Only 10 hours until this year is officially over.
Yeah!
Yippee!!
(I’d dance for joy, but would probably sprain my ankle.)
Clothes dryer stopped working today.
My 30 gb Zune decided to join the world-wide Zune Crash.
It’s a good thing I’m not going anywhere today, the last thing I need is a car accident….
What do you bet I’m going to burn dinner tonight?
yep… my glass is half empty today.
Oh well… only 10 more hours….
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Today was the day of preparation. I made Saucijzebroodjes to go with our poffertjes tomorrow morning - our little family’s traditional Christmas breakfast.
I’ve also managed a loaf of 100% whole wheat bread. The wonderful thing about this loaf isn’t just that it’s 100% whole wheat (which is a bit tricky), but also that it’s the first real loaf I’ve managed with my own home ground flour. I used red hard wheat and hand ground it in my new Back to the Basics Grain Mill and modified a recipe I found on the internet. I’ve learned, over the past week that home ground flour doesn’t bake the same way as the store-purchased stuff. I’m happy with this loaf though. It turned out heavy, nutty and moist - almost perfect:
My first 100% wheat, hand-ground loaf!
All of which is preface to the real purpose of this post: a very blessed Christmas to you and yours!
May it be a perfect continuation of a wonderful holiday season!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
No, I’m not talking about Christmas cocktails… Straight No Chaser is an a capella group. They have a wonderful version of “Auld Lang Syne” on their Christmas Album that just came out, but what I’ve really fallen in love with is their version of the “12 days of Christmas.” It’s on the CD too, but the video is great so I hunted it down for you. Enjoy!
I have been in conversation with some of you regarding my evolving hermeneutic and was asked if I’d write it down and post it… Well, here it goes.
I have, for several years, endured a theological discomfort that can only be described as a hermeneutical conflict. In short, I have been unable to reconcile what I believe ought to be true with my understanding of how to interpret the scriptures.
The conflict boils down to a difficulty reconciling law and grace – or to be more precise: I have had trouble reconciling the reality that Christianity folds me into a system of grace that is fundamentally different from the legal system of the Old Testament. For a half a decade I have reconciled this conflict through the use of the word “jurisdiction.” The concept is simple. As a resident of Michigan, the laws of Michigan have jurisdiction over me, whereas the laws of Iowa do not. Similarly, as a United States citizen I am not bound by the laws of Germany when in the US. Biblically speaking, the jurisdiction approach says that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the OT legal system, it’s just that, as a Christian, it no longer has jurisdiction over me. I am, rather, under the jurisdiction of a different system: Grace.
I continue to hold a jurisdictional approach.
The problem is, although it’s rather easy to explain what it means to be under the jurisdiction of the OT legal system, it’s far more difficult to understand what it means to be under the jurisdiction of grace. When I’m honest, I have to admit I’ve essentially promoted a jurisdictional approach but not developed a clear understanding of what the system of grace is really about and defaulted to the good-old protestant concept legalism. Although I’ve truly believed that we’re not under the OT Legal system, without something to adequately replace it with, I’ve ended up (like most people, I think) creating my own legal system – my own list of rights and wrongs – a list that, when I’m honest, is really nothing more than cherry-picked from the Pentateuch.
I’m in good company with with this semi-grace-based-cherry-picked-legalism. Indeed, I think an argument could be made that the majority of contemporary Christians have done the exact same thing, probably without even understanding what they’re doing. Historically, the church has often cherry-picked the “ethical” laws and purged out the so-called “purity” laws.
The problem with a semi-grace-based-cherry-picked-legalism is that fundamentally it is hypocritical.
Determining right and wrong by lists of dos and don’ts is legalism, whether it’s based on the OT system or something else.
You get the conflict?
The easiest way to get beyond semi-grace-based-cherry-picked-legalism is to say that the jurisdiction of grace means “one cannot earn or loose one’s salvation” so it doesn’t really matter. The problem with that is that while I do believe “one cannot earn or loose one’s salvation” our behavior does fundamentally matter. The scriptures clearly suggest that there are still “rights” and “wrongs” under the system of grace.
Enter the newest evolution in my hermeneutic: Paul.
You might not understand how painful it is to admit this. I don’t like Paul. That fact that he is one of the key writers of the New Testament and one of the most important evangelists and preachers of his time doesn’t change the fact that I think he was pompous and had far too high of an opinion of himself.
