August 2005 Archives

It's really sad how many people go to college for the wrong reasons. I started college for the wrong reasons, but I understand them now. Ask any high schooler who's wanting to go to college, why? "Because I want to get a good job that pays well." "My parents say I have to get an education." "Because if I don't I'll have to be a janitor for the rest of my life." WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

There's more to life than vocation and money. In fact, unless you're a workaholic, you'll spend more time in other pursuits than your vocation. The purpose of a university education is to learn and better yourself by learning. The pursuit of knowledge is an honorable goal in and of itself. Trying to learn just enough to get your degree certificate cheapens your education. Okay, now before anyone thinks I'm harping on students, I'm going to spend the rest of this blog on the philosophy involved and on how faculty perpetrate this abomination we call academia.

The faculty members of higher education are the primary perpetrators of this false pursuit of degree for improved life and money. In my opinion, it started because the educators wanted more money and these goes appeal to a wider audience than the pure pursuit of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is a lofty goal that doesn't have obvious or immediate utility. But almost our entire academic system is geared towards building someone up to live life rather than build someone up just for the sake of learning. Learning is both a means and an ends in itself.

I don't think the university should be preparing students for a vocation. Generally speaking, only a vocation does that anyway. How many jobs have you had? How long did it take you to really get everything that you needed to know down? Six months? A year? Two years? I'd say my experience says it takes six months to meet everyone and get the basic requirements down. It takes a year to really know everything you have to do. And it takes two years and maybe three to actually become competent. And that's proven true for every job I've had for that long with and without my degrees.

Furthermore, it's been my experience that what is done in class is only capable of giving you a bare background to work with. The only students that really know what they're doing when it comes to software development, are the ones that play with stuff outside of class. Actually being able to do something in a vocation requires much more detailed training and experience than any lecture series can give you. I've specifically seen this in the students I've hired. Two of them started with essentially no professional experience in systems administration. I'd have been able to recommend both of them as well-paid consultants after a year of on-the-job training working in our department. Any one of my students already has more experience in systems administration than any one of our graduates who hasn't had a job like this. I'd hire them without a degree if I were running a systems consulting firm and I feel confident that many such firms would (so long as they haven't subscribed to the lie that a Bachelors degree in Computer Science means anything in particular about your computer knowledge).

This country has bought into a myth about education. Having a Bachelors degree now means less than it once did because it's now taken as just a credential that can get you into the door for an interview. Rather, it should be a credential that means you're well studied in a variety of subjects, but with some specialized knowledge—that you are a seeker of knowledge. Bah. The degree should just be a milestone on the path of life, not some peak to climb.

I would like to indict computer science faculty in particular for the crime of making our degree programs into mid-level vocational training. Instead of teaching students how to develop new ways of thinking about computing, we teach them how to program. Instead of teaching students to look beyond the mundane and create, we teach them how to design GUIs the way we like to see them. Instead of helping them understand the patterns and intuition that leads to good user interface, we teach them to think more like machines. Instead of helping develop skills for developing new algorithms built on well-known ones, we merely show them how to use standard libraries. When we have a social problem like trouble communicating with students, we look to technology as the Holy Grail that will save us from having to interact with them. Instead of creating a pleasant environment that encourages students to learn for the sake of learning, we create a professional environment that dehumanizes them and teaches them that their only value to society is the ethical pursuit of money.

The real goal of any university department should be to impact lives so that our graduates are better learners. We should be personal rather than professional. We should serve the students rather than self-aggrandize and proclaim our own puffed-up knowledge. We should listen and learn ourselves rather than lecture from our lofty researches. I tire of the academic elitism of the Ph.D. This is why I will not pursue one myself. That's not a club I have any interest in joining.

Finally, I know that the CIS department at KSU once had a sense of humor. I don't know if it fostered the learning environment too, but I have a feeling it did. Let's go back to way things were when the department was young, when simply learning was important and grants and awards and published papers were more milestones rather than the goals themselves. Let's go back to a time when our intellectual investment in our own ideas hadn't developed into a fragile pride. Let's go back to the days when a professor had time for his students because they're more important than the official work of the day. Cheers.

My wife is an excellent cook. This is good because food is a very important thing to me. :) And I say that on a couple levels. First, I like to eat and I get kind of picky about eating different stuff—I get bored pretty easily. Second, I like to eat a little too much and if it were left to me, I'd probably be a giant chubster, instead of just a moderate chubster.

