Gossland: a place which feels almost, but not quite, entirely unlike home

Righteousness...What's Missing?

2011-10-17T20:44:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about something yesterday, sent it to my sister, and thought it might make a good blog post. It's probably going to be long, but that's because I'm pompous, long-winded, and extremely tiresome.

Over the past several years, I've begun to realize how Christ's life has been so obvious overlooked in the evangelical church. I never learned about His life unless it was within the context of moralism and how I should try to live a good and godly life. His 40 days of temptation in the wilderness was a time to see an example of standing up against temptation, and His words to the Pharisees were to give us a true understanding of how God wants us to live.

In other words, Christ's death and resurrection were a gift; His life, however, was an example for us all to follow and imitate: Christ died for our sins, yes, but it's up to use to live the life of righteousness He typified for us.

Without using a bunch of big words/concepts, which I really tend to do, here's the problem: God deserves two things:

1. A life of perfect obedience. A single iota of disobedience merits an eternity of punishment. No amount of suffering will make our transgression go away. I need to be punished for my sin, and my inability to atone is reflected in the fact that such punishment is eternal.
2. A life of pure obedience. It's not enough to be obedient. In fact, obedience should be founded upon a life of perfect and abject love for God. Righteousness isn't earned by simply not doing what's wrong; it's earned by doing exactly what is right. In Mark 12, Jesus shows us what the crux of such righteousness is: it's 100% perfect love of the Lord in all things. Without this, we cannot be declared righteous, and thus cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

So here's the question I was pondering while cleaning bathrooms the other morning (my wife is a slave-driver): what does it mean that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness?

That question, I think, is what's wrong with the evangelical church. They get the first thing God deserves very well (they are Christians, after all), but don't seem to understand the second at all.

We're sinners in the sight of an angry God, and He has every right (and to fulfill His justice, He is obligated) to condemn and punish our sin. Christ died so that this punishment would be meted out upon Himself, rather than upon His people (or the world, if you're evangelical or Lutheran). But the evangelical church seems to stop there, and the resulting message usually sounds something like this:

1. Christ died so you might have eternal life.
2. Once you are saved, you are now enabled by the Holy Spirit to do righteous works.
3. Righteous works are evidence of your faith.
4. Therefore, the more righteous works you show, the better you can take comfort in your faith.
5. Moreover, the Bible commands us to be righteous, and therefore, if we are to be godly Christians, our efforts should be constantly straining toward this goal. If we fall, we didn't try hard enough, or have enough faith to inspire us.

Unfortunately, this isn't the entire story. It's half of the story, and when we miss the other half, I think we will either be driven to cynically give up (which was my response) or to despair (which I've seen in many others).

Reconciling us to God isn't just dealing with our punishment, though I certainly don't want to minimize Christ's atoning and propitiating death. But even if God's wrath for disobedience is appeased, He still deserves and demands perfect hearts in obedience. Not only does He deserve perfect obedience, but He also deserves perfect glory and honor from His people, at all times.

Anyway, here's where the Reformers, I think, better understood Christ's life than we do today:

1. Christ lived a perfect life so that, in doing so, He would merit the righteousness which comes from a perfect heart lived perfectly before the Lord.
2. He honored and glorified God in all ways, in all things, and without reservation.
3. His works were perfect in intention, motive, and result.
4. In the wilderness, He withstood temptation and expelled Satan from His presence (as Adam, Israel, and we fail utterly to do).
5. In Christ, God is, therefore, afforded the perfect honor and glory He justly deserves.
6. Christ was crucified and punished to atone for our sins. He died the death we deserve, giving to God the perfect sacrifice which is sufficient for the enormity of our sin.

Therefore, when we talk about our "works" as Christians, I think we need to be careful with how we define them:

1. Our lives, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, are not lived to afford God the righteousness His perfect nature requires. Christ accomplished this fully and completely, and we can add absolutely nothing to it.
2. Our lives, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, are not lived to make God more pleased with us based on our climbing a ladder of achieved holiness. Because of Christ, through faith, God looks upon His righteousness and has appeased His wrath for our sin.
3. Our lives, therefore, when lived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and when we are continually reminded what Christ has accomplished, can be lived as a thanksgiving offering to the Lord; in our work, we are saying thank you to the Lord for Christ not only taking our punishment, but also earning and giving to us the righteousness which is required by Holy God.

This is why I get so skeptical when I hear people talk about works. They tend to sound something like this:

1. Yeah, Christ died for you
2. Yeah, you're saved
3. But you need the works to back it up and live the life God wants from you
4. But (just to cover our bases), you can't do it yourself, which is where the Holy Spirit comes in
5. It's You and God, workin' together, defeatin' the sin in your life

Rather than,

1. Christ lived for you
2. Christ died for you
3. In Christ, you are saved
4. In Christ, God is fully appeased
5. You are given the Holy Spirit as a promise and seal of what's to come
6. Your life, therefore, will be lived out of thanksgiving for the perfect and completed work of Christ
7. Nothing you do can add/contribute to or take away from Christ's perfect work
8. Therefore, what you need to hear regularly is Law and Gospel

Christ actively lived the Law for us. He obeyed God perfectly, all the while affording to Him the honor He so justly deserves. He then passively was crucified for our sins, transgressions which were not committed by Him.

This is what was called the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, and, without understanding it, we'll never really know what it meant for Christ to fulfill all righteousness.

The Holy Church of Self-Expression

2011-04-26T19:33:00.000-07:00

A thought struck me today, which seemed like a decent topic to write about. I listened at work to this outstanding discussion about modern praise music for the 2nd time, and was discussing some of the premises with my wife after dinner, when this topic came up.

To keep it short, here's a brief synopsis of the podcast from Issues ETC.:

Modern praise music often suffers from several issues

Mysticism
Vague or absent doctrine/theology wrapped in poeticism
Trends toward a Theology of Glory

In the discussion, 3 popular songs were analyzed for their content, and, generally speaking, found lacking. Of course, it wouldn't have been a terribly interesting conversation if the songs delivered a faithful, confessional view of Law and Gospel.

But while talking with my wife, it struck me how difficult it was to get the concept across. I don't totally grasp (or agree with) every point they were making about the songs, but my general understanding of their purpose was something like this:

Church worship should, as the rest of the service, be purposed to direct the congregation to the pouring out of God's grace. And since we cannot receive such grace except through the Mediatorship of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, because of His life, death, and resurrection, our worship should make this clear. We need Law and Gospel to understand who we are and what God has done, and this should be present in the liturgy which includes the sermon, confession, absolution, and singing of songs.

This is, of course, my summation, which is likely a poor one :)

Anyway, back to my discussion. When talking with my wife, it hit me how hands-off worship tends to be. Even in my own mind, I find arguments like these cropping up:

Worship is the expression of worth and value on our behalf to God -- why should we box it in?
Isn't it legalistic to require whole sentences in a song?
Aren't you suppressing individuals when you try to force a particular brand of worship?
Sure the songs aren't entirely clear (or accurate), but we know what the author is trying to say. Isn't that enough?

Simply by posting these questions, my responses to them should be obvious. But it leads me to a whole other question: why is worship considered to be a hands-off part of the service??

In many churches I've attended, the sermon was typically held to a high standard. If the pastor deviated from sound exegetical teaching, he would be accountable. Most of the church conformed to this pattern: teachers were accountable for what/how they taught; deacons were accountable with how they administrated various ministries; the elders were accountable with how they oversaw the church as a whole.

Nowhere do I remember a clear and strong accountability for the words of songs which were sung on a Sunday morning. It seemed that, once you became involved in the Sunday morning music, you're forbidden from even calling into question a song's veracity or clarity. It's music! Why would you call into question someone else's self-expression??

Which leads me to the title of this blog post. My sense is, more and more, that we've created a new Means of Grace, which goes beyond the worship time itself (which I don't believe is a Biblically-defined MoG, by the way): self-expression.

Of course, all evidence for this will be anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt :)

I remember attending a service in a town about 40 miles away. The church is HUGE (considering my current church has fewer than 100 regular people in it) and is pretty typical of modern, evangelical churches. They had the standard features you would expect from an independent church: a jammin' praise band; a young, dynamic teaching pastor; verses on several screens in case you didn't bring your Bible; stadium-seating; message-based teaching, centering Scripture around a theme; etc.

At one point during the extended time of singing, the music ended and the congregation sat down. We were then treated to a very interesting (and well-done) performance by a few people: it was a combination of rock, spoken poetry, and rap. I don't recall the underlying message, but I remember how it was presented to the congregation: the words were written by the main performer (the rapper, I guess) at a time when he had been struggling and having a difficult time. He wanted to share it with the church, and so they hoped it would equally bless us all.

And of course, the assumption was that it would. By listening and soaking in this individual's experience (via his own words), God would speak to my heart and I could experience Him in a fresh way. Here was a new Means of Grace! I could experience God in a whole new, intimate way, simply by observing a few select individuals dancing around and expressing words which had nothing to do with my life, my experiences, or Law and Gospel!

Of course, being rap, the moment was pretty lost on me.