So how can Paul be be at the center of my evolving hermeneutic? Well, because I’ve finally begun to understand that everything Paul writes is based on 2 often-misunderstood but incredibly important realties. First, Paul’s various epistles are not intended to create a single, universal corpus of theological thought that can be applied to all places. Paul writes specific things (often different things) to different churches with different problems in different contexts. (If you doubt this, simply look at the various ways Paul deals with women in leadership, circumcision or eating meat potentially sacrificed to idols.) Secondly, the (different) things Paul says to (different) churches are all based on a single question: What is beneficial and constructive.
Hear me well. This doesn’t mean that I believe Paul is less “authoritative” or that the epistles are less “inspired.” It means that I’ve finally come to understand what I believe is Paul’s underlying hermeneutic: The question isn’t “what’s allowed?” but rather “what’s beneficial and constructive?” In short, the basic question of a grace-based system is not “what’s right” or “what’s wrong?” but rather “what’s beneficial?” and “what’s constructive?”
Some of you are saying: duh! 1 Corinthians 10:23….
Yea, I know. I’ve read the passage thousands of times. I’ve even heard people reference it. But only the first half of the phrase. Oh how often I’ve heard people say “everything is permissible” - but seldom have I heard the second half of the clause with it: but not all things are beneficial… not everything is constructive. (NIV)
WOW!
This answers all kinds of questions. Why does Paul say different things to different congregations? Well, it’s obvious isn’t it? He’s not particularly concerned with the question of what is “right” or “wrong” but rather what is “beneficial” and “constructive.”
I hear some of you saying already: but does that mean there aren’t any universal rights or wrongs? Well, yes and no. It means we don’t universally describe right and wrong according to a list of laws. We determine right and wrong according to the question of constructiveness and beneficiality.
Having said that. There are some universals regarding the question of constructiveness and beneficiality. But before I get to them, give me a second to clarify a bit. Constructive and beneficial to whom?
Paul, again: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. (1 Cor. 10:24 NIV)
The question of beneficiality and constructiveness is not simply a matter of personal desire or a decision of individual determination. The questions of beneficiality and constructiveness requires a rich understanding of Paul’s body ecclesiology. Each has a part in the body – an important, necessary and undeniable part. Beneficial and constructive is determined by how it effects the whole body.
Some things are universally not constructive and beneficial to the whole body. These things are universal wrongs (i.e adultery). Some things are universally constructive and beneficial to the whole body. These are universal rights (i.e. love of neighbor, charity). Some things are right in some contexts and wrong in others (i.e. eating meat sacrificed to idols, drinking alcohol, medical prolongation of life).
This means that there is often no difference in the end product (a determination of “rightness” or “wrongness”) between the legal system and the system of grace (list/law-based -vrs- the question of constructiveness and beneficiality). The difference is in the method of determination. The “ends” may be the same (often are) but the “means” are different. God cares about the “means” not just the “ends.”
To be fair, this is a far more difficult hermeneutic than simply following a particularly (and generally accepted) list. But it has the benefit of fundamentally not being hypocritical and alleviates the need to try to reconcile the passages where Paul says one thing to one group and a different thing to a different one.
I hope you find it helpful! Would love to hear you thoughts!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
I pulled it off! I took a roaster-chicken, deboned the whole thing (with the exception of wings, thigh, and legs), filled it with stuffing and ham and roasted the whole thing.
It was a little bit of work and I had to sew the back up to hold the whole thing in place but the best part of it is that, instead of carving it normally, I could simply cut off the extremities and slice it.
Some pics, in case you’re interested…
Don’t you wish you’d been at our place around 10:00 this evening?!
Grace and peace,
`tim
Today I learned about a drug called BiDil. I’m not even quite sure what to think about it. BiDil is the first drug to be approved by the FDA for a specific racial group - African-Americans. Does this seem odd to anyone else?