This summer, Terri decided to make a great amount of effort at budgeting our grocery expenses and trying to create a system to help us get a variety of healthy food, which could continue despite our busy schedules once the the school/college semesters started (Terri's a third grade teacher, btw). Well, she appears to have succeeded on two counts. One, I was so happy about my breakfast this morning, that I decided to blog about this and, two, I lost ten pounds over the summer.

I wanted to brag on her and thank my mother-in-law for being a great cook and passing that on to Terri and probably pass on my blessing to her (now passed-on) mother for the same reason. I also want to share a few of the wonderful things I've been eating. This morning, I had homemade blueberry waffles with butter (er, buttery yogurt spread, which actually is better at this than butter) and syrup. For dinner last night, I had what might be considered simple, but a very excellent club sandwich with fresh tomato (thanks again to Terri's mom). For lunch yesterday, I had left-over pizza on homemade pizza dough, an apple, and orangies-with-chocolate-chips (a variation on brownies involving orange flavored "brownies" with a sugary glaze). For Sunday lunch, I had roast chicken (with an excellent rub), peas, and rice. For Saturday dinner, I had the pizza for the first time. For Saturday lunch (while I wasn't feeling well), Terri made some soup from left-over roast, baked beans, and bacon.

Food-wise, this has been a delicious week. I love Terri and for more reasons than her cooking, but even if it were for just that reason, I think I could be happy. Cheers.

Dan Stipp gave today's message on revering, fearing, and loving God. The primary passage used was Deuteronomy 5-6. This passage records Moses retelling how the Israelites received the Ten Commandments and recounts how they cowered under the mountain when God revealed his glory to them through cloud and fire and lightning and earthquakes and a sound like a the blast of trumpets. The people cowered in fear because God demonstrated his glory in such a way as to cause the Israelites to fear. They feared so much that they begged that God wouldn't do it again, but would simply speak to Moses, who could then tell them what God had to say.

Dan started with a short testimony sharing that he'd learned a few "foundational truths" about God early in his Christian life that had helped, even if imperfectly, to live a "Christian life that avoids frustration." His first point was that loving God requires reverence. He then told the story of God demonstrating his glory and the Israelites cowering in fear. God's response was, "Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me..." (Deuteronomy 5:29) To revere God means to fear Him. He went on to say that to fear God is to love him. As Jesus said (quoting Deuteronomy 6:5) was the greatest command, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and all your strength." (Mark 12:30)

Dan moved from here to his second point, "Loving God requires more than an inner change of heart, but it requires obedience." Continuing Deutoronomy 5:29, we read, "...and keep all My commandments always..." Similarly, Jesus said in John 14:15,21, "If you love me, you will obey what I command...Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me..." We then broke into a time of testimony and sharing and a number of folks stood up and shared.

Of all those who shared, one stood out for me. A gal Terri and I know and love in Christ, stood and shared how she was broken over the fact that a dear friend of hers had fallen away from the church because the people of the church weren't loving her in the way she thought they should if they were really Christians. Her point was that it's important that Christians know that while we revere God and such reverence is important, we should be aware that God doesn't promise to make our lives happy and wonderful, if we do. In fact, Jesus generally promised the opposite.

Which brings me to the real question I have on the topic. Why should I reverence, fear, love, and obey God? God doesn't promise me anything in return until after I die and even then, why is heaven such a great place anyway? I mean, if heaven is supposed to be the place we live forever and spend the whole time basking in the glory of God, why would I want that? Why is God so scary anyway? What's He done that deserves my love and reverence? Why shouldn't I spend my time indulging my whim and enjoying what I can while I'm young? Why should I bother obeying Him rather than just doing what I want?

I think this was rather well answered in another sermon I listened to today from Grace Bible Church in Hutchinson: God's grace. Romans 3:23 says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and in Romans 3:9, "for we have already charged that...all are under sin." It comes down to this, we have nothing of worth to offer God. Our works amount to nothing. We can try to be "good people," but we aren't good people. Yet, "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) For those familiar with the GNU terminology of "free," this is "free" as in "free beer." God has offered grace to his chosen people even though we don't deserve it. "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flash but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:3)

Therefore, the answer to all the above questions is. Christians revere, fear, love, and obey God because His grace has made us able to do so. Furthermore, now that we are able to do so through the Spirit, we want to do so because He is worthy of those things. He would be worthy of it even if He chose not to deliver us. We should want to do these things all the more because He did deliver us.