Over the past 20 years of my life, I've observed similar trends in non-denominational churches:

Dance routines (often by the Pastor's daughter, who happens to be a skilled ballerina)
Rap or poetry sessions
Drama teams
Non-Scriptural Book Readings
Stand-up and give us a word from God if you're so inspired" moments
Sign-language (in churches where it's clear no deaf people are in attendance)

I'm not criticizing these things in general, but I'm certainly intrigued by the fact that they are becoming so common in the church service. Not only are we deluged by distractions and silliness (see my Easter post if you want to observe abject absurdity), but we're also told to sit and observe people engaging in their own form of personal expression. And in doing so, hopefully we will be blessed, will encounter/understand/relate/whatever God in a whole new way.

Self-expression is, I fear, steadily becoming an epicenter around which to focus the church service around. No longer are we gathering together as Christ's Body; no longer are we communing as the saints; no longer are we functioning for the greater good. Instead, we are fed a steady diet of what's best for you?? and how do YOU worship God??

In a way, we've created an interesting situation: in this environment, we cannot easily argue against doctrinal or theological issues when dealing with personal expression. After all, doesn't the Holy Spirit lead and speak differently to each person? Everything I understand and express is a product of my experiences and personal situation, and no one can argue about my internal state, which they've not seen!

Of course, I call BS, but no one is asking :)

Remember Willow Creek's solution to the disillusionment of their congregation? Rather than pull back and understand why people felt like they were spiritually stunted, they decided people need to be "self feeders." Regardless of their intent, notice the focus: self feeders. Yes, we need to be able to read God's Word on our own; yes, we need to be in daily prayer and confession; yes, we who are saved are each God's children and thus can approach Him as "Abba, Father!" I'm not denying the need for personal action in the life of a Christian.

But is this what we need from the church as a primary purpose? When did the Church's responsibility trend away from Word and Sacrament, and instead directing people to both feed themselves and force their personal expression upon the entirety of the Body?

When we turn the self into the primary recipient of a Sunday morning service, it's easy to see where the slip occurs. Rather than looking upon the congregation as the Body of Christ, we see it as a disparate collection of Body parts. No longer unified, and thus needing consistent nourishment (*ahem!* Law and Gospel), we are instead tailoring our services to allow any given organ equal opportunity to spout off on what it's like to be them in their particular position. Moreover, since we're not allowed to argue with an individual's experience, we really should allow them to express themselves however they see fit.

Personally, I'll take objective Word and Sacrament any day.

Sanderson and the Wheel of Time

2011-04-24T19:48:00.000-07:00

So I finished The Towers of Midnight which is the 13th book in the Wheel of Time series. It took me a while to get around to reading The Gathering Storm, though I had been in dreadful anticipation of it since I heard Brandon Sanderson would be taking over the series. When I finally picked the 12th book up, it was after reading the entire series over again -- probably the 10th time I had done so.

The question I think most WoT fans were asking themselves (when confronted with Jordan's death and the announcement of Sanderson's completion of the WoT series) was something along these lines: who on earth is this guy and how on earth could he ever fill Jordan's shoes??

That was my question, anyway. So I started on a journey.

I read Elantris a few years ago, and wasn't terribly impressed. I was struck by some of the more innovative concepts (Jordan's system of magic was nice and consistent with the world he created, and the evil priest system was very intriguing), but a little put off by some of the more juvenile elements: many words appeared to be made up for no reason. Words like gyorn were used to denote a concept or position which didn't differ from standard stereotypes. As a result, much of the writing felt a bit muddled and didn't flow very well from start to finish.

Of course, this was his first novel, and his story was very well done. So, I decided to check out the Mistborn Trillogy. After all, this was the series which he was best known for.

I cannot describe how awestruck I was after reading through the first Mistborn novel. From start to finish, Sanderson created a world which felt both tangible and incredible. His characters developed in a consistent fashion, and moved toward their literary destinies in a plausible fashion. The overarching plot was fantastic, and his magical system (Allomancy, Feruchemy, and Hemalurgy) was complex and yet accessible. The fight scened were epic and the relationships between characters were solid.

In all, it was one of the most wonderful literary experiences I've had in a long time. And the following two books did not disappoint. Though the ending of the third novel was a bit different than I had expected, in hindsight, Sanderson drove each character to their conclusion with a narrow line: I don't believe it could have ended any other way.

After this, I was completely won over: if anyone could bring the Wheel of Time to a conclusion, it would be him.

Having just completed The Towers... in record time (for me), I have to say, Sanderson does not disappoint.

It's hard to imagine what the series would look like if Jordan had lived to complete it. I'm certain Sanderson would have preferred it that way, but in lieu of the circumstances, I don't think a better author could have been picked.

One area where Sanderson shines is this: character introspection and motivation. Throughout the Mistborn trilogy, we are consistently given insight into why the characters act and do what they do. We read their thoughts; we see their responses to their circumstances; we watch them interact with each other as they grow and develop. Though the books aren't perfect, the lasting impression of the trilogy is one of complete understanding: we are never left guessing why a character acted the way they did.

This is something Sanderson brings to the table in the WoT. From book 7 or 8 (I'm not sure which), there is a steady decline in the series regarding character motivation. Much happens in the series, but it often felt like I didn't understand why. People behaved in certain ways, but it felt more and more like I knew them less and less.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing Jordan's writing, and I certainly don't want to exaggerate. It's not that there isn't any introspection in the last 5 books; it just feels like the characters are murkier. Sanderson's writing, in addition to completing so many story arcs, shines a piercing light into the characters hearts and minds, bursting them open for us to comprehend (and thus relate).

I don't want to give away any plot points to the latest 2 books in the series, but let me just say this: if you've been hesitant to read through them because they aren't (sadly) written by the original author, please go out and buy them tonight. These two books have held some of the best moments in the WoT, and have been a brilliant light shining amidst a genre packed with drivel and meaningless fluff. Yes, Sanderson's writing is a bit different from Jordan's. Yes, he's completing his work, and thus the plot developments aren't strictly his own. But his devotion to the series, as well as the strength of his characterization, make these 2 books absolutely solid contributions to the Wheel of Time.

Easter and the Age-Old System of Bribing People to Come to Church

2011-04-23T19:47:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across this on Kotaku, and frankly, it really cracked me up.

For those of you who are too lazy to watch the whole video, here's my synopsis:

Not everyone wants to go to church
Pastors want people to come to church
Modern wisdom says, more people at a church is a clear indicator of their success
Therefore, offer whatever you need to so you can get butts in the seats

3D Televisions
Nintendo 3DS
3D movie packages

Finally, the media will love you because you're doing something odd and they can generate a mild stir with such "out-of-the-box thinking"

Frankly, I don't know what to be more offended at. As a Christian, I find such crass and unflinching bribery to be offensive (at best) and deceitful (at worst). As a consumer who is wholly devoted to seeing the death of 3D, the gadgets appear to be nothing more than a Hollywood-inspired ploy to market a product which has no true value other than generating hype and increasing ticket sales.

Thankfully, when Christ rose again, the definition in which He did was sharper than 1080p, the sound of His voice had greater clarity than THX, and His appearance was far more realistic than the purist 3D effects:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
-1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Praise God, Christ has risen indeed!!

Happy Easter!

The PCA and...horrors!! Old Earth Creationism

2011-02-17T20:19:00.000-08:00

In my mindless meanderings today, I found these this interesting article from Modern Reformation: PCA Geologists and the Antiquity of the Earth

Basically, the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) decided in 1998 to commission a study to determine if an Old-Earth interpretation was at least reasonable. The study wasn't conclusive (the committee didn't make a solid recommendation one way or another), but their results were very fair to the O-Earthers.

And of course, sigh, here is a response from a prominent Young-Earth group: Long-age Geology or Genesis?

Just for fun, let's contrast these very edited, severely biased (my own) quotes:

From the first article:

"Clearly there are committed, Reformed believers who are scientists that are on either side of the issue regarding the age of the cosmos...Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!"

And from the other, oh-so-loving YE article:

"The battle over the integrity of Genesis continues. In a recent article, eight geologists, including long-time anti-creationist Davis Young, attempt to persuade the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) that secular natural history must guide, even determine, interpretation of the biblical text, even in the face of a clear contrary meaning....Given the clear effects of evolution and secular natural history on generations of Western youth (see Inside the mind of a killer), it is literally astounding that Christians could believe such a wild distortion of reality. (See Darwin’s impact) Especially when atheopaths like Richard Dawkins, Jacques Monod and T.H. Huxley had utter contempt for Christians pretending that evolution was compatible with biblical Christianity, as documented in the hyperlinked articles."

Anyway, let's play a game: can you spot the logical fallacies in the latter response? Let's see...

guilt by association
ad hominem attack
begging the question
straw man argument
possibly a dash of non sequitur

I'll stop there :^)

Ahh, it's so fun to see loving, balanced debate isn't it?? :)

Faux Christianity: The Book of Eli

2010-09-07T14:47:00.000-07:00

Jenn and I finally watched The Book of Eli on Friday evening. I wanted to see it last February when it came out, but dangit, movies are just too friggin' expensive. Seeing as how so few movies I've seen in the theater have lived up to my expectations, it didn't seem reasonable to shell out a wad of cash. Thankfully, Redbox is ridiculously cheap :^)

Here's what Focus on the Family's media review site, Plugged In, had to say about this film:

"The Book of Eli is, perhaps, the most explicitly Christian film I've seen come out of the secular film industry since The Passion of the Christ. Indeed, it's something of a Sunday sermon wrapped in a Mad Max adventure."

