add it. Add enough water to make it the consistency you like. I add habanero sauce to mine...delicious!

The human project

Saw this on Peter Leithart's blog:

Mocking God, killing righteous men – that is the human project. When a teacher comes with the demand that we do justice and love our neighbors, we betray Him, mock Him, beat Him on the head and crown Him with thorns, before we pack Him off to death on a cross. Naked and bleeding on the cross, Jesus suffers the fate of Jerusalem, and of Troy and Babylon and Carthage and Dresden and of every city that has ever been razed to smoking rubble. The cross exposes us as specialists in destruction. History is a waste of ruins, toppled temples, smoldering cities, corpses heaped for burning. This is what we do. That is the human project.

<idle musing>
Do read the whole thing; he doesn't leave us there—Praise God!—because God doesn't leave us there
</idle musing>

A higher calling

You have brought to Him an enthusiasm of self-surrender that perhaps may disturb and distress the more prudent and moderate Christians around you. Your love makes necessary a separation from the world, which a lower love cannot even conceive of.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Open hands

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. (Deuteronomy 15:7, 8, 10, 11 NIV)

<idle musing>
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but this set of verses isn't among the ones the right-wingers quote...pity, that.
</idle musing>

Yield, would ya?

He is not asking thee, in thy poor weakness, to do it thyself; He only asks thee to yield thyself to Him, that He may work in thee to will and to do by His own mighty power.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Facedown

When Moses heard this, he fell facedown... But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, the God who gives breath to all living things, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?...” “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown... (Numbers 16:4, 22, 45 NIV)

<idle musing>
This is where Korah and company rebel; Moses' response to the initial accusation of lording it over the Israelites is to fall facedown in prayer. Eighteen verses later, when God wants to destroy the whole nation because of Korah, his (and Aaron's) response is to fall facedown in prayer. Finally, the next day, when the entire nation rebels, he (and Aaron) falls facedown in prayer.

That, my friends, is the sign of a leader. I was going to qualify that with something like "who loves his people" or "who discerns the heart of God" or "who has the heart of a prophet" or some such. But when I stopped to think about it, no qualification is needed...
</idle musing>

150 years ago

The standard of practical holy living has been so low among Christians that any good degree of real devotedness of life and walk is looked upon with surprise, and even often with disapprobation, by a large portion of the Church. And, for the most part, the professed followers of the Lord Jesus Christ are so little like Him in character or in action, that to an outside observer there would not seem to be much harmony between them.—Hannah Whitall Smith

The more things change...

The roles of women were of indisputable importance in family cults, but it must be stressed that women enacted these cults not only for themselves but also for their families; furthermore, in many cases, men as well as women participated in family rituals...—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 54

<idle musing>
Nothing really has changed in 3000 years—except now some want to exclude women and claim that's the way it used to be...
</idle musing>

What a misnomer

It seems strange that people, whose very name of Believers implies that their one chiefest characteristic is that they believe, should have to confess to such experiences. And yet it is such a universal habit that I feel if the majority of the Church were to be named over again, the only fitting and descriptive name that could be given them would be that of Doubters.—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
Ain't that the truth! Lord, renew your church in our day! May we truly deserve the title of believer.
</idle musing>

Popular religion

...the dichotomous concept of official versus popular religion was not derived from ancient Near Eastern antiquity but, as noted by Vrijhof (1979: 674), from the “institutionalized and codified Christian religion in the western world.” Summarizing this view, Zevit (2003: 226–27) states that “the origin of the distinction lies in the relationship of the Western Church to the indigenous religions of Europe during and after the Middle Ages. Initially, the two were in competition; but when the Church grew in power and authority through its connections with the leading social groups of the emerging nation-states, indigenous religions were denigrated and held to be primitive superstitions.” Later, the division between official and popular religion or Volksfrömmigkeit was taken up by the Volkskunde of the 19th century C.E. and was developed to analyze customs of people in the Christian—mainly Catholic—societies of Europe (Vrijhof 1979: 1–6, 668–704; Ebertz and Schultheis 1986: 11–52). In this context, the term “popular religion” denotes a phenomenon in which laymen took elements of orthodox Catholic beliefs, rites, and symbols and redefined and reused them for their own religious purposes. For example, they erected crosses with the Corpus Christi in fields as apotropaic or fertility symbols. Thus, popular religion in this original sense is a degenerate subtype of official Christian religion. It presupposes the establishment of orthodoxy, a clear stratification between a priestly elite and an unprofessional laity, and a supposed priestly monopoly over all benefits of salvation.—Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, page 50