I don't think I need to say more. Amen.

I've been working on my class for the last few days and I'm starting to get a little more confident about teaching a course (or at least CIS 450 in particular) now that I'm starting my third semester of teaching it solo and fourth overall. (Dave Schmidt has shared that it really takes at least 4 semesters in a row to get a CS course down pat.)

I've been thinking a lot about what makes a good course at college and I've decided that there are really just a few principles:

1. It must be interesting.
2. It must be informative.
3. It must be personable.

It must be interesting. One might think, "Duh." However, one must be careful to take into account the nature of the course I teach: CIS 450 Computer Architecture and Organization. Probably anyone whose taken CIS 450 (or CIS 350 before it was renumbered) from Dr. Mizuno, Tim Bower, or myself, the first thing they think of is, "Ewy! Assembly!" And then they start twitching as they remember pointers and memory maps and they might, perhaps, remember Masaaki's Rules (if they took it from Masaaki Mizuno, my "rules" aren't quite the same).

Basically, I have to make a subject about assembly interesting. In my opinion, an instructor makes a topic interesting by being interested in it. Therefore, I've taken it upon myself to figure out what is so fascinating about this subject and I think I have a good grasp on that now. Computer scientists aren't quite mathematicians, aren't quite engineers, and aren't quite scientists, but they do all of those things and most have some similarity to these. Engineers like to take things apart and see how they work. Assembly language is really the deepest guts a computer scientist can get to without having to get out the screwdrivers and soldering iron. ("Dammit Jim, I'm a Computer Scientist not an Electrical Engineer!")

Furthermore, this class is the class that lets you know how programs really work. Bugs happen. But, if you don't have an understanding of how programs really work, you're going to run into bugs that you can't explain.

For example, try to explain the output of this C++ code (taken from the course notes):

int x[3] = { 1, 2, 3 };
int y = 5;
char z[4] = { 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' };
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
   cout << "x" << i << "] = " << x[i] << endl;
}

without knowing how a program is translated into machine code. You can't.

Some would argue that by using Java or Python or Perl or Ruby or Ocaml or Scheme or Haskell or any of the slew of "modern" programming languages out there this isn't a problem. WRONG! Everything has to work on a machine level sooner or later and someone has to right that code and that someone is human and makes mistakes. All of those programming languages occasionally have bugs that run into system issues that have to be explained and fixed by some computer scientist somewhere. Any computer scientist that doesn't at least know the basic theory here should be shuffled away to management where he can do less harm.

Anyway, I have learned to find this stuff really interesting. I don't have a lot of time to dabble in it very deeply, but after having played around for awhile I do yearn for the time to play around with assembly, compilers, and virtual machines.

It must be informative. Again a duh. However, I found frustratingly often as a student that professors were often more interested in their research than sharing knowledge with me. Professors are very busy people. At a research university, they have to try and get grants to fund research, they have to publish papers on their research, they have to hire and train RAs to help with research, they have committees and the other beaurocrapsy everyone in a large company has to deal with, and all the rest. Then, they have to teach. Many professors see teaching as their second job and prioritize the time they spend there as such. They create notes and then live off them for years. (In the field of computer science, where parts of the field have shifted and changed focus several times in just the 8 years I was pursuing a degree, that's crazy!)

Thus, I find that being informative is more a challenge of preparation than a challenge of finding information. In fact, one of my problems is that 14-15 weeks is just not enough time to cover all the topics in the course. This course works in C++ in order to get down closer to dirt level. I then have to teach the theory of computer architecture, assembly, C++ to assembly translation, pointer arithmetic, memory allocation, memory mapping, and some other miscellaneous stuff. That's really a lot to fit in to 50 hours of instruction (that's about the amount of time I work in a single week!). As such, I'm continuing to adapt my notes and try to adapt to changes in the field and fit in my particular interests.