Let me back up. I’m all for the idea that particular drugs would be (more) effective for people with a particular gene-makeup. I actually LOVE the idea of gene-based therapies - the idea that a doctor could test PRIOR TO using a drug whether or not the patient has a genetic make-up that it would be effective for (or pre-determine the likelihood of harmful side-effects) . Having said that, I decided to go looking a little deeper at the BiDil prescription information. Here’s what it says (at their website):
INDICATIONS AND USAGE
BiDil is indicated for the treatment of heart failure as an adjunct to standard therapy in self-identified black patients to improve survival, to prolong time to hospitalization for heart failure, and to improve patient-reported functional status. There is little experience in patients with NYHA class IV heart failure. Most patients in the clinical trial supporting effectiveness (A-HeFT) received a loop diuretic, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker, and a beta blocker, and many also received a cardiac glycoside or an aldosterone antagonist.
This apparently isn’t gene-based therapy (i.e. therapy based on a study of a particular individual’s genetic make-up and the likelihood that a drug would work for them) this is therapy based on an individual’s self-reported color.
Again I ask: Does this seem odd to anyone?
It raises a handful of questions for me:
(1) Heart disease isn’t unique to any particular racial group (although, admittedly it is statistically more fatal for African American’s than some others - which may not, in my opinion, be a genetic or ancestral issue); why approve it specifically for African Americans?
(2) I’m not suggesting foul play, but honestly, why approve it specifically for African Americans? Is it not good enough for European Americans? What about Asian Americans? etc. Are we not worthy of it? What makes it suitable for one racial group and not for another?
(3) Is it really legitimate to approve a drug for a specific group based on the patients’ self-reporting?
(4) Considering the fact that, in the history of the US, African American’s have been inappropriately used - on a number of occasions - for medical tests, doesn’t this (at least) border on problematic?
I suppose there are other questions, but those are a few off the top of my head.
Of course, I’m not a medical professional; It just seems odd to me.
Any thoughts?
Grace and Peace,
`tim
It’s kind of a standing joke between me and those closest to me that, if I ever “flunk out” of being a minister, I have a whole list of things I’d like to do. Unfortunately I graduated from college with the most useless of degrees (religion), so everything on my “flunk out list” needs to based on experience rather than formal qualifications.
The economy is tanking right now so, if you’re one of the thousands (millions) of people affected by the downturn, here’s my list (in no particular order); feel free to borrow any of them! (Beware: None of them pay diddly.)
Coffee Shop Owner/Roaster/Baker/Brewer: The job starts out with a basic coffee shop. It quickly expands to coffee shop with baked goods (probably starting with cheese cakes, cookies, pastries and breads). Short on the heels of the baking, it opens up to roasting its own beans and a roast-your-own beans bar (including education and cupping for those interested). Finally… toward the end of the 10 year plan, it opens up a small brewer with tiny, but often-changing microbrews.
Baker: Mostly breads, some pies, a few pastries, and bagels. Probably donuts to round things out (and, of course, coffee). Starts out with gas ovens and broadens to an old-fashioned wood-fired oven. Mmmmm.
Scuba Diving Instructor: I love to dive but even more than diving (which I do remarkably little of), I love to help new people experience the sport – what a great job.
Yarn Shop Owner: Local Yarn store with a huge tatting section and a self-publishing emphasis. Will include classes (including FREE intros) and a heavy men-who-knit emphasis. Will have lots of animal fibers, a few vegetarian ones (bamboo, corn, etc) and an immediate web presence. Long-term plan will include spinning wheels, probably Kromski.
Personal Retreat Center Owner & Facilitator: Small bed-and-breakfast-style retreat center for people who need some time away and someone to coach & listen to them. Will include (of course) home-roasted coffee, high-quality teas, good beer and wine; plenty of silence and several fireplaces. Every retreat center needs a few fireplaces.
Tour Director: Leading tours primarily to Europe with a heavy emphasis on Scotland, Germany, cathedrals (mostly gothic) and labyrinths.
Community Organizer: No, I’m not talking about the Obama-style type a great job but not really me. By this I mean, an organizer for a new community akin to the Iona Community. It would be a formal, but loosely connected community to provide people with help in faith development, accountability and support.
Well.. There’s my top 7. Help yourself 
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Well… It’s been a process.
I had to update my WordPress (the program I use for blogging) and find a new theme (the old one didn’t work), but I’ve managed. We’re up and running with a new and improved theme on new software!
Let me know if you find any major problems!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
A “sugar addiction” may even act as a “gateway” to later abuse of drugs…
See link: CLICK HERE
great…. *shrug*
Grace and peace,
`tim