<idle musing>
I'm wading through this book right now; it's a monster, but very interesting. Unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to excerpts very well...

Anyway, this is a classic example of taking modern, present day society and superimposing it on the past. It will inevitably lead to skewed results. This is a problem for ANE studies as much as it is for biblical studies...
</idle musing>

Direct word?

...Jewish tradition is also quite relaxed about whether the predominant idea is 'that prophecy is conditioned by the personality and the capacity of the prophet.' Indeed, prophets were understood to be free to translate the vision or words they heard, befitting their audience and their individual style.”— The Bible and the Believer, page 55

Thought for a Friday

We are not preaching a state, but a walk. The highway of holiness is not a place, but a way. Sanctification is not a thing to be picked up at a certain stage of our experience, and forever after possessed, but it is a life to be lived day by day, and hour by hour.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Thought for today

Our one great motto is throughout, “We are nothing, Christ is all.” And always and everywhere we have started out to stand, and walk, and overcome, and live by faith. We have discovered our own utter helplessness, and know that we cannot do anything for ourselves.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Freedom of expression?

But how and when one presents archaeological discoveries to the public is virtually unregulated. Who gets to tell the story about a site’s importance is a critical step that often leaves out the excavators and the historians and brings other individuals into the picture; and often those other individuals have a very different agenda altogether from that of the excavation team and thus a very different story to tell. Indeed, that story sometimes comes as a complete surprise to the excavators. How projects are funded—that is, where the funding comes from—often has a profound impact on how the story is told.—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media page 202

Stating the obvious

If Satan prefaced each temptation with the words, “I am Satan, your relentless enemy; I have come to make you sin,” I suppose we would hardly feel any desire at all to yield to his suggestions. He has to hide himself in order to make his baits attractive.—Hannah Whitall Smith

<idle musing>
This is one of my favorite quotations from her book. Wouldn't it be easier if he did it that way? Of course, then we wouldn't need to rely on the Lord, would we?
</idle musing>

But that is so backwards...

True humility can bear to see its own utter weakness and foolishness revealed, because it never expected anything from itself, and knows that its only hope and expectation must be in God. Therefore, instead of discouraging the soul from trusting, it drives it to a deeper and more utter trust.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Pretty straight forward, really

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)

<idle musing>
Can't get more obvious than that, can it? Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, so don't claim it no longer applies.

So, does that mean I think that gays should be killed? No more than I think people who commit adultery should be! They are in need of the saving grace of Jesus just as much as anyone else—no more and no less. But, just as Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery in John 8, “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (Yes, I believe John 7:53-8:11 is an authentic event in Jesus' life—I just don't believe it is Johannine.)

And, because I believe that we are new creations in Christ, I believe they can leave their life of sin. I also believe that the sexually addicted, chemically dependent, etc., are called—and enabled by the presence of the Holy Spirit—to live a life free from sin.

A good summary of the sexual life of a Christian should be celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in a monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. Anything else is a compromise and sub-Christian. That goes for adultery, divorce, and homosexuality. There is no distinction between them; they are all less than God's ideal.

Yes, there is forgiveness and restoration, so don't think I am being judgmental here. I know there are situations where divorce is the least of a set of evils, but it is still not God's ideal. I believe that is what Jesus was saying when he said Moses allowed divorce; both parties need to be willing to forgive, repent (that means transformation, not just feeling sorry), and live in love. That doesn't always happen...
</idle musing>

Monday's thought

I believe the lack of a will thus surrendered lies at the root of many of our difficulties; and next to this lies the want of faith in any real Divine guidance. God’s children are amazingly skeptical here. They read the promises and they feel the need, but somehow they cannot seem to believe the guidance will be given to them; as if God should want us to obey His voice, but did not know how to make us hear and understand Him.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Be holy...

“Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.” (Leviticus 20:7-8 NIV)

<idle musing>
The recurring theme in Leviticus is to be holy; that's a tall order, isn't it? Actually, that's an impossible task in ourselves. I'm glad verse 8 follows; God is the one who makes us holy.

I was recently reading Reality by Art Katz, a Messianic Jew (now deceased) and he pointed out that in Genesis 17:1, where before God commands Abraham to “walk before me faithfully and be blameless.” (TNIV), God inttroduces himself as El Shaddai for the first time. Here's his thought about it:

Having just introduced Himself as God Almighty [NASB translation of El Shaddai], He goes on to say in the same breath, “Walk before Me, and be blameless.” The coupling of these two phrases is perfectly logical, reasonable and necessary. To call anyone to perfection and to a walk before God requires from that one who is called a complete confidence that the God who has invited him will also supply every necessary means. That is why His almightiness is so important.—pages 119-120

Food for thought, isn't it?
</idle musing>

Hijacked!

Too often, the media, having become the main purveyor of “archaeology” to the nonacademic community, trumpet our reasoned conclusions—guarded by caveats and hedging—beyond the halls of academia as “assured results.” Shorn of their academic context, archaeological data then become props in modern political and social debates remaking the past as it is wished to be, not as it was.—Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, page 189

Knock or hammer?

It is never a sign of a Divine leading when the Christian insists on opening his own way, and riding rough-shod over all opposing things. If the Lord “goes before” us, He will open all doors for us, and we shall not need ourselves to hammer them down.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Selective?

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”(Leviticus 19:33, 34 NIV)

<idle musing>
Hmmm...wonder why the theocratically inclined never cite this reference??? Can you say selective memory? Or, maybe it's a case of "canon within the canon." I suspect a bit of both...
</idle musing>

Introspection

Years ago I came across this sentence in an old book: “Never indulge, at the close of an action, in any self-reflective acts of any kind, whether of self-congratulation or of self-despair. Forget the things that are behind, the moment they are past, leaving them with God.” It has been of unspeakable value to me. When the temptation comes, as it always does, to indulge in these reflections, either of one sort or the other, I turn from them at once, and positively refuse to think about my work at all, leaving it with the Lord to overrule the mistakes, and to bless it as He chooses.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Crows in the corn

I've been reading quite a few gardening books of late. I'm trying to find things that will grow in the shorter, cooler summers here in Grand Marais. This endeavor has lead me to look more at heirloom, open pollenated varieties than I ever have before. The mainstream varieties offered by most seed companies today are geared more for longer seasons; they have to make a profit to stay in business—and Grand Marais and such aren't exactly huge markets : )

Anyway, they know me by sight now at the library. I walk in and they automatically go to the interlibrary loan shelf : ) One of the books, now out of print (but offered in electronic format by Mother Earth News) is Heirloom Vegetable Gardening. I find it delightful and informative. Much of it is oriented to warmer climates, but there are some real gems in it. This one seemed too good not to share. Try this is the crows are getting your corn crop before you:

"Soak a few quarts of dried corn in whiskey, and scatter it over the fields for the crows. After partaking of one such meal and getting pretty thoroughly corned, they will never return to it again."—Farmer's Almanac, 1864, cited in Weavers, page 141

<idle musing>
Apparently crows have more sense than humans...
</idle musing>

His responsibility

To grow in grace is opposed to all self-dependence, to all self-effort, to all legality of every kind. It is to put our growing, as well as everything else, into the hands of the Lord, and leave it with Him. —Hannah Whitall Smith

Messy, stinky, real

If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you are to offer a male without defect. You must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting so that it will be acceptable to the Lord. You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting. You are to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar. You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord. (Leviticus 1:3-9 NIV)

<idle musing>
Check out the pronouns in those verses! "You" occurs most of the time, not the priest. You bring it (no surprise); you lay your hands on it (again, no surprise). You slaughter it—messy job! You skin it—another messy job! You wash the internal organs—a stinky, messy job!