It must be personable. Everyone has a favorite course they took or at least a few stand-outs. Why? I don't particularly remember most of my courses, but I vividly remember a few. I remember thinking Nora Ransom was a loon that really knew what she was talking about. I remember John Hatcliff hopping back and forth in front of the chalkboard to show how to ideas related. I remember talking about parking problems with Dr. Huth and a philosophy professor. I remember Masaaki Mizuno, laughing about some story about bad documentation and stating his famous epigram, "You must read the code." It's the instructors that make a course memorable.

Therefore, the instructor himself must invest his energy into not only making the course interesting, preparing to make it informative, he must put a bit of himself into it. I do this by showing bits of Strong Bad before class and inserting my brand of dry humor into my slides and lectures. I also try to do it by making sure to always be available for students after class and in my office. I have one student from two semesters ago who still comes by every other week to ask questions about C++. I try to invest myself in their lives because I know it will make them better if they know that CIS 450 isn't just some subject they have to learn, it's something enjoyable and it fits into a greater whole of humanity. It matters.

Of course, I have another motive that the average instructor isn't likely to have and that's one of Christian conviction. I invest in people because that's what Christ would do. If I can show them that a person does care for them a bit, perhaps I can make a difference in something eternal (as CS isn't likely to be). It probably also makes me a holier-than-thou prick every now and then, especially to students that tick me off, but I pray that doesn't happen often. (Just so long as I don't start preaching to the poor students, like some...er, folks have a tendency to do...*ahem*... :)

Anyway, it's bed time. Cheers.

This is a continuation of Part 1 and Part 2 of this study.

I do really intend to finish this even though I haven't come back to it for quite sometime. I got hung up on "one baptism" a while back and then things got a little crazy at home and work and I've not been doing any in-depth Bible study. Well, now I'm back at it again, as I always should have been...

The message is unity. We are unified through all thing things mentioned in the "ones" of the Ephesians 4:4-6 passage and for all the "alls" of the passage. As a brief aside on the subject of unity. This summer has been a terrific test for Terri and I. We've been challenged to hold to our church despite the fact that we disagree with a great many things our church practices. I won't really go further than that since it would just be vague hints without really going into it. However, I will say it has been a very tough challenge for us to stay optimistic and see what God is doing even when the people we disagree with don't seem to even comprehend our point of view. This study has helped me stay a bit more optimistic than I might otherwise have been about this.

One baptism. The hang up I had with this two word section is that it isn't completely clear whether Paul meant one dunk-under-the-water or one encouter-with-the-Holy-Ghost. Looking through my various commentaries, I found that the consensus splits pretty well down the middle.

One argument for Spirit-baptims is that Paul is talking about unity in the body and the Spirit is definitely a strongly unique gift to the believer. Another commentary argued that it was probably water-baptism because he's already mentioned "one Spirit" and there's nothing about Spirit-baptism anywhere else in the context (not that there's anything about water-baptism either so I wouldn't really give credence to the latter argument). A third possibility (given by my friend Brent) is that Paul's referring to water-baptism as a way of saying, "It doesn't matter who baptized you, just that you were." (You can read here for my refutation of Brent's statement.)

Naturally, the proper solution to this is to assume that he could have meant either (and even possibly both via a word-play that appears to work as well in English as in Greek, though I'm hardly a Greek scholar, so I wouldn't even take my own word for that. ;) So, let me cover both bases:

Water-baptism. Water baptism is commanded in Jesus' famous "Great Commission," which can be found in Matthew 28:19-20:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always to the end of the age."

Jesus even states in Mark 16:16 that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." This passage, amongst others, has led some Christians to take the stance that water-baptism is required to enter heaven (particularly at my one-time alma mater, Manhattan Christian College). However, I would disagree with going that far, but I would say that as the first act of obedience, it's something not to hesitate over. If you claim to believe, but aren't willing to be baptized, I would be skeptical of your faith. New believers tend to be refreshingly enthusiastic and "sold out" rather than hesitant about these things, in my experience.

This baptism is an experience which represents the fact that we are unified in Christ's death and resurrection. A pretty common liturgy accompanying submersive baptism is to paraphrase Romans 6:3-4. As the pastor lays the baptizee back into the water he says, "We are buried with Christ into death" and as he lifts him back out, "And raised with Him again to walk in the newness of life." To me, this is what baptism is about, the outward sacrament that demonstrates our faith visibly.