Note those words: explicitly Christian. Let's start by analyzing the movie.

Our initial impressions were mild befuddlement and uncertainty. The setting was spectacular, the actors top-notch (c'mon, Denzel Washington AND Gary Oldman?? Too good to be true), and the story originally sounded intriguing. A lone man walking across a post-apocalyptic wasteland, carrying the last copy of the Bible to a place where it would be "safe" definitely sounds like a great story, at face-value.

Throughout this film, it becomes apparent the directors had a message they desired to share with the audience. Eli isn't a mindless, witless thug who mercilessly slaughters his way through a jungle of flesh. Rather he's a thoughtful, unassuming individual with a clear reverence and passion for the Book he's carrying. We see him reading it regularly (every day for the past 30-odd years, he claims) and refraining from the debauched lifestyle shared by other survivors in this cruel world. His actions save a young woman from being brutalized, and he eventually carries the Book (I won't explain how) to a place where it can be printed and distributed once again. We hear him quote, albeit selectively, Scriptures with people around him, and he clearly believes "God" has placed him on this mission. Eli is a man of conviction, and nothing, no matter how impossible or dire, would sway him from his destination.

But is this an overtly Christian film?? Absolutely not. Eli never shares with those around him a greater message of redemption and forgiveness on the basis of Christ's righteous life, death, and glorious resurrection. Though a few glimpses of crucifixes may have been apparent in passing (I don't remember them, but I read that they were), the message of our fall into sin (which, ironically, would help to explain why such a devastating war, and the resulting barbaric existence, could happen), and the impotence of our own actions to achieve righteousness is conspicuously absent. Instead, we see a man doggedly determined to fulfill a task given to him by a voice in the darkness. Eli, we're told, walks by faith, not by sight. Unfortunately, that faith, it seems, is not placed upon the meritorious work of Christ, but rather upon the realization of his efforts to restore God's Word to the rest of the world. At the end, we see him peacefully

At one point, Eli tells his traveling companion what he learned from 30-odd years of reading this Book: "do more for others than you do for yourself...at least, that's what I got out of it." Ironically, the context of this statement is completely lost on the movie. When Christ spoke the "Golden Rule" (Matthew 7:12), He was unveiling the full nature of God's Law in all of its sternness and condemnation. A few paragraphs prior to this, we read this terrifying statement, "You must therefore be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). We have a word for this in Reformed, and Lutheran, circles: it's called "Law," and the result is utter and complete condemnation. Indeed, a few verses later, we read "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (vs 14) Jesus is not expounding on how great it is to be nice to each other, instead He's calling condemnation down upon everyone who, at any point in time, fails to fulfill the Law in thought, word, deed, and heart. And, the reality of this is that we all are under this condemnation. We are under a holy curse by a righteous God Whom we have offended. In Adam and like Adam, we have violated His covenant, and are now utterly dead in our sin.

But Scripture doesn't stop there. From the 3rd chapter of Genesis, through the final statement in Revelation, we read of redemption and salvation. We read of forgiveness which exists apart from our own works or failed attempts at righteousness. We are told of a God Who, though utterly justified in His condemnation of a sinful and rebellious creation, called down His judgment upon Himself, through the death and resurrection of His Son. That is the Christian message: it is the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life which comes only through faith upon Christ Jesus, the Son of God, based on the historical reality of the Incarnation of His Son. We call this "Gospel", and without it, we are utterly and totally lost. Christ rose from the dead, historically and in reality, and we can believe everything He said regarding Himself, His Word, His Father, and His Spirit -- this is the Gospel in its wondrous glory and hope.

The Book of Eli offers hope of a sort: it is an ecumenical, all-encompassing focus on having "faith" and executing it in the right way. Eli doesn't terrorize those who are not in his way. When confronted by cannibals (an outstanding scene), rather than shooting his way out, he and his companion try to leave peacefully. He refrains from taking advantage of the "innocent." He tries very hard to "do more for others than he does for himself," but it's not enough. He leaves a woman to be brutalized by a gang of marauders; he leaves a young woman imprisoned in a water spring, willing to let her face the consequences of being caught by the rest of the town. He leaves a severe power vacuum in a terrorized town by bringing about the downfall of the main antagonist. According to the Book he reads, these are enough to condemn him.

Happy Easter -- He is risen indeed!

2010-04-03T23:02:00.000-07:00

It's getting late, so I'll make this short (which is rare for me).

Easter always sneaks up on me. It's a holiday which doesn't get quite the same hype as Thanksgiving and Christmas. Independence Day stands out as the only major holiday during the summer (not to denigrate Memorial Day, but it's usually over a weekend, so there isn't a floater to give you an extra chunk of time off); Easter just slips in at the last moment, leaving us Christians with something akin
to the following thought process:

OmigoshIcompletelyforgotit'sEasteranditjustsnuckuponmeandifIdon'tsomehowmusterupthestrengthtoadoptasombermindestfollowedbyextremeamountsofjoyitwillbeclearIdon'tloveJesusasmuchasIthoughtIdidandI'llupsetHimwithmyficklenessandinconstancyandthenIhavetomakesuretoplanEasterdinnerwithmyfamilyandIdon'tknowifI'llbetootiredtohavethemoverbutit'sEasterafterallandI'msupposedtoshowlovelikeChristdidandwhatisthematterwithmethesedaysbecauseitalwaysseemslikeI'mslippingbehind,butifIcangetmyacttogetherI'llbereadyforGoodFridayandbeinthecorrectemotionalstateofwhichI'mprettysurefrenzyandguilt(wellmaybeguilt)aren'tsupposedtobecontributing...

Ok, I exaggerate a bit. But, I do think this holiday kinda creeps up on us. And how ironic is that? We as Christians sometimes get a bit cocky when it comes to evidence for our faith. We've read C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell, both of whom have written scintillating and sound logical basis for a historic foundation underneath Christianity. We perk our ears up when the secularists of our day present modern interpretations of Christ, and are ready and rip-roaring prepared to devastate their arguments with every factual bit of information we can glean from the historical record with logic and reason. Of course, this is very often out of a heart of love for those who are outside of Christ, but our ability to drill the historical facts home can be astounding.

And rightly so -- the Bible says we are to be able to present ourselves as workmen who correctly handle the Word of truth. Moreover, we are to be able to give an account for the hope in us, and that hope is founded on historical truth.

So why does Easter sneak up on us?? Easter is the time when the historical truth of our faith is most emphasized. Good Friday is, for those in Christ, the single most pivotal moment for our sin. After living a perfect life, adhering to every aspect and nuance of both the Mosaic Law, and God's natural Law, Christ, Who by all rights should have been crowned with glory and honor for achieving what no man ever had, was instead brutally and most horrifically slaughtered, for all the eyes in Jerusalem to see. His crucifixion and death on early Friday was the judgment of God upon the sins of His children. Though we look to the coming Judgment with trembling, we know our Judgment has been placed upon Christ.

Saturday comes, and we tend to move on with our lives. After all, Christ was in the grave at this time and life must be lived; there are bathrooms to clean, dinners to make, and hams for Sunday to buy.

And then, of course, the sun rises on the 3rd day. We awaken to the glorious and breathtaking knowledge that one person, One historical Person, came back from the dead and proved Who He said He Is. He came back from the dead in power and majesty, witnessed throughout the historical world of Palestine; no more must death be feared! Our hearts are light and we rejoice in the hope that, as Christ was risen, so too will we be risen on the last day. No longer under condemnation, we are risen with Christ! Hallelujah! Let the Amen sound!

(Please note: I'm not being sarcastic. These are words of rejoicing and exultation, though they are shallow, given my personal inconstancy and lack of preparation for the celebration of Easter).

And then Monday hits, and it's back to work. Back to the daily grind. Back to having my job transitioned to another company, while trying to encourage my wife through the final weeks of her first trimester.

Why is Easter so short lived? Christmas isn't like this. Christmas is preceded by weeks, nay, months of anticipation and planning. We hear of people doing their Christmas shopping in January! Whoever heard of people planning their Easter celebration in May??

Here's what I think we've lost: Lent. Yes, I said it. Lent. Please understand, I'm not speaking of the Catholic tradition of not eating meat on Friday. I'm referring to the season (typically starting with Ash Wednesday) which precedes the celebration of Easter and is intended to inspire within us as the sense of anticipation and preparation for the Holy One of Israel.

Please note: we don't prepare ourselves to be worthy of Easter; that's a grave (and fatal, I fear) mistake. We can never be worthy of the glory of Easter; Christ's death and resurrection is, and always will be, an act of monergistic mercy and grace. To try and earn His favor by denying ourselves is to practice the same self-reliance as the other religions of the world. We are saved by faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone. We are not saved by our good works (which are as filthy rags), nor by our observances.

And yet, why would Lent be important?

Lent was a period of time in which believers were encouraged to reflect and ponder upon the fragility of life, the reality of death, the condemnation of our sin, and the glorious fulfillment of God's promises in Christ. The season was meant to bring to mind and heart the reality of Good Friday and Easter. In many churches today (Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican), the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" is not sung and the word "Alleluia" is withheld from the service. In other words, they refrain, not out of reluctance to ascribe to God His proper glory, but rather out a desire for penitence and contrition before a just and holy God. Do some of these churches misrepresent what penitence and contrition mean? Absolutely. But the original intention was to provide the congregation with a period of time in which the oncoming season of Good Friday and Easter were met with anticipation.

Imagine, if you will, withholding the celebratory aspect of church until Easter morning. How real and powerful would our rejoicing be after a period of reflection and contemplation upon the harsh and unfathomable reality of Christ's death. The darkness which covered the land being reflected, in some way, by the somberness of our worship in church.

We have several weeks prior to Christmas in which the church prepares for the season in which Christ was born; we call them Advent, and they are a beautiful time to be in the church. And yet, what now prepares us for the season in which our sin and guilt have been swept away?? What prepares us for the nakedness of our shame and condemnation, and then clothing of righteousness we receive in Christ's death and resurrection??

Though Lent is celebrated in some churches whose doctrines we disagree with (I am not a Catholic, Lutheran, or Anglican), its purpose and correct observance can and should be, I think, a blessing for us as we prepare our hearts to celebrate Christ's resurrection.

Given how fast Easter sprung up for me, it's definitely something I want to be thinking of this year.

Soli Deo Gloria! Christ is risen indeed!!

Boehoffer on Visionary Dreaming

2010-03-22T18:54:00.000-07:00

Here's a quote I stumbled upon a month ago. It's by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor in Germany who was executed by the Nazis in 1945.

"God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first the accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself." (Live Together, p 28-29)

Charismata and the Post-Revelatory World: Spiritual Gifts

2010-03-06T00:24:00.000-08:00

Introduction

It's hard to put together an article which reflects a dispassionate, analytical approach to such an interesting (and hotly-contested) topic as spiritual gifts. Frankly, I'm not capable of that. As I've been reading about these gifts and how they have been understood traditionally (and recently), I'm more convinced the Pentecostal (and increasingly evangelical) understanding is misguided at best, and severely harmful, at worst.

An initial search on Google (the infallible metric for Internet statistics that it is), I'm blown away by the plethora of online tools to determine one's spiritual gifts. Instead of sites which defining and explaining what spiritual gifts are and their purpose, instead I see a myriad of questionnaires, surveys, and cleverly-worded analyses of "personalized" results for each individual trying to find his or her capabilities.

Of course, it's not all that bad. There are sites which use Scripture to define these gifts, many opting for a less-than-comprehensive approach. No fault to them, but it makes it harder to flesh-out a decent understanding of gifts without a number of passages to accompany them.

This article is purposed to capture what I've been learning as I read and research spiritual gifts and their purpose. I don't list every gift mentioned in Scripture, nor do I defend the current manifestation of or (in my opinion) the cessation of certain revelatory and miraculous gifts. I figure that can be done another time. This piece of writing will hopefully provide a simple framework in which I can better understand what gifts are, how they are to be used, how Scripture speaks of them, and how to avoid their misuse.

Shall we start? One note: all quotations are from the NASB; any misquotations or mistypings are my solely my own. As are any misguided, incorrect, or mule-headed conclusions :)

Spiritual Gifts: a Definition

First, I'd like to try and define spiritual gifts. Though there are a number of references to them in non-orthodox, spiritualistic circles, I would like to focus narrowly on gifts as defined in Scripture (I am, after all, an orthodox Christian). Though examples of their use are found throughout the New Testament, there are a number of references which should help form a solid definition. This article will quote heavily from I Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans, though this is by no means an exhaustive reference of passages regarding spiritual gifts.

After examining these passages, the best definition I can come up with (in my own words) is this:

Spiritual Gifts: special endowments given to each believer by the Holy Spirit for the edification and building up of the Church. An article written by John Piper defined them this way: "A spiritual gift is an ability given by the Holy Spirit to express our faith effectively (in word or deed) for the strengthening of someone else's faith." Though there are slight differences in our definitions, I think they almost compliment each other. Piper mentions individuals; I mention the Body of Christ, which is composed of individuals. Yeah, it's a subtle distinction, I know :) Frankly, his definition is better-sounding than mine, but he's also much smarter than I am :)

So how is this definition defended by Scripture?

"But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.'...And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:7-13)

Note the purpose Paul explicitly lays out: "the building up of the body of Christ." Spiritual gifts were given for the benefit of the Church; they were to be used as acts of loving and joyous service (more on that in a minute). I don't want to intimate that gifts are only for those inside the Church. Part of edifying and serving the Body of Christ is working toward its growth and expansion. As we'll see later, there are many examples of gifts which were used to glorify God by growing His Church. But the gifts were directed out, not in.

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." (I Corinthians: 12:4-7)

Again, we see the words, "common good" as a theme; spiritual gifts are directed outward. We may benefit from their use, but do so indirectly. When I serve others out of love and affection, I tend to see this love and affection grow. It's weird, but it happens. When I reject other peoples' needs and focus selfishly on my own, I tend to see my opinion of them go quickly down. Indeed, I suffer when I direct my focus inward; when I direct it outward (from a desire to serve as Christ served), I find my joy increase. The seemingly-inverse economy of the Kingdom of God is directly tied to our benefit: we grow when we place ourselves last; we shrink when we push ourselves to be first.

Within the proper exercise of spiritual gifts, there is a unity which arises and benefits the entirety of the Church.

"...Let all things be done for edification...For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted." (I Corinthians 14:26, 31)

Paul instructs those who teach, prophesy, speak in tongues, etc. to do so with a goal for all to be exhorted. They would all learn, and they would all share in the benefits of that knowledge. Though some would learn or understand at the different rates and levels, there is clearly a unifying element when the benefit of others is sought through the exercise of spiritual gifts.

"For I long o see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the others faith, both yours and mine." (Romans 1:11-12)

Spiritual GIFTS, not Merit Points

As we delve into these endowments, it's important to keep one thing at the forefront of our minds: these are gifts. They are not a "means of grace" (though we might experience grace through them). They are not rewards, nor are they partitioned by the Holy Spirit in accordance with our worthiness or inherent goodness. I'm not going to harp on the very last point; this article assumes "Total Depravity" is a Biblically supported truth (the idea that mankind's nature is inherently evil -- though not as evil as it could be, due to the wonderful grace God bestows upon His creation). I will, however, directly speak to the concept of gifts.

"But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills." (I Corinthians 4:11)

Spiritual gifts are given in accordance with the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit. They are given to all, as He sees fit. Though we may desire certain gifts (again, a topic which will hopefully be covered in a future article), we are not to view others' gifts with envy or malice. The Spirit works sovereignly, and we are to accept His choice and bestowal.

"Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly..." (Romans 12:6)

Second, gifts (of one type or another) are given to all believers. In Christ, we all receive the the Holy Spirit (this is also a gift, though not the same as the "spiritual gifts" being addressed). From the Holy Spirit, however, comes those endowments which He purposes to edify and build up the Church. Though not all have the same gifts, all are gifted in some way. There is no clear numeric standard: not all have 2 gifts, 3 gifts, etc. But all Christians are gifted by the Holy Spirit.

Because these are given to us, we should be very careful how we perceive them and ourselves. Spiritual gifts are not a stamp of spiritual accomplishment or a seal of personal greatness. They are not to be used to the exclusion of others within or without the Church; they are not to be viewed with disdain or contempt; they are not to be belittled or ignored, based on their perceived attractiveness. If we have a certain gift, we are not to perceive ourselves has attaining a certain level of spirituality; the same Spirit which unifies us in Christ, gifts us to serve. If we lack a different gift, we are not to view ourselves as lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven, or lacking in faith or devotion. Though we may at times lack for faith and devotion, spiritual gifts are not a measuring stick by which we gage our worthiness.

As I learn more about the struggles in Corinth, this seems clear to me: this church was abusing their gifts. Though we'll speak of a few of these abuses shortly, it's important to note Paul's appeal to the church.

"And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.'" (I Corinthians 12:21)

Though some gifts were more "flashy" than others, Paul is clear: no member of the Body of Christ is unimportant. In fact, those who would receive less honor for "lesser" gifts were often those who were needed the most (vs 23-24). The way we view ourselves and others in the church are often tied to how we perceive our station or position. This is something we ought guard ourselves against, particularly when using the gifts given to us for service:

"As each one has received a spiritual gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (I Peter 4:10-11)

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (Philippians 2:3-4)

Spiritual gifts, therefore, are not to be exercised to the exclusion or isolation of others within the Church. They are not to be used a validation of our worthiness or spirituality. If we exercise gifts without love and service as our motive (I Corinthians 13), we are outside their Biblically-proscribed use.

The Definitive Spiritual Gifts?

So what are the spiritual gifts, specifically? I've discussed their purpose and the pitfalls surrounding their abuse, but how are they defined in Scripture? Well, there doesn't appear to be a single, comprehensive list. In fact, it's possible to find quite a bit of disagreement among Christians about what constitutes a gift within the confines of the New Testament. I don't think it's necessary to try and nail down a single point in the Bible where everything is listed; the Epistles aren't composed like a systematic theology book, and I think it's reasonable to conclude certain gifts are discussed at certain times in Scripture.

Frankly, I think some of the ambiguity is comforting. Piper concludes we ought not be overly concerned with what gifts we have, and focus instead on simply serving the church. I think he's right. There might not be a "gift" of Linux administration, but if I can serve my church by helping mitigate the headaches of dealing with Windows on regular basis (yes, I'm a Linux fanboy), then I should. If I have a heart for serving in the nursery, I may do so and be content in using my talents for God's people. Though I think we can discover these gifts in our lives, we are called to serve, serve, serve.

Thankfully, we can, however, derive a good number of them from a few passages. Ephesians 4 describes apostleship, prophecy, evangelism, pastorship, and teaching (the latter two may possibly go together). I Corinthians 12 lists the following: word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing spirits, tongues, and interpretations of tongues. In fact, later in chapter 12, Paul lists several appointments within the church, with an associated priority:

"...first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues." (I Corinthians 12:28)

What's interesting here is to note the _order_ Paul associates with each. He doesn't devalue them, but one of the more prominent "gifts" today is ordered last: tongues. Paul doesn't diminish their validity (or their worth), but speaks of them as lesser gifts. Those in the Pentecostal movement might do well to consider the prominence they give tongues.

Regardless, as verses 14-26 point out, though some are lesser, all were given by the Spirit, and thus all were of value.

The Importance of Spiritual Gifts

So what? If spiritual gifts are divisive and misunderstood, why should we even bother? Can't we all get along? Can we ignore those things which cause disunity?

Bah, my questions are rhetorical. Of course we can get along. Of course we can find unity in the midst of disagreement. But spiritual gifts are important. They're important because Scripture clearly makes them so:

"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware...Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues." (I Corinthians 12:1, 39)

We may need to further explore Paul's statements in verse 39 (again, at a later date), but the intention of his letter is to instruct their purpose, proper use, and result. Though the Corinthians were chastised for their misuse of gifts, they were not forbidden their use. Paul is emphasizing the importance of understanding these gifts, and not allowing them to be misused or abused. Therefore, I would postulate (which I can since this is my blog) they are important for us to understand.

As was mentioned before, Paul earnestly desired to use his gift to exhort and encourage those in Rome. His purpose was the building up and edification of the Body, and those gifts given by the Holy Spirit were for that explicit purpose. If we are to be servants within the Church, we need to know and utilize the means in which we are equipped to serve.

Abusing Spiritual Gifts

So how are spiritual gifts misused? Frankly, I don't think I'll get into a long discussion regarding the Corinthian church and the situation they found themselves in. There are a number of fascinating accounts about the church, and I'll post links to these expositions at the bottom.

Suffice to say, the Corinthian church provides us a keen insight as to how gifts may be abused. People were disrupting the order of the services as they gathered together; they were overemphasizing certain gifts and devaluing or disregarding others; they were promoting disunity as they claimed allegiance to one gifted person over another (1:12). Through ignorance and sin, these gifts given by the Holy Spirit to build up the Body were being used to promote disunity and division. Moreover, they were being used to justify public blasphemy and maligning of Christ's name and Person:

"You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus is accursed'; and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." (I Corinthians 12:2-3)

Within Corinth, there were individuals claiming to speak by the Holy Spirit when actively blaspheming Jesus. Paul expressly condemns this. Words spoken from "gifts", such as prophecy or tongues, will always be in harmony and accord with the truth we know from God's revelation. During the first decades of the Church, this meant harmony with the Old Testament and the words of the Apostles. Today, all utterings and statements need to be viewed in the light of Scripture (God's full revelation to man).

Though there are prominent leaders in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements who frequently invoke Christ's name, their words (and fruit) need to be fully examined in light of God's Word:

"'Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."' (Matthew 7:15-23)

Jesus words here are quite clear: though there are those who invoke His name in their ministries, cast out demons and prophesy in His name, they are told by their fruit. We do well to heed these warnings with caution and care, lest we be led astray by false teachers who desire to destroy and rend apart.

What's more, in today's charismatic (and other, traditionally conservative) churches, we see accounts of "gifts" which directly contradict the work of the Holy Spirit.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22)

No endowment from the Holy Spirit violates these fruits. How can the work of the Holy Spirit not produce the result of the Holy Spirit's work? Such a thought is ridiculous and self-contradictory. Therefore, if a gift is shown to be lacking any of these, its use (at the least) is not originated by the Holy Spirit. This includes any uncontrolled expressions of tongues or prophecies, as well as "slayings" of the Spirit. Our God is not a God of chaos; His Spirit does not work against Itself.

I'd like to be clear on one point I'm fully convinced of: no spiritual gift will express itself through a lack of self-control. Paul is quite clear about the control individuals have over their gifts:

I Corinthians 14:26-32

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no one interpreter, he must keep silent in the church..." (vs 27)

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent..." (vs 29-30)

Though we might disagree on the current manifestation of certain gifts, those who are truly endowed are in control of their use. They are not "taken over" or "slain" or removed from their own self-possession. In fact, Jesus spoke about such mindlessness:

"'And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him."' ((Matthew 6:7-8)

Though Jesus isn't speaking about tongues in this passage, He is giving us a clear distinction between the prayers of the godly and ungodly. The ungodly believed many words and mindless uttering would somehow catch their gods' attention. Their desire was to attract attention, appease, and supplicate before an uncaring and dispassionate deity; frankly, they often tried to annoy him into responding, much in the way a child will thoughtlessly repeat the words "mommy" trying to capture a parent's attention. Our Heavenly Father is not like that. He knows exactly what we need, when we need it, and will give to His children with more compassion and care than an earthly father. Therefore, our prayers and supplications are not mindless uttering or meaningless words. We are to clearly and cognitively make our requests know to the Lord.

Examples of Spiritual Gifts?

So how do we know what spiritual gifts look like?

In Acts 1-2, we see uneducated fishermen suddenly speaking other natural languages, teaching and convicting Jews and Gentiles alike. They relayed God's revelation of His Son to the people, after which an explosion of growth in the Church occurred (hallelujah!).

In Acts 3, we see Peter and John heal a lame man, inspiring awe and praise to the Lord from observers in the temple. After this, we read of Peter and John preaching to them about the truth of God's Son.

In Acts 8, Phillip is brought alongside a eunich from Etheopia. Though we don't necessarily know the extent of his education, we see him correctly interpreting the prophecies of Christ to this man, leading to his conversion.

Other passages could also be referenced. Heck, Acts and the Epistles are replete with examples of the Holy Spirit equipping people for the building up and edifying of the Body.

Summary

In conclusion, our presence as members within the Body of Christ is one of servitude and love. Jesus told His followers, "'By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.'" (John 13:35). Therefore, we must examine our practices within the Church in light of this commandment. Spiritual gifts are to be used for the edification and building up of each other, not ourselves or those we deem "worthy." If we mistake this point, and we begin to exercise talents and gifts given to us by the Lord and Holy Spirit, we become the noisy gong and clanging symbol Paul speaks of. The purpose of these gifts might be tied to Christ's words in John (13:35): that we may love each other, and the world would see this love and know we are His.

How can we love if we do not serve? How can we serve if we do not understand the means in which we are equipped to serve? How can we serve others if our intent is only serving ourselves? With this in mind, I think it well to consider closely what we believe to be Scriptural expressions of God-given gifts.

Links

Spiritual Gifts: A Bible Study by Fred Zaspel
Spiritual Gifts by John Piper
The Importance of Spiritual Gifts by John MacArthur
Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur

Charismata and the Post-Revelatory World

2010-02-26T23:45:00.000-08:00

I don't consider myself a learned theologian. Nor do I consider myself a "decent" Christian. I struggle daily with understanding the faith God has graciously given me in Christ, by the power of His Holy Spirit; how to connect it to work, my professional relationships, my family, my friends, and my inward life; with sinful and selfish pride (among other things). I often have doubts regarding the physical nature of things around me (life often feels like a TV which I'm waiting to be turned off), and I have discipline issues when it comes to reading and memorizing Scripture. I'm saying these things not to sound good through humility (though I'm sure there's a motive like that somewhere inside); instead, I wanted to be clear on one thing: I don't want to write on this blog because I feel like I have a lot to offer. Rather, I decided to write these next few articles because it helps me systematize my thoughts and buckle down and pore through Scripture and other writings which discuss spiritual gifts. In the meantime, if someone finds these things interesting or helpful, then thanks be to God.

Over the past 2 years, I've undergone a fairly intense re-education of my theology and doctrine. I've studied God's means of grace, His Covenantal relationship to mankind, the Sacraments, and the nature of salvation. I hope and pray it is all to His glory, though I know how weak and prone I am to intellectualism and learning for "learning's" sake. In the meantime, I believe my leanings theologically and doctrinally have been honing in on the historical and Scripturally accurate teachings upheld by the Church for almost 2,000 years.

One topic which I haven't dealt with much over the past few years has been spiritual gifts. This has always seemed like an issue better left alone; it divides the Church (tragically), and often evokes emotional and personal reaction. Fortunately, I don't think this topic inspires responses near the intensity of infant baptism, which I heartily and unwittingly dove head-first into last year when my daughter was born. As a result, I believe I've developed the courage to openly confront what I've learned in my distant past (I am, after all, turning 30) and what's been recently brought to my attention regarding Scripture, God, mankind, and Salvation.

As a result, I hope to put together a sort of "series" of articles which discuss this topic. It's less emotional than infant baptism or Communion (both of which I would also like to write about in the future), and has a lot of practical application for my life specifically.

The topic was recently brought to my wife's attention as my brother-in-law has been exposed (for the first time in his life) to the more "charismatic" movements within the Church. He's been a bit disturbed by some of what he's seen, though I believe he's been loving and gracious in his interactions -- something I greatly admire in him. (I would likely be less loving, since I'm so bloody opinionated.) He asked Jenn and I to talk with him about the gifts of tongues and prophecy, and we both realized we hadn't thought much about spiritual gifts as a whole. What does Scripture say about these topics? What can we learn from the apostles and their writings/examples? How do we address these topics with our friends in a loving and gracious manner, while remaining open to the fact that our presuppositions and education may be wrong or right?

In other words, it's been a bit of a journey, and I'd like to continue it.

As a result, I would like to try and finish these articles over the next few months. I don't have a specific order or manner in which I would like to address spiritual gifts, but I would like to cover these topics:

The Primary Purpose of Spiritual Gifts
Speaking in Tongues
Prophecy
Miraculous Healing
Spiritual Gifts and their Relationship to Special Revelation

As I mentioned, I don't plan on these being in a specific order; frankly, diving into healing, prophecy, or tongues would probably be the most interesting. But I might try and lay some groundwork first, and then dig more deeply into specifics.

In any case, I will be relying heavily on the logic and wisdom of other people; this topic is not new, nor is there anything more I could add to any side of the debate. Rather, I would like to layout what I see to be the strongest arguments for/against the view of Spiritual Gifts I believe to be the most Scripturally sound.

Soli Deo gloria!

Time and Novels

2010-01-18T10:40:00.001-08:00

I've been working through the first 6 books in the Dune series over the past month, and I've reached a conclusion regarding books and our ability to tell stories.

First off, I absolutely loved the first novel. It had everything I was looking for in a sci-fi epic, and promised an interesting series. The second book (Dune Messiah) was less intriguing, though some of the internal politics and psychological analysis was interesting. Children of Dune was better than the previous: it had a destination (Leto IIs assimilation with the sandtrout to force humanity along the "Golden Path") and felt less rambling than the previous.

Then I hit God Emperor of Dune, and it spiraled downhill quite quickly. Leto's metamorphosis had been underway for 3,000 years, and the planet Dune's development had completed to the point where the Fremen lifestyle was a thing of memory. This book was difficult, to say the least, to drudge through, but it had a destination (Leto's death) which helped.

Enter Heretics of Dune. This book is, in every way, utterly uninteresting and unconvincing, to say the least. The only original character (after 4,000 years have passed since the first novel) only took center stage in Dune Messiah, something which made little sense, given his minimal presence and characterization in Dune. In Heretics, however, Duncan is the only unifying link with the previous 4 books. The Bene Gesserit, Tleilax, and Guild are still scheming and planning, and the planet of Dune is reverting back to its original state.

So, if Dune was so great, what went wrong??

To put it simply, time.

Think back, for a moment, 1,000 years. Our civilization was a drastically different place. For a simple reference, Wikipedia has an interesting article regarding the Eleventh Century and major events which occurred between 1001 and 1100. Though these events may have had an important influence on mankind, think for a minute what the world looked like at the time, and how the passage of a mere 1000 years has seen such drastic change. In addition to this, consider how different the world appears after the intersection and engagement of various cultures: within this time (from a Western-perspective) we've seen the advent of gunpowder, the Industrial Revolution, the Renaissance and Age of Reason, the Protestant Reformation, the advent of the automobile and flight, and have moved into the Age of Information. We live in an era where everyday realities would have been considered somewhat miraculous one millennium ago.

And yet, the evidence of human progress is completely ignored in the latter Dune novels. God Emperor begins 3,000 years after Leto II's ascension as deity, and no progress among humanity can be seen. The predominant argument for this is Leto's suppression of space-travel while imposing his "peace" upon the empire. Unfortunately, this is unconvincing and fails to account for the complete and utter stagnation of Herbert's universe.

In 3,000 years, no civilization makes any technological, cultural, political, or religious advances. The Bene Gesserit's plots and goals remain the same throughout the centuries, without any consideration to the historical progression of human thought. Herbert's position regarding religion seems reservedly cynical, yet withholds itself from any evolution of philosophy or vision. In 3,000 years, the Dune universe is no different than when Leto first began his metamorphosis.

Still, the argument remains that Leto's goal for humanity was to suppress advancement and evolution until the Golden Path was attained.

I'll accept the argument, though I disagree that it's sufficient to account for the stagnation.

Zoom forward another 1,000 years to Heretics and you still have the same problem. What's more, the problem is more greatly exacerbated: Leto's intention was to compress humanity to a critical mass, unleashing their full potential upon the vast reaches of the universe after his death. His dream, apparently, was to hold humanity back from its self-destructive tendencies, and then allow it to rapidly accelerate. Unfortunately, this acceleration is almost non-existent in Heretics.

Once again, technology hasn't advanced sufficiently to account for 1,000 years of unfettered progress. The same assassination techniques/tools are in use (shigawire, seekers), the same limitations exist (lasguns interacting with shields), the same drugs are still present (melange/spice). The introduction of "no-ships" are weak and portray a sad, unexciting existence for mankind.

Again, we are given a glimpse into the Bene Gesserit, and are informed of development and progression over several millenia. But where this progression is, the book doesn't say. Their breeding goals, fears, and biases are still strong and unchanged 4,000 years after Dune. Frankly, I can't imagine any organization or religion (from Herbert's perspective) surviving 400 centuries, let alone maintaining their original goals and world views.

Again, the final product is unconvincing and comes across as ignorant: such great leaps ahead in time remain unaccounted for in terms of culture, politics, religion, and technology.

I've observed this lack in other stories as well: the Foundation series, the Star Wars universe, to name a few. This leads me to wonder why they seem to fail in their scope.

As finite beings with a limited scope of change, I wonder if we're even capable of imagining a universe where massive leaps forward in time occur. Looking back, we can see the various connections in progress which have led us to the present. Hindsight, as they say, is always 20/20. Put another way, we have the ability to understand the mosaic of our development by analyzing each tile contributing to its creation. Unfortunately, we're less capable of understanding those pieces which will be used to expand upon its image. Because of this, how can we even attempt to imagine (other than idle speculation) what the product will look like after 1000 years of unknown tiles have been laid?

Think back to the futuristic images of the mid-20th century. Radio programs, movies, and sci-fi novels portrayed the 21st century as something much different than what we see. Looking back, we can see how the progression functioned; looking forward, however, we had no idea of the limitations and possibilities available to us.

Cars do not fly; we don't wear silver-foil suits; we are not living on the moon. We do, however, have vast amounts of information available to us, at the mere swipe of a finger or touch of a button. We still drive cars and fly in planes; Mars remains physically untouched by humankind; most people own a computer (yes, phones count); holographic TVs do not exist, though 3D technology is growing in popularity.

These are just a few technological progressions in 5 short decades; I've said nothing about the political, cultural, and religious changes which have happened in such a limited amount of time.

Of course, I don't want to misrepresent history: mankind's progress has frequently seen extended periods of stagnation with little development; fortunately, however, such periods have been fostered in specific environments. Once these environments were altered, or their limitations removed, explosions of development have been observed.

Herbert's series struggles to keep this in mind. In 4,000 years, little progress happens, a phenomenon disproved by human history.

Truth in Worship?

2009-08-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recalled a song which was often sung in a church I previously attended. I hadn't visited in several years, and I completely forgot about this song. It was titled "More than Anything." Since I don't want to deal with the issues of copyright and citing sources, I'll leave it to the reader to look up this song on their own. I will, however, summarize the underlying theological point being made in the first line of the chorus (and resounding throughout the song): "God loves people more than anything."

Another song I remember from these days (again, please look up the lyrics if you're interested) came to our college group from a source I don't remember (I believe it's a Vineyard song, though I'm not positive). It was called "Every Move I Make." In summary, the underlying theological statement was (in accordance to the first line of the song), "Every move I make I make in You, You make me move Jesus."

Two interesting points are being made, during a church service, sung by a congregation to God Who sits upon His throne.

Before I proceed to examine these two songs and their theological ramifications, let me first state this unequivocally: I don't believe there was any intention upon the authors of these songs to cross theological or doctrinal boundaries. Most artists speak from the heart and the seat of their emotions (something which will be addressed later), and their motives often stem from sincerity and openness.

This said, there are two fundamental problems with these two songs, which can be traced (somewhat haphazardly, I'll admit) to a single issue.

More than Anything?

First, let's consider these words: "God loves people more than anything." We know one of the perfections of God is His love. I John 4:7-8 states explicitly,

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love

The nearsighted, and incomplete human experience we know as "love" finds its perfection in God and God alone. Within Him alone does love manifest itself to its fullest extent for because it is an attribute (for lack of a better word) He permits us to experience and apprehend. We do well to consider the love from the Lord and the means in which He reveals this to us.

But the primary theological point of the song isn't the reality of this attribute of God. It pertains to the direction of this particular attribute flowing in its fullest measure from top-down. God's love, according to the song, is expressed only in its perfection after mankind's creation and fall. In essence, God loves people more than anything.

Is this, strictly speaking, true? Does God love mankind more than anything? Does He love us more than Himself? Is there a lack in the unity and perfection of our Triune God in which He must seek the final expression of His love in something other than Himself? I would posit this to be absolutely impossible, bordering on the absurd. To say God loves mankind (fallen or otherwise) either places upon the Lord imperfection or mutability, both of which are Scripturally untenable.

Imperfection

What was God's state prior to the creation of mankind? Such a question is, of course, impossible for us to answer. Before our appearance, we have no knowledge of God's work or expression of Himself. In Scripture we are given glimpses of Him in His eternal Being; we read of occurrences (e.g. Satan's rebellion) in a spiritual reality of which we are not capable of interacting; we are even given insight into certain attributes of God which provide us with imperfect understanding of Who He Is. But, we are not given any glimpse into eternity-past.

Unfortunately, if we are to posit God's love for mankind exceeds His love for anything else, we must first attempt to grasp this as it relates from God as an eternal Being. Does God love us more than Himself? If so, what was the state in the Trinity prior to His creation of mankind? Was there an impenetrable barrier in which God could not express His love in its fullest to Himself? We know the Father loves the Son (John 5:20); was this love incomplete in eternity-past? Did the love of God (a fundamental attribute of His Being, according to the apostle John) grow in greater measure upon this one creative act? If so, this redefines God into a God of development and evolution.

Rather than God being complete within and of Himself, we are forced to accept a God Who, upon the creation and fall of mankind, experienced an altering in the fullness of one of His attributes, the result of which was the fullest expression of love being bestowed from the Creator to the Creator.

Mutability

If we reject the previous assertion (as we should), the next question arises: What was the cause of such change upon the advent of fallen human beings? Did the Lord redirect the expression of His love in its fullest away from Himself (within the Trinity) to His creation? Is there any Scriptural precedence for such a position? According to Scripture, there is not. God has repeatedly revealed Himself to His creation as unchanging and immutable (Malachi 3:6). Unfortunately, this truth as ascribed by Scripture is incompatible with the statement, "God loves people more than anything." If the fullness of God was complete in eternity-past, and God reveals Himself as unchanging, then we can, logically, rely on His completeness after the creation of mankind. To do otherwise results in the same error as previous: God becomes a being of evolution and progress, rather than perfection and completeness.

Every Move I Make?

Scripture is quite clear regarding the eminence of Christ (Colossians 1:15-20):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and^AW)"> through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

In Christ, all things are held together. He is the Word of God, present during creation and in Him all things find their life and existence. This is a truly remarkable revelation, providing even greater insight (and therefore inspiring praise and worship) into the creative acts of God (Genesis 1 and 2).

So what's wrong with this statement: "every move I make I make in You, You make me move Jesus"?

The answer is simple: Jesus is not the author of sin, and, therefore, is not present in every act we make. He does not make us move in certain contexts and sinful expressions of our fallen nature.

Scripture is quite clear about the dangers of either ascribing sin to the Lord, or finding means to justify sin with theology (Romans 3:8). According to Romans 5, sin entered into this world through one man, not through an act of the Lord. Justification and redemption from the curse and enslavement of sin has been given through the direct intervention of God, and by these means we are set free. This, however, does not preclude the continued existence of sin.

In lecturing on Romans, Martin Luther coined a phrase which resounded throughout the Reformation: simul justus et peccator. This statement referred to the regenerated nature of sinful man: "simultaneous justified and sinful." Paul's statements in Romans 7 attest to this reality: though fully justified in the righteousness, and death and resurrection of Christ, he still experienced the daily struggle with sin and a nature which is bent away from the Holiness of God.

What does this song commonly used in church services and college groups say about this? It states, without equivocation, every move we make is in Jesus. Quite strictly speaking, this is a preposterous statement. Was Paul's lament regarding his inability to do right a condemnation of Christ moving him to do wrong? Of course not. Indeed, in verse 25 he breaks out into praise of the One in Whom righteousness and justification is found.

The words of this song beg a question: are we moving in Jesus when we are entertaining lustful thoughts? When we lie to our bosses? When we disrespect and dishonor our parents? When we mock and deride? I don't doubt the author of the song would answer with a resounding: not at all!

So What's the Point?

What, ultimately, does this matter? Is it possible the authors of these two songs were speaking with poetic license? Are we not allowed freedom to understand the heart of a song or message, disregarding its technical accuracy?

First of all, I believe the primary motives behind these two songs (judged by the words used) were this:
1. God's love for people is awe-inspiring and unfathomable. The expressions of His love in redeeming the lost are beyond all comprehension, and merit worship and praise.
2. In Christ, all existence is sustained and the changes inspired by the work of the Holy Spirit move us to a greater understanding of the Lord's presence in our lives.

It's possible I've completely missed the mark in interpreting the underlying intent of these songs, but I do wish to give the authors the greatest benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, we cannot afford such inaccuracy in the Church.

In Romans 14, Paul provides a strong imperative to those in the church who are "stronger."

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

We are given clear instruction to promote maturity and understanding upon those who are spiritually weaker in the Church. Such weakness may pertain to issues of freedom versus license, times of worship, or doctrinal struggles. Such weakness may also stem from simple ignorance brought upon by spiritual immaturity. Such ignorance should be met with loving knowledge and grace. For these, we must be quite careful not to introduce a Gospel which conflicts with that given by Scripture. Individuals in moment of personal, songful worship may understand the finer nuance of intention in the two, previously mentioned songs. We might hesitate to offer words which are clearly untrue in worship, but this is a point for a different topic. Regardless, spiritually mature believers may be able to distinguish between the true and the hyperbolic.

A corporate service, however, has no such freedom. Ministers and music leaders have no knowledge of the overall maturity of the congregation. In point of fact, they would be safe to assume a wide variety of wisdom, knowledge, and maturity in the local church body. With this in mind, is it reasonable to offer up songs of praise which do not, strictly speaking, adhere to truths in Scripture? Is it more important to elicit a certain emotional reaction, inspired by well-meaning words, regardless of their validity?

To both questions, I would purport, "no." During the local church services, we have a responsibility (one which I fell short of consistently in my previous times in various worship bands) to speak, preach, and sing the truth. God should and will be worshiped in truth (John 3:23-24).

Flex and Pure MVC

2009-08-05T20:11:00.000-07:00

I learned PureMVC for Flex about a month ago, and was able to successfully migrate all of my Flex projects at work to this new framework. Of course, these projects are relatively small (appx 5000 lines of code at best) but it was the best move I could have made.

Though PureMVC doesn't necessarily guarantee good design and separation of concerns in a project, it certainly provides a nicely decoupled way of utilizing the MVC design scheme.

PureMVC uses what's called a Facade to act as a broker for forwarding notifications from various components. View components (MXML and the ActionScript needed to drive them) are provided to "Mediators" which communicate via the Facade. These mediators translate any events from the UI (e.g. users clicking buttons to load information from a server) into "notifications" which are sent via the Facade to the respective Controller objects.

These Controller objects are known as "Commands". Commands receive the notification from the Facade (and any data passed from the View components) and then use "Proxies" to request data and perform the majority of the business logic for the application.

Sound complicated? It's really not. The typical project may be organized like this:

src
|- controller
|- model
|_ view

Under the "controller" directory, Commands are kept which receive notifications. These commands invoke "Proxies" which are stored in the "model" directory. These proxies request information from remote objects (e.g. servers) and relay data back to the appropriate location. The "view" folder contains two different types of objects: view components and mediators. The view components are simply the user-visible forms and controls in which the user interacts. These have absolutely no connection to any PureMVC components; rather, they are passed (at runtime) to a "Mediator". The mediator listens for events from the view components and then relays the event to the Facade as a notification.

Frankly, it sounds a lot more complicated than it is. Future posts should have some examples for how to assemble a simple User-form in PureMVC

Conky version 1.0

2009-06-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

It's finished! I'm still working on some details: the icons are ok, but I wonder if I could cut this down a bit. I also want to divide this up to all 4 corners of my screen.

Anyway, this is the conky in #! on my laptop. The smudged content in the top is my hostname 'on' my ESSID. If the ESSID isn't available (e.g. no wireless connection), it prints " is disconnected"

Nuts, Conky isn't working right

2009-06-19T12:20:00.001-07:00

Here's a snippet of a Conky config I've been working on.

Dependency Injection and Flex

2009-06-12T22:24:00.000-07:00

So, a quick note on the progress I've made with Flex. First of all, I wanted a tool to highlight text. So...I spent 3 weeks working through tutorials and examples from some brilliant coders who have already paved this way, worked with several different libraries, and finally found that all my work was for naught; enter, FlexLib. It not only had a great highlighting class, but also contained some moveable Panels, and a nice extensible Tab Navigator...sigh..all that work down the drain.

Anyway, I've heard about Dependency Injections a lot lately, and I finally decided to research what it's about. Wow, I never realized how simple a concept it would be. Having been exposed to different design patterns like Factory Method, this was extremely easy to assimilate.

Dependency Injection works very well with Flex interfaces, and particularly well with Factories. If I have an object A which depends on object B, I could have A instantiate B and maintain a reference to it. Unfortunately, this creates a dependency within A upon B:


private var bInstance:B;
...
bInstance = new B();
bInstance.foo();

In this case, A has a definite dependency upon B's implementation. If B changes 'foo()' to anything else, A will break.

We can partially solve this via a interface, in which A and B agree on B's required methods. In this case, B utilizes an interface, BI, which instructs B to always implement 'foo()'. Thus, A can access B via its instance:


private var bInstance:BI;
...
bInstance = new B();
bInstance.foo(); //guaranteed since bInstance is an instance of type BI

But we still have a problem: A is still relying on the base class of B. What if we wanted to break B into different objects, and 'B' was no longer a valid name? Moreover, what if we moved B to a different library? Enter a factory.

Rather than A creating B, even via its interface, what if the code calling A passed in a reference to B, via its interface? For this, we'll add two new classes. 'Factory' has a 'createBI' function that returns a reference to B via its interface, BI. FooBar is a class which creates A. In this class, the code to create A might look something like this:


a = new A(Factory.createBI());

Whereas the constructor for A might look like this:


private bInst:BI;
public function A(bInst:BI):void {
  this.bInst = bInst;
}

From this point, we've broken the dependency of A to B, and created a new dependency from A to BI. This is a better design and is more extensible: should we need to have different variations of B, as long as they implement the BI interface, A can utilize them.

What's more, 'FooBar' injected the dependencies into A.

That's all there is to it.

Now...my question is...how far can you take this??

Happy Easter -- Christ is risen indeed!

2009-04-12T08:58:00.000-07:00

What a wonderful time of the year for us, as Christians, to remember the glorious resurrection! We worship on Sundays because this was the day of Christ's resurrection from the dead, but it's also, in my mind, important to set time aside on the anniversary of our blessed hope.

I've been thinking about the resurrection more this past year, and I have a thought: one of the strongest proofs of Christ's resurrection lies in the changes the Holy Spirit wrought in the lives of His disciples and those who lived in the ancient world.

At the time of Christ's death, His disciples had fled. The oligarchical religious authorities had, it seemed, succeeded in squelching what they viewed as a blasphemous trend and an affront to their authority. Jesus' friends had abandoned Him immediately after His arrest, and, on that Sunday so long ago, were in hiding. They feared the reprisal of the authorities against those Jesus had taken into His "inner circle," so they sat in their rooms, cowardly and afraid for their own lives.

Don't get me wrong -- I would have done the same...we all would have.

But, within a very short amount of time, these men swept through Israel, Palestine, Asia Minor and to even farther reaches of the known world, spreading the glorious news of Christ's death and resurrection and forgiveness for sin. They baptized and made disciples wherever they went, turning the Jewish society completely on its head. Those who had lived and breathed a fiercely xenophobic and merit-based religious lifestyle were now proclaiming the forgiveness of sins fully apart from works to those outside their respective society. Faith and belief were no longer restricted to a few select practitioners, men, women, soldiers, etc. Instead, all, even small children, were welcomed into the Church.

For those who would purport the existence of explicit "misogynism" in the early church, I would ask they read the New Testament and consider the words of Christ, Who, in a strictly patristic society, reached out to women with His teachings; as well as the apostle Paul, who, though recognizing the difference in role and responsibility between the sexes, also acclaims specific women working alongside men in the church. I would also encourage them to compare Christianity in its day to the other religious institutions at the time: it stands apart in its acceptance of all from different walks of life, and its claims of the abject uselessness of meritorious acts.

In a very short amount of time, the world was drastically and fundamentally changed. No longer basing their religious standing on their capacity to keep Law, give charitably, or act in accordance with goodness, Christians were, rather, displaying chartity and good deeds stemming from an inward change. Rather than working to earn merit, their focus was on being thankful for a gift given while they were still sinners (Romans 3:8), and spreading this good news to everyone they came near.

Christianity spread like a wild fire in its early days, in the face of the most perverse and grotesque persecution and opposition known to man. Under the reign of Domitian, Christian persecution became a matter of state policy; under the reign of Nero, Christians were tortured and ravished as a matter of entertainment. The Jewish religious authorities persecuted and murdered early leaders of the Christian church, casting others into jail.

We know the tomb is empty. Christ rose from the grave (halleluiah!) and we in Him we have a blessed hope. But we need remember one thing: no explanation, no physical evidence, no arguments are sufficient to explain this unprecedented phenomenon. It's not enough for the world to present Jesus' bones and say, "here he is!" Such an occurrence falls drastically short of the historical evidence we have of such a massive personal transformation on behalf of His followers.

What more can we ask for? The proof of Jesus' resurrection and His sending the Holy Spirit need not lie in manifestations of "spiritual gifts;" it need not be sought in an "experience" or a "feeling" or emotion; it need not be based upon the display of miraculous "healings" during televangelist gatherings. Though I don't discount gifts, feelings, or the power of the Lord to heal, we far too often seek for reassurance of His reality in things which focus us inward:

I have this gift
I feel this feeling/sensation
I was healed

Instead, let us turn to the real and historical Jesus as our reassurance and hope. We have the ultimate proof of His resurrection: an empty grave, a missing body, 500+ witnesses, and the greatest spiritual conversion mankind could ever witness.

He has risen indeed!! Happy Easter!!

Issues Etc -- Does Satan Exist?

2009-04-08T19:10:00.001-07:00

I listened to a great review of the ABC Panel which discussed the existence of Satan. It's in two parts:

These are well worth listening to.

A few Ofelia Pics

2009-04-05T20:41:00.001-07:00

Ok, I wanted to post a few pictures of my kiddo:

She's just so friggin' cute!

She's trying to read like her daddy. Her mommy is also now reading too!

We had a little date to the library on Saturday--she was ready for the blustery weather:

Here she is, trying to distract her daddy while he's sick and working from home:

Musings on Palm Sunday

2009-04-05T19:52:00.000-07:00

I had a thought this morning while at church.

Today's the day the Christian church remembers Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, the week before He was crucified by the Romans and rose again from the grave. His entrance into the city was marked by excitement, rejoicing, and (wait for it...) people waving palm branches ().

I remember past Palm Sundays in several churches, watching palm-branch-bearing children parade up and down the sanctuary aisles, while proud parents beamed from their pews, and music and songs rose up from the music team. All in all, they were somewhat emotionally-overcharged services ().

The situation in Jerusalem, however, is pretty hard to understand. During the Triumphal Entry (Palm Sunday), the crowds were ecstatic. They were energetic, excited, and generally overjoyed to welcome Jesus into their city. He entered the gates riding a donkey while they shouted praises (Mark 11).

Less than a week later, they chose a known murderer and insurrectionist over Christ, while shouting "Crucify Him!" (Mark 15). He was sentenced to death by the Romans in accordance with their collective will.

Why the difference?

From what I've learned in my short (and quite inadequate) studies, the nation of Israel (in Christ's day) were not looking for a Savior Who, in sacrificing Himself, would pay the penalty for the sins of God's chosen people. They were awaiting a conquering Messiah who would take his place on David's throne, cast out their Roman invaders, and set Israel in their rightful place. They wanted glorification for their nation-state, and freedom from the Roman government. Christ's entry into Jerusalem sparked off this "revolutionary" mentality. The people were, I believe, looking to Jesus as this Messiah, and their reaction, though ignorant, was based on a self-serving and inadequate understanding of His purpose.

So...with this in mind, why do churches have children parading up and down the aisles on this Sunday, waving palm branches in a [potentially] misguided remembrance of sinful ignorance? Is this a correct observance and remembrance of Christ fulfilling prophecy foretold hundreds of years before? Should we not, perhaps, spend this Sunday reflecting on how we, as fallen human beings, will try to change Christ's purpose into something other than the incredible, and most amazing gift we could ever be given? The nation of Israel wanted Him to free them from the Romans; He was sent to free us from our sin and bridge the chasm between us and the Holy Lord. Their purposes and the Will of the Lord were at odds, and it behoves us to remember this and reflect upon Who Christ IS, and not Who we want Him to be.

Edit: My good buddy Kyle brought up a few good points to consider. Here are some passages to think through as I further ponder the discussion (emphasis mine, obviously):

Luke 19:41-44: 'And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."'

This would, if nothing else, support the idea that the masses were praising out of expectation of something other than the truth. But...(again, emphasis mine)...

Luke 19:37-40: As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

It seems, even though they were praising out of ignorance, they were still praising. This is certainly something to consider, and perhaps have a level of understanding for them. Heck, even the disciples didn't understand why Christ had come. They were likewise expecting Him to take His place on the throne of Israel as their conquering Messiah. But...

I think the primary concern I have is the re-enactment itself. I'm not questioning the act of worship itself, but rather the context in which it is taking place. We worship in truth because God has revealed it to us. They worshipped in ignorance because God had not yet revealed it to them.

Of course, I could be making a lot of nothing, and I certainly don't condemn those churches in the past... :-)

Flex, Emacs, Linux, and Irony

2009-04-04T21:33:00.001-07:00

I don't like Adobe. Their software is overpriced, bloated, and often difficult to for me to use. I wouldn't be able to derive $999 of worth from Photoshop, though there are pieces in it I would enjoy working with. Flash has made a lot of bad websites worse, while helping the Browser community ignore some of their past glaring inadequacies in adhering to standardization.

This said, I love working with Flex.

This also said, I refuse to pay for Flex Builder. Though it's not a bad IDE (hey, it's built on Eclipse, my personal favorite), it has a few glaring flaws which I won't go into (for those curious, they lie mostly in the debugger and profiler). I also don't like how little support there is for Linux. I spend 95% of my time at home working in Linux, and I don't particularly appreciate their dumbed-down version of the IDE. It's lacking many of the features I do enjoy (e.g. their WYSIWYG for rapid prototyping), while