Moral of the story? Dealing with sin is a messy, stinky job! You can't pass it off to someone else; you have to deal with it yourself&mash;with the Lord, of course; you can't make atonement for yourself! And you can't just drop a check in the offering plate or the mail.
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

I was once urging upon a company of Christians the privileges and rest of an immediate and definite step into the land of promise, when a lady of great intelligence interrupted me, with what she evidently felt to be a complete rebuttal of all I had been saying, exclaiming, “Ah! but, my dear friend, I believe in growing in grace.” “How long have you been growing?” I asked. “About twenty-five years,” was her answer. “And how much more unworldly and devoted to the Lord are you now than when you began your Christian life?” I continued. “Alas!” was the answer, “I fear I am not nearly so much so”; and with this answer her eyes were opened to see that at all events her way of growing had not been successful, but quite the reverse.—Hannah Whitall Smith

More on the house

This house is full of blessings from God (Debbie calls them “kisses”). There are two very large picture windows (54” x 36” inches) in the kitchen; one faces east and the other faces south. You can see the lake from both of them. A picture doesn't do it justice, so I won't even try. I bring a stool into the kitchen, pull out the cutting board (the kitchen counter has a recessed oak cutting board) as a table, and sit there for breakfast. The sun shining through with the lake alternately freezing or being blown open makes a great background for sitting there and reading scripture in the morning.

I can't think of a better way to start the day!

Legalism defined

Scot McKnight has a great definition and discussion of legalism, judgmentalism, and our freedom in Christ. Here's snippet to whet your appetite, but do read the whole thing:

Legalism is any practice or belief that is added to the gospel that compromises the sufficiency of Christ as Savior and jeopardizes the adequacy of the Spirit in moral guidance. Secondarily, then, legalism demands that one adopt a group’s special markers in order to be fully acceptable to God.

Legalism then is the charge against you or me, often sensed at the deepest level, that we are not accepted by God in Christ and indwellt by the Holy Spirit.

Thought for the day

Our abandonment must be to God, not to man, and our trust must be in Him, not in any arm of flesh, or we shall fail at the first trial.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Narnia!

I love Narnia. I've read the books well over 20 times, maybe over 30 times. In college and grad school, I would read through them at the end of the semester or quarter to unwind (I also read a lot of kid's classics, too, but that's another story). When the kids were young, we read them at the supper table together out loud. I will find myself using examples of things from the books as illustrations fairly frequently.

Well, one of the surprises in the house here is the entryway closet

Yep, a hidden access to Narnia! It even has a lamp (OK, it's outside of Narnia, but hey, it's close enough!)

I suspect it was built around 1999 as a “Y2K refuge” or some such, you can see that it used to be accessed from a bedroom

It's fairly spacious inside. One of the first times the grandkids came over (we weren't even fully moved in yet), they all wanted to bring stools into it, sit on them, and play. We decided it would be fun, so we painted the walls and are going to allow them to post their artwork. We thought about letting them paint the walls, but decided artwork done elsewhere and posted was safer : )

Emotions don't have to rule

The transaction with God is as real, where only your will acts, as when every emotion coincides. It does not seem as real to you; but in God’s sight it is as real. And when you have got hold of this secret, and have discovered that you need not attend to your emotions, but simply to the state of your will, all the Scripture commands, to yield yourself to God, to present yourself a living sacrifice to Him, to abide in Christ, to walk in the light, to die to self, become possible to you; for you are conscious that, in all these, your will can act, and can take God’s side: whereas, if it had been your emotions that must do it, you would sink down in despair, knowing them to be utterly uncontrollable.—Hannah Whitall Smith

Life in Grand Marais

It's been a while since I gave an update of what's happening in our lives—probably since November. That's quite a while ago now. So, here's a whirlwind update on the last 3-4 months.