Finally, if Paul means water-baptism, then he means to state we find unity in it. Specifically, all Christians are baptized regardless of race, experience, status, class, or sex. Galatians 3:23-28 says, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It is clear that this sacrament is performed on all and demonstrates the unity of all.

Application: All believers should be baptized. If you have asked Christ to come into your life and have not been baptized, you should talk to your pastor and ask him to baptize you at the next opportunity. I have actually been baptized twice. When I was in junior high, I took a catechism class at my church and then was baptized. However, I did not then believe. I still thought that I was just doing what I was supposed to do in order to go to heaven after I die. However, at the age of sixteen, I realized that I couldn't win myself into heaven and that Christianity wasn't just some set of "holy don'ts," but a living, breathing relationship with the God of the universe. However, I had already been baptized, so I was never sure if I should be baptized again. When we joined New Hope, one of the rules for membership was that you'd been baptized after you'd been "saved." So, the associate pastor of the time, Jeff Smith, baptized me in the pool at the Holiday Inn here in town.

Spirit-baptism. Okay, I tend to lean this direction. Basically, water-baptism is really a common ritual among many beliefs, cults, and other sects. Even during the time of Christ baptism predated the practice of Christians and John the Baptist. It was already a practice used by several Jewish sects of the time for various reasons and (if my memory of this is correct) I believe it was even practiced in general as a preparation of Jewish grooms before going to get married. Therefore, this seems like this practice would tend to give unity between Christians and a lot of others, which as I mentioned in Part 1 is the key to Christian-unity—i.e., unity is between believers and excludes unbelievers.

Spirit-baptism is something all believers experience, but no unbeliever experiences. "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12;13) "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us not because of works odne by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior." (Titus 3:4-6)

However, Spirit-baptism is an event that occurs at the moment of redemption. As the Bible Exposition Commentary noted, "We are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, but we are never commanded to be baptized with the Spirit." Therefore, all believers are immediately and, therefore, forever baptized by the Holy Spirit. It is after this point our goal to "fill" ourselves with the Holy Spirit after our baptism. Ephesians 5:18 puts it, "do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit."

All Christians are linked by this Spirit-baptism. We all have the "power of the Spirit" working in our lives. This is the power that works in us to help us to become better Christians.

Application: We are all linked in this way and should work to strive to hear the desires of the Spirit. In general, this just means reading the Bible, meditating upon it, and praying that God would reveal his specific will to us. As a form of unity, we should be encouraging fellow believers to do the same. We should be pouring ourselves out on each other and by doing so by relying on the strength from the Spirit rather than our own weak striving we share and build unity in the Spirit. The actual "how" for this is difficult for me to explain because it's more about motive and attitude than action. If we want to serve God we need to do it without taking ownership of that service, but rather seeking to administer the service which belongs to God.

I guess my final remarks on this segment of the study is that while I tend to lean on the latter "Spirit-baptism" interpretation, either are fine interpretations and Paul might have really been suggesting both. In any case, both are vital to the Christian life. As recorded by John 3:5, Jesus said it, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

To be continued... I will, eventually, finish this study. :)

This was certainly one of the best sermons I've heard at New Hope in recent times. I managed to pull 6 pages of notes out of our associate pastor's, Todd Stewart, (albeit hasty) sermon. I would have liked it if he could have given the same message, but taken one-and-a-half times as long to give it. Oh well.

The message itself was based upon Hebrews 11:7-10, though I wouldn't have called a sermon based upon this passage "Embracing Change," it wasn't a stretch to address this theme with this passage. This topic is also a pretty common one for this time of year in a University town, or so this theme has been mentioned at least a couple times before at New Hope and other churches I have attended in town since I've lived here.

(Holy crap! I have lived in Manhattan for NINE years now. In another six months I'll have lived here longer than I've lived anywhere else. A random and ironic fact for you: my longest prior home was in Lawrence, our intrastate rival's home town. :)

The major point being that change is a natural part of life and especially of the life of the believer. Someone who is a Christian is a person who has been changed by God and has had his originally sinful nature altered and renewed with a new spiritual nature. This is essential Christian doctrine. I am not exactly the same person I was when I was naturally born, I have been "born again" as a child of God. This change is generally associated with the act we commonly call "justification."

However, as a secondary factor of this change, God works through our lives to continually improve us through the act of "sanctification." Thus, God is constantly working on us to improve us in this life through our new spiritual nature even though we won't really see the completion of these revisions until after we die. As such, it is a basic factor of Christianity that we must face and endure change whether we happen to enjoy it or not.

This wasn't really the thrust of Todd's message, but it is the main thought that goes through my head first. His first really significant point was to quote a couple passages from Richard Lamb's book Following Jesus in the Real World where the church was described as being either a commisary or a caravan. If the church is a commisary, then it is a place to go and purchase stuff we need. If the church is a caraan, then it is a place to work together with others toward a common goal. I like this metaphor, especially as it coincides with my loathing for the term "church shopping." If you're "shopping" for a church, bugger off. I don't really want to talk to you. If you are, rather, looking for a place you can serve within a church, great! That's the difference.

The rest of Todd's message was to present exemplars as presented in Hebrews 11. The passage covers just two cases, that of Noah and Abraham. The wider context actually hits a few others. In Noah's case, he built an ark. This despite the fact that it wasn't raining. If the Biblical creationist scientists have their hypothesis correct in assuming that a pre-flood earth didn't even have oceans, but just a few landlocked seas, Noah was doing something that would have seemed not only weird, but totally insane. Todd explained that Noah pursued this "change" because he knew what God was going to do and believed it completely, he thought God's statement was worth listening to over the statements of those ridiculing him, and he wanted to save his family and knew that following God's plan was the way to do that. (His explaination following the exegesis of the passage.)

In the case of Abraham, he was called out to live in a place that was promised as his inheritance, but which neither he nor his son nor his grandson nor his great-grandsons nor any of his children for another several hundred years. Yet, he followed God through all of it anyway because he was called by God, he trusted God's promises, and he had his heart set on the kingdom of heaven.

Todd's challenge was then to ask what we thought others would perceive as really important in this life of us. Specifically, what things do we make special time for? How do we spend our money? Do we speak of godly things? Do we behave as Christians or as something else?

Then, he asked us how we should embrace change in order to improve our relationship with God or familial interaction, our use of resources, our career and other plans, our engagement in small group, and how we reach out to "those far from God."

<rant>I do want to make a very small rant here. At New Hope we have tended to ridicule the use of "Christianese," but have invented (or perhaps adopted, not being as well read in current pop-Christian books) some of the worst "weasel words" I've heard. One of which is "missional communities," which is meant to put emphasis on Christian groups reaching out to non-Christians. Another is "those far from God," which I suppose is supposed to be a new non-offensive term for "pagans." I'm don't think the heathens will be fooled. Even if we don't say out loud, "Pagans will go to hell," they still know we believe it. Okay, I'm done.</rant>

Overall, it was a pretty challenging message. I know I'm not up to scratch in these areas. I doubt many people really know my convictions very well (unless they read things here). I know where I spend my money and while I am confident I do prioritize charitable giving pretty highly, I could definitely give more. I know I prioritize spending time with God more than perhaps some, but I don't have any illusions about doing that well.

On the other hand, I really don't think I have it in me to "embrace God's change agenda in..." any of the areas he mentioned. I believe that only through the power of the Spirit can I have any hope of doing any of this and only if I let God do it for me. To rephrase Yoda, "Try not, there is only let go and let God." Prayer and communion with God and meditation upon God's precepts are the only true way to real change, in my opinion. Any effort one makes himself will be mere striving and fall short of the glory of God.

I think this fact can't be overstated. It is my opinion that American Christians think too highly of their own ability to better themselves. I think we need a good, solid, baseball bat wack in the knees over this prideful opinion. This should be a painful truth that we should be reminded of, not something I could miss in my furious scribbling.

For anyone reading this, quit striving and know God. Give up trying to impress Him and start trying to know Him. That's what I consider to be the true secret of Christianity. You can't impress God by trying to improve your relationships or spending habits for the better. He can see right through that stuff as the hollow offering it is. God seeks obedience, not sacrifice.

If I get anything across in this blog its that anyone who calls himself or herself Christian and doesn't see his or her first priority in life to know God better isn't pleasing God as they could be. I say this knowing that that really isn't my first priority and I need to work on it. Okay, I think I've made my point. Cheers.

Today, Terri were in Hutchinson, Kansas staying with Terri's family to see her grandmother who recently broke her hip and to go to a Family Reunion for her dad's family. As an added bonus, we went to Terri's home church, Grace Bible Church, which is one of the best places I've been to hear God's Word preached. Anyway, I was not disappointed. I got a full five pages of notes.

Anyway, they've been going through Romans for about 3 years now and have reached Romans 11:1-5 this Sunday (only 5 more chapters to go ;). <rant>I think it's pretty sad how the "modern" church tries to get through Bible books in a hurry and it's refreshing to see a church that's still willing to listen and a pastor that's willing to preach at this steady rate. If you cover a chapter, or even a dozen verses a Sunday, you have to skip so much. It's better if you stop and listen to the Bible and stop flitting around trying to just finish the book.</rant> This was a large section for Rick to hit in a single Sunday, but it was a breaking point that fit the passage. The major technical difficulty, which he addressed pretty well, was the fact that this is one of a series of points in a passage and involves a number of cross-references.

The main point of the passage is that God doesn't back out of promises and we shouldn't lose hope because we can't see what He's doing.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life." But what is the divine response to him? "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. — Romans 11:1-5

So what was God trying to tell us through Paul? First, God has not rejected his people. The term "May it never be!" is used to state the triple negative in the Greek, meaning "abso-freakin'-lutely not." Just because not many are coming to Christ doesn't mean that God isn't meeting his promise to save Israel because his promise is to save Israel as a nation, not every individual member. Paul's first verse then says, "Uh, duh! Who am I? A Jew! See, God is still saving some from the Jews."

Then, he recounts the story of how Elijah after having a huge "mountaintop experience" (both figuratively and literally) where he's just mocked the prophets of Ahab and Jezebel whom worship Baal by burning them up in fire from heaven. Immediately following this experience he runs and hides in a cave for fear that Jezebel will find him and kill him. He then asks God why he's all alone. God's response? "Nope. Not alone. I have seven thousand faithful men other than you." Elijah's pride led him to a pity-party for himself where he isolated himself rather than basing his own perceptions on the promise of God.

Paul uses this as an implication to say, just as Elijah wasn't alone in his day, neither are the remnant of Jews. God will have for himself a group of saved Jews because God doesn't back out of his promises. Rick put it this way, "God could have saved one [Jew] and been faithful, but God has extended far beyond that." And thus, "God's choice of a believing remnant is not an anomoly." God chooses to have a remnant for Himself, so there are some whom have been redeemed.

In pitying ourselves, we isolate ourselves and take pride in false martyrdom. In reality, "The way is narrow, but it's never as small as you think." "Paul is letting us know that He's not done with Israel as a nation." While this is specifically directed toward God's promise to the Jews we can rejoice in the same promise that He will save whom He chooses. We might feel alone, but we're not, we're just indulging in self-pity. "Feeling alone is simply a lack of faith." "We judge our situation by outward appearance rather than the promises of God." Romans 5:6,15,20-21 all give us the promises we should live by. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." (Romans 5:6) "But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many." (Romans 5:15) "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:20-21)

Therefore, we should not take pity on our hard circumstances. I disagree with the church philosophy of my own church. Yet, I know that God has placed Terri and I in this circumstance for a reason, even if it means that Terri and I must work harder to stay optimistic in our situation. "Living in a wicked culture inclines us to pessimism." Christians can lose their jobs for being "religious" at work. Christian students are sometimes even arrested for praying on their high school campus. Pastors are frequently kicked out of communities because they want to preach the word because doing so is unpopular and the Bible doesn't promote our vaunted rights and capitalism. Show me a passage that does and I'll show you a passage taken out of context.

And yet, we need not be concerned with the wicked acts of the world. As the old adage goes, "it will go the way of all things." Eternity is a long time and the achievements made by this world in evil deeds of sinfulness and self-indulgence will be a feeble blip on the timeline to come. As such, we should look to God's promises, which He always fulfills in perfect faithfulness. That should be our optimism. Don't let circumstances drag you under, let God's promise to be good (Romans 8:28) be enough. It will get better; He promised.

N.B. Any un-cited quotes above are quotes as I transcribed from Rick Goertzen during the morning sermon at Grace Bible Church on August 7, 2005. While this document follows the outline of his sermon today, it is my extrapolated thoughts on the subject.