A Life of Hope

I recently bought a used book for $5 called “An Eschatology of Hope” by J. Marcellus Kik. It’s  a study of eschatology (end times stuff) – specifically the millenial reign – from a postmillenial perspective. I’ve been a postmillenialist for about 7 years now, so I didn’t need any convincing, but I bought it none the less. Boy, am I glad I did. It’s a wonderful read… very insightful and full of scripture. It also got me thinking again about the overwhelmingly popular and opposing view of premillenialism – specifically dispensationalism. My point here, though, is not to discuss the differences between the two views, but rather to approach it from another direction.

One of the most frustrating things to me is contemporary Christian culture – in the sense that Christianity (at least in the West) has created it’s own huge world complete with architecture, music, art, film, literature, apparel, etc… The frustrating part is that most of it is poor. Very poor. Embarrassingly poor. Especially compared to secular culture. Why is this? I admit, I’ve been stumped, but I may now have an answer… well, at least a partial one: Dispensationalism. 

Without going into too much detail, dispensationalism takes the position that all the Christians are going to be raptured to heaven… soon. The world is a bad place, and it’s getting worse. And if you think it’s bad now, wait till the Antichrist comes. Needless to say, it’s not a very hopeful view of things to come, unless your hope is solely of the spiritual kind. I believe this belief has greatly influenced Christianity, thereby creating the “Christian culture” we have today. 

First of all, let me say that it’s a shame that we have a “Christian culture” – in the sense that it is separatist from pop culture. At one time there was such a thing as a Christian culture that was also pop culture. Christians were the usually the best at everything: art, literature, music, poetry, math, business, marketing, architecture, farming, etc… They set the standard for what was great. Truth is Beauty and it showed. Part of their truth, though, was the belief that they were to be stewards of the world, taking part in the renewing of creation, striving for heaven on earth. After all, that is what God promises. They believed that as they created beautiful things, more people would be drawn to that beauty, that the good news would be spread, Christianity would grow, and the nations would be blessed. They had no concept of a rapture, of leaving the corrupt earth behind to live forever in heaven. 

Alas, things have changed. And the majority of Christians believe differently. As Frankenstein would say, “Earth bad. Heaven good.” And we’ve created a monster… a hideous monster that is killing the creator. We no longer make art that lasts, because, well, what’s the point? Why should we make music that transcends generations – as Bach did – when we need to be about the business of making songs that bring about conversion? Why should we build beautiful structures that reflect our creativeness when what we really need are big boxes that can hold lots of people? Why should we encourage our youth to work hard at math, geography, and history and become valuable leaders in the community when what we really need are more pastors, professional youth leaders, worship leaders, and associate pastors?* But this is what dispensationalism does – it completely changes the churches priorities. There is no need for greatness, because there is no time for it. Who cares if you are the next Milton – we don’t need another Paradise Lost, we need more tracts. The gospel used to be shared in cathedrals, symphonies, literature, and sculpture. Now it’s shared on our t-shirts and direct to dvd movies.

It’s one thing to say “we need to be great” and it’s another thing to do it. It’s hard. Francis Schaeffer was mildly successful at it, and there’s been a few others. But there’s a big difference between tacking “the arts are important” onto the end of your theology and actually living it out daily. I’m sure there are many ways to do this, but for the purposes of this post, I have one suggestion: Let’s get our theology right!!!

 

*Now, don’t get me wrong. There is definately a place, and a need, for ministers. It just seems to me that when a young person shows an aptitude for theology, a joy of reading the Bible, and a desire to serve his church, the automatic assumption is to send him to Bible school.

20 Movies that Make Men Cry

I recently ran across this on sportingnews.com. As a guy who is not afraid to admit that he’s cried a few times while watching a movie… ok, more like twenty… I found this list to be interesting. Some of the movies on this list baffle me, some are obvious to me. Each movie is followed by the original commentary in the article and I’ll add my own two cents in italics.

 

1. Brian’s Song (1971)

This Emmy-winning movie of the week focuses on Chicago Bears running back Gale Sayers (Billy Dee Williams) and his friendship with fullback Brian Piccolo (James Caan). Coach George Halas (Jack Warden) encourages Piccolo to be Sayers’s roommate during the season — the first white-black pairing of its kind in professional sports. When Piccolo develops cancer, Sayers stands by his pal. Perfect for all ages.

This is an obvious one for me… I was named after Brian Piccolo. I’ve never known a guy named Gayle, though. 

2. Rudy (1993)

In this fact-based drama about the triumph of the human spirit, scrawny high schooler Rudy Ruettiger (Sean Astin) dreams of playing football at Notre Dame. But his father (Ned Beatty) can’t afford to send him, and his mediocre grades don’t cut it, so he ends up at a college across the street instead. Undaunted, Rudy eventually transfers to Notre Dame, where he begins assisting the groundskeeper (Charles S. Dutton) and joins the practice squad.

“Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!”  You’re crying just reading this. Don’t lie. 

3. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

As U.S. troops storm the beaches of Normandy, three brothers lie dead on the battlefield, with a fourth trapped behind enemy lines. Ranger captain Tom Hanks and seven men are tasked with penetrating German-held territory and bringing the boy home. Steven Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski paint a harrowing picture of the price of war and heroism — one that netted them Oscars for Best Director and Best Cinematography, respectively.

To be honest, I’m not sure I cried. I was in too much shock. What a brutal movie. I still have refused to see it since I watched it at the theatre.

4. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)

The first movie since It Happened One Night to win all five major Academy Awards (picture, director, actor, actress, screenplay), Cuckoo’s Nest still has the ability to entertain and inspire. Implacable rabble-rouser Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is committed to an asylum and inspires his fellow patients to rebel against the authoritarian rule of head nurse Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher).

????? I saw it. I did not cry. I did laugh though. 

5. The Natural (1984)

A bat made from a tree struck by lightning and a passion for baseball define Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford). But when he’s shot and severely wounded, his career gets cut short. Years later, Hobbs tries out for a struggling team. He steps to the plate and knocks the ball out of the park in this mythic film that’s as epic as America’s national pastime.

I hate to be mean but the saddest part of the movie is the realization that his girlfriend is Glenn Close. I would cry. 

6. Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Upstanding banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is framed for a double murder in the 1940s and begins a life sentence at the Shawshank prison, where he’s befriended by an older inmate named Red (Morgan Freeman). During his long stretch in prison, Dufresne comes to be admired by the other inmates for his upstanding moral code and unquenchable sense of hope. Co-stars Gil Bellows and Bob Gunton (who’s memorable as the amoral prison warden).

 Prison rape always draws a tear or two out of me. Seriously, I’m sure the moment when most guys cried was when the old guy hung himself after he couldn’t acclimate himself to the outside world. That was sad, but I probably cried at the end when Andy and Red are reunited as free men. 

7. Schindler’s List (1993)

Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust epic won seven Academy Awards (including Best Picture) and is an unforgettable testament to the possibility of human goodness. Greedy factory owner Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) was exploiting cheap Jewish labor, but in the midst of WWII became an unlikely humanitarian, losing his fortune by helping to save 1,100 Jews from Auschwitz.

Another movie that I have refused to watch since watching it at the theatre. I’m sure I cried, but I was probably in shock. I did like this better than Saving Private Ryan. 

8. Old Yeller (1957)

Disney’s heartwarming family classic Old Yeller tells the tale of young farm boy Travis Coates (Tommy Kirk), who learns valuable lessons of courage, loyalty and trust from an adopted yellow mongrel.

I watched this as a little boy. I cried. I haven’t seen it since. Another movie that is in the same genre, and one that I liked better is “Where the Red Fern Grows.” I definately cried in that one. 

9. The Pride of the Yankees (1942)

This is one of the greatest American stories about one of the greatest American heroes: baseball phenomenon Lou Gehrig. The film follows the Iron Horse (Gary Cooper) from childhood to his later glory on the diamond. Gehrig embodied the American ethic of humility and hard work, playing in 2,130 consecutive games until he was forced to retire because of the disease that now bears his name.

Never saw it.

10. Terms of Endearment (1983)

Mothers are from Mars, and daughters are from Venus in this warm, offbeat story adapted from Larry McMurtry’s novel. Director James L. Brooks seamlessly tells the story of a mother and daughter whose lives are changed by the men they love and their abiding love for each other. Terms of Endearment won five Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Actress (MacLaine), Best Supporting Actor (Jack Nicholson), Best Director and Best Screenplay.

I’ve never seen this one either. I do remember playing in my room as a young ‘un while my mom and aunts watched it on t.v. and hearing them cry. I’m not sure why this is on a list of movies that make GUYS cry, though. 

11. The Iron Giant (1999)

In rustic 1957 Maine, 9-year-old Hogarth finds a colossal but disoriented robot (of unknown origin), and the two form a strong bond of friendship. Before long, however, a government agent is on their trail — and he’s intent on destroying the automaton. This beautifully rendered parable based on British poet Ted Hughes’ feted short story features the voices of Jennifer Aniston, Vin Diesel, Harry Connick Jr. and Cloris Leachman.

Denise and I rented this about two years ago. I had heard really good things about it – it’s directed by the same guy that did “The Incredibles” which I love. We were quite disappointed. I did not cry. 

12. Philadelphia (1993)

When attorney Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) reveals his HIV-positive status — and his homosexuality — to his co-workers, he soon finds himself unemployed. Seeking to sue for wrongful termination, Hanks works with the only lawyer who’ll take the case: ambulance-chasing, homophobic Joe Miller (Denzel Washington). Hanks received an Oscar for his work in this Jonathan Demme-directed film — the first major-studio picture to tackle the topic of AIDS.

Uh, no. I did think it was a good movie, though. 

13. Big Fish (2003)

William Bloom (Billy Crudup) tries to learn more about his dying father, Edward (Albert Finney), by piecing together the facts out of the various fantastic tales and legends of epic proportions he’s been told over the years. Edward was a traveling salesman, and his journeys throughout the South are the seed of the tales. Directed by Tim Burton, the movie co-stars Ewan McGregor (as the young Edward), Helena Bonham-Carter and Steve Buscemi.

I have seen this, but I don’t remember crying. In fact, it was quite forgettable.

14. Million Dollar Baby (2004)

This multiple Oscar winner follows a determined young athlete who, through her sheer determination, awakens a long-lost fire within two aging boxers. Despondent over a painful estrangement from his daughter, trainer Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) isn’t prepared for boxer Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) to enter his life. Maggie’s determined to go pro, and she eventually convinces Dunn and his cohort (Morgan Freeman) to help her get to the top.

One of my all time favorite movies. I absolutely cry every time I watch it… which is frequently.

15. Life is Beautiful (1997)

In this poignant tragicomedy, a clever Jewish-Italian waiter named Guido (Roberto Benigni, who won an Oscar for his role) is sent to a Nazi concentration camp during World War II, along with his wife (Nicoletta Braschi) and their young son (Giorgio Cantarini). Refusing to give up hope, Guido tries to protect his son’s innocence by pretending that their imprisonment is an elaborate game, with the grand prize being a tank.

I have never seen this, but would like to. It seems like I would cry from the synopsis.

16. Love Actually (2003)

An ensemble comedy that tells 10 separate (but intertwining) London love stories, leading to a big climax on Christmas Eve. One of the threads follows the brand-new, unmarried Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) of the United Kingdom, who, on his first day in 10 Downing Street, falls in love with the girl (Martine McCutcheon) who brings him his tea. Denise Richards, Alan Rickman, Keira Knightley and Rowan Atkinson co-star.

huh?

17. Rocky (1976)

Gritty, grim and epic, Rocky is the real deal, a crowd pleaser with a less-than-storybook ending. When Muhammad Ali-esque boxing champ Carl Weathers wants to give a nobody a shot at the title as a publicity stunt, his handlers pick palooka Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). Rocky won the 1976 Best Picture Oscar thanks to John Avildsen’s solid direction and Stallone’s root-for-the-underdog script.

Great movie. Not sure that I’ve cried though. 

18. The Pianist (2002)

Famed Polish concert pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody, who won an Oscar for the role) struggles to survive the onslaught of Nazi tyranny during World War II in this autobiographical film. Already lauded at the time for his talents as a musician, Szpilman spent those years holed up in Warsaw, subsisting on scraps of food and barely able to stay alive. Grace comes in the form of a second chance — at music, at freedom, at life.

Another one I haven’t seen. I would like to.

19. Mystic River (2003)

Three childhood friends, Sean (Kevin Bacon), Dave (Tim Robbins) and Jimmy (Sean Penn) are reunited in Boston 25 years later when they are linked together in the murder investigation of Jimmy’s daughter. This taut thriller from director Clint Eastwood won two acting Oscars (for Robbins and Penn) and was nominated for several more in its exploration of human behavior when faced with pain just beneath the surface, justified rage and scars that never heal.

I just bought this movie. I saw it at the theatre, but I don’t remember crying. I’ll let you know when I watch it again. 

20. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Southern comforts abound in this classic adaptation of Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. Gregory Peck won an Oscar for his role as Atticus Finch, a widowed lawyer who takes on the task of defending an innocent black man (Brock Peters) against rape charges, only to wind up in a maelstrom of hate and prejudice that threatens to invade the lives of his children, Jem and Scout (Phillip Alford and Mary Badham).

Another wonderful movie adapted from a wonderful book. I didn’t cry though. 

 

Here’s my list of movies that made me cry that did not appear in the above list… in no particular order:

1. Frequency – the end of the movie where father, son, and grandson are playing softball – couple with that song – gets me every time. 

2. Where the Red Fern Grows – my Ol’ Yeller alternative.

3. The Sixth Sense – when the boy and his mom are sitting in traffic because of the accident and he tells her his “secret” and proves it by telling the story about her and her mother.

4. Steel Magnolias – hey, if Love Actually and Terms of Endearment can be in the above list… When Sally Field comes home from the hospital after her daughter dies and her grandson comes running up the driveway to greet her… wow, I’m tearing up now just thinking about it.

5. Lars and the Real Girl – I absolutely love this movie. There are a number of misty moments for me, but a highlight is when Lars’ brother apologized for abandoning him when he was younger.

6. Reign Over Me – Man, there are at least three scenes that make me cry.

7. An American Tail – I still cry when I hear “Somewhere, Out There”…. not the radio version, the movie version where the mice sing. 

8. In America – a number of scenes. Mostly tears of joy and hope. I love the portrayal of family in this movie.

9. Return of the King – after 9 hours, there better be some emotional payoff!

10. Children of Men – in the midst of war, the cry of a baby brings everything to a halt. That scene is so beautiful and powerful.

Ok, your turn. 

I have to save this one! Hospitality + Children = Fun!

Anyone interested in hospitality!? I know I am.  I am always looking for tips to help things go smoothly.  Found this post via Brandy- thanks so much darlin’!  On my way to the Sunshine State today.  I can’t wait to soak in a few rays and some much needed Mom and sister time!

I’m growing a green thumb?! I am growing 2 kinds of tomatoes. One finally has 2 smally tomatoes on it! We are so excited. We also have a bleeding heart- beautiful and some pretty bulbs have poked up in our pots hanging over the porch railing.  It has been fun living in the country. There are so many beautiful things growing here. A new color pops up as soon as something else dies off.  I love spring and summer for that! We are also looking forward to harvesting the 2 peach trees and 1 apple tree.  I’ll take a turn at canning if there is a good fruit!

Lucy is standing and clapping already! I can’t believe she is already approaching 8 mths. Man time flies.

My trip to OR went well considering.  God is good all the time and was clearly comforting us in various ways in regards to losing my step-mom. Thank you for your prayers!

Food For Thought

Rite Reasons Newsletter
No. 47: Do Baptists Talk to their Babies?
by Peter J. Leithart
September, 1996

Protestants have always insisted that the sacraments bring no benefit without a response of faith, but this seems to undermine infant baptism, since infants do not appear to be able to exercise faith. Luther and Calvin held together their insistence on faith with infant baptism by claiming that infants can believe. Baptists see this as the Achilles’ heel of the paedobaptist position, an example of how far paedobaptists have to go to defend an untenable practice.

Is infant faith absurd? As I indicated more fully in my lectures on baptism at the 1996 Biblical Horizons summer conference, our questions about sacraments often result from confusions about two things: grace and symbols. Through much of church history, there has been a tendency (and sometimes more than a tendency) to conceive of grace as some kind of impersonal substance, energy, or power that God delivers to man. Sacraments thus become, as is said even by many Reformed, “channels” by which grace flows to believers. This is just an image, but imagery has a way of shaping theology for good or ill. To call the sacraments “channels” of grace reinforced the mistaken view that grace is an impersonal substance or power. Grace, however, is God’s attitude of favor to sinners, manifested in His personal approach to establish fellowship, to cut or renew a covenant, with His people. There are not four things involved in sacraments (God, grace, sacrament, us) but only three (the gracious God, sacraments, and us). The Jews marveled at the confidence of Peter and John, and saw that it was a result of personal acquaintance and fellowship with Jesus (Acts 4:13). Our transformation has the same cause: We are renewed by personal fellowship encounter with the Lord who has become life-giving Spirit.

And as regards symbols: Frequently, we think of symbols as an addition to real life, as enhancements of the “literal.” In the personalist framework sketched above, however, symbols have a much more basic function in human life. Personal relationships among human beings exist, under normal circumstances, only by means of signs and symbols. Symbols communicate and mediate information and personal presence. We get to know another person by talking (using linguistic signs) and by gestures (handshake, kiss, hug, facial expressions, etc.). The only way for a man’s infatuation with a woman to move out of imagination into a real relationship of love is for the man to make his love “public” by speaking, writing love letters, sending flowers, and so on. Symbolic acts such as these do not picture a relationship that already exists; without the symbols, the personal relationship will not exist at all.

Likewise, our personal relationship with God takes place through mutual use of symbols: God speaks to us in His word, which takes the form of printed symbols on a page or audible sounds that carry meaning. We respond with words of prayer and praise. God “gestures” to us through the water of baptism and by spreading His table; we respond by accepting His invitation and feasting in His presence. The history of sacramental theology can be told as a dialectic between treating sacraments as magical and treating them as “mere symbols.” A personalist framework cuts through the whole debate: Symbols have power, but the power is the power of establishing and maintaining personal, covenanted relationships.

(Despite real differences between language and other symbolic actions, there are fundamental similarities: both speech [or writing] and gestures are physical actions; both uttering significant sounds and performing significant gestures are symbolic in that meanings are encoded within or “inhere” the physical actions. In fact, it is difficult to think of a human physical action in which meaning does not inhere: A pat on the back is different from swatting a fly but swatting a fly says something; speaking is different from belching, but, depending on circumstances, belching can mean either “I enjoyed the meal” or “I’m a mannerless pig.” Generating and deploying symbols is an inescapable human process, an aspect of our being made in the image of the Father who eternally generates His Word, His Image [John 1:1; Hebrew 1:1-3].)

Given this background, we can return to the question of infant faith. Here, “faith” is the human response trust to God in a personal relationship. The question of infant faith is not: “Are infants capable of receiving this jolt of divine power?” The question is: “Can infants respond to other persons? Do infants have personal relations?” And the answer to this question is obviously yes. Infants quickly (even in utero) learn to respond to mother’s voice; infants quickly manifest “trust” of their parents; infants quickly distinguish strangers from members of the family. If infants can trust and distrust human persons, why can’t they trust in God? Behind the denial of infant faith is, apparently, an assumption that God is less available to an infant than other humans. But this is entirely wrong; for no human being is nearer than God. And it is wrong because God’s presence is mediated through His people. When parents say to their newborn, “Jesus loves you and will care for you,” they are speaking God’s promises.

Parents, moreover, establish relationships with their infants through symbols. We talk to our infants, and we show our love through gestures � hugs and kisses. If there is nothing irrational or absurd about humans’ establishing personal relation ship with infants through symbols, there is nothing irrational about God’s doing the same. As we establish loving and trusting relations with our infants through symbols, so God speaks to infants and establishes a relation with them through the “visible word” of baptism. Thus, the question “Should we baptize babies?” is of a piece with the question “Should we talk to babies?” Paedobaptism is neither more nor less odd and miraculous that talking to a newborn. In fact, that is just what paedobaptism is: God speaking in water to a newborn child.

Let me take this a further step. If the child cannot understand what a parent is saying, is it rational for the parent to speak to him or her? Baptist parents as well as others speak to their infants, and do not expect the child to understand or to talk back for many months. They see nothing irrational in this. They speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response. They speak to their children so that the child will learn to understand and talk back. So too, we baptize babies not because they can fully understand what is happening to them, nor because we expect them to undergo some kind of immediate moral transformation. We baptize them, and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications, so that they will come to understanding and mature faith.

The sociologically consistent Baptist should, it seems to me, follow the Peekabo Street theory of child training. Peekaboo Street was the American Olympic skier, whose parents, as I recall the story, were so very trendy and liberal that they did not want to “impose” an identity on their little girl, so they allowed her to choose her own name, with obvious results. Karl Barth, who loudly protested the “violence” of imposing a Christian identity on a child through infant baptism, would undoubtedly be pleased. In fact, the Streets were not so liberal after all, for in spite of themselves they apparently did teach Peekaboo to speak English, rather than giving her the freedom to choose a language or make one up on her own. Baptist parents, so far as I know, are not consistent either; they do impose a language and a name on their children, a language and a name that cannot be religiously neutral; they do, in spite of themselves, often treat their children as Christians, teaching them to sing “Jesus loves me” and to pray the Lord’s Prayer. And if they do all this, what reason remains for resisting the imposition of the covenant sign?

Wise words about the ministry

I really enjoyed this blog post over at ReformedCatholicism.com.

I found that many of these points resonated with me and where I’m at now in my life. One of life’s strange little paradox’s is the appreciation I have for the Bible College and Seminary that I attended in showing me how ill-equipped these institutions were in preparing me for ministry. I don’t say this to bad mouth the people there – I wouldn’t trade my time there for anything. The friendships and memories made there are worth the time alone. But I noticed during the last year or so there how backwards this education can be. A lot more value was placed on scholasticism than service and mentoring. The majority of men were putting off starting families and having children for school. They’re wives were working full-time jobs to support them. Many of the students had never worked a real job, much less been successful at one. These are some of the things I struggled with. After four years, I felt I had a ton of book knowledge but no life knowledge. I hated that my wife had to work full-time to support me – especially after having Molly. I felt like I was stuck in a community where everyone looked the same, thought the same, and experienced the same things. I watched as a number of young men took ministry positions and failed miserably or took ministry positions “for the experience.” I thought that maybe I was just afraid of failing, or maybe I was afraid that I’d wasted my time only to find out that I wasn’t truly called to the ministry. But then in my readings I ran across two statements that made me really think about what I was doing. The first one was about “calling.” I forget where I read it, but the statement was something to the effect of “your calling is confirmed over many years of service to the church, by the church, despite your repeated attempts at rejecting this calling.” In other words, my calling was not confirmed because one or two people told me I should go to seminary. It wasn’t confirmed because I made National Dean’s List every year I was there. It wasn’t confirmed because that’s what I wanted to do in life. This began to make sense to me when I met two men in their 40’s who had been successful in another career, but had come to seminary because this type of calling had occurred in their lives. What’s funny is I had been a little insecure about being a few years older than the average student, when I really wasn’t old enough to be there in the first place! The second thing I read was in a George MacDonald (I think) book where he made the statement that a requirement of the ministry should be 40 years old and already successful in some other career. Although I believe he was saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek (somewhat), it made a lot of sense to me. One of the things that I struggled with was how to grow our family, yet still continue pursuing the ministry. After all, it would be almost impossible for Denise to stay home with the children (which is a non-negotiable in my book), and for me to provide for them in a church that I didn’t have to compromise my integrity to serve in (i.e. megachurch). The solution is simple now. I find a career that pays well, has good benefits, and enable me to provide well for my family so that Denise can stay home. I do well in this job, bringing glory to God, building friendships with all different types of people, and gain valuable life and relationship experience while continuing to serve in the church and study on my own (or even more importantly, under my pastor’s watchful eye). When my children are older and if I am called to the pulpit  – or some other ministry – then maybe I pursue it, knowing that I have a nice pension or retirement set aside, so that I am not totally dependent on the church for my well-being. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are certainly some pastors who are an exception to the rule and I never want to make the mistake of being dogmatic or legalistic about such things (after all, I didn’t reject the rampant legalism of one tradition just to latch on to another brand.). But I don’t think it would be a bad thing if 80% of our Bible colleges were disbanded, and the number of seminary students were cut down by about half – mostly from the 20 something group. But more importantly, know that this is mainly how I feel about myself, my family, and my ministerial calling, and that its a blessing to know someone else out there feels the same way.

Initial engagement

OK, so here goes….. I’ve been thinking about doing this blog thing for quite awhile now, but I’ve always managed to discourage myself from doing it for various reasons. In fact, I have had an account for a long time – but only so that I may post comments on other people’s blogs. I’m now convinced, though, that the pros outweigh the cons. The overwhelming pro, in my opinion, is that it is an easy way for me to share with everyone what is going on in my family’s lives, since, really, it’s all about the girls. *This reasoning owes a nod to the Odom family* Also, while I have maintained a myspace account for over year – posting pictures and updates of the family – the majority of friends and family do not have a myspace account, so it does them no good.
I also intend to use this blog to share my thoughts on a variety of subjects. This has always been the sticky part for me, because I have visited many blogs that are nothing more than a way for people to vent their frustrations… and, of course, there is not a whole lot of accountablility when it comes to blogging. Also, from time to time, I run across interesting or funny items in the media that I want to share – which, at best, may cause you to laugh or think, or, more likely, cause you to wonder what is wrong with me.
At any rate, since moving to Birmingham, our contact with the majority of our friends and family has become rarer than we would like. Hopefully this blog will remedy that. God Bless and enjoy!