In October, Dave put the cabins up for sale. We had moved into an apartment in town, about ¾ mile from the cabins, in September; winterizing one of the cabins was too much work—plus if the place sold, where would that leave us? Anyway, throughout September and early October, until the cabins closed, I would ride my bike over every day and take care of things.

In November, I went down to Warsaw (and then to AAR/SBL) for 3 weeks. I wrote about that back then; you can find the first post here. Before I left, Max and Sherri, the people who own the bed and breakfast next door, Macarthur House, had made an offer on the cabins; Dave accepted it. The closing was scheduled to happen sometime in November, while I was in Indiana.

Max approached Debbie and me about continuing to work at the cabins; they wouldn't be able to keep up with all the cabins plus the bed and breakfast. In exchange for the work, we could live in the house. We accepted, but because we had a year lease on the apartment, weren't sure how it would work out. Plus, Dave and Geneva would stay in the house until at least the end of December. So, we tentatively planned on moving into the house in the Spring, paying the rent on the apartment for the last 3 months without living in it.

Max suggested we talk to our landlord, Paul, about breaking the lease. Turns out that they are friends! So, hat-in-hand (so to speak), I approached Paul. He was most gracious, saying that it looked like a great opportunity for both Max and us; he allowed us to break the lease with just the loss of one month's rent. Mind you, this whole thing has been bathed in prayer and seeking the Lord. I hate breaking leases; it strikes me as unfaithful and a bad witness. I don't recall ever breaking one before...

The closing happened while I was in Indiana; Dave and Geneva moved out at the end of December. In January, we started cleaning, painting, and clearing out stuff from the cabins that had accumulated over the 20+ years that Dave and Geneva had owned them.

You'd never know by looking at my desk at Eisenbrauns, but I'm somewhat of a clean freak, as is Debbie. My desk at home is rarely messy; it might have a few open books for a day or so as I work on something, but it never gets out of hand. Anyway, we attacked the place pretty thoroughly. I spent the better part of January and half of February cleaning, dusting, vacuuming, painting, etc. No matter how good a housekeeper you are, living in a place for over 20 years allows dust and dirt to accumulate, so this is not an indictment against Dave or Geneva!

I had a good time mixing and matching the paints left in the basement to paint the walls and floor. I wanted it to be bright and cheery, as that is where the washer and dryers are. I will be spending a good bit of time down there during the summer! I ended up with brown walls for the first 3 feet (to cover the dirt and stuff that will inevitably build up), with yellow, light blue, or dark blue above that. The floor is a dark evergreen or brown. The ceilings are flat white. I like it, anyway. : )

By the middle of February, we were ready to move in...Is anyone keeping track of how many times we've moved in the last 11 months?! We're getting pretty good at it : )

Just in case you are wondering, this is the fifth place we've lived in in those 11 months. We sold the house (1) in March, moved back into “little white” (as Debbie called it) (2) for 2 months, then the cabins (3) for 2 months, followed by the apartment (4) for 6 months, and now the house (5).

We really like it. There is an enclosed backyard that has real potential for a nice garden. I'm hoping to put a hoop house and some cold frames back there. There is also a nice deck for containerized growing. And—get this!—Dave had built a shed that he used as a greenhouse! Yep, a real enclosed one with southern exposure and a real roof. He had modified it over the years to do other things, so I'll need to change it back a bit, but still... I'll try to post about all this as time goes on...

That's enough for now, but stay tuned; I'll have some pictures soon (I hope!)

Whom do you trust?

Is it possible that you can trust your fellow-men and cannot trust your God? That you can receive the “witness of men,” and cannot receive the “witness of God”? That you can believe man’s records, and cannot believe God’s record? That you can commit your dearest earthly interests to your weak, failing fellow-creatures without a fear, and are afraid to commit your spiritual interests to the blessed Saviour who shed His blood for the very purpose of saving you, and who is declared to be “able to save you to the uttermost”?—Hannah Whitall Smith

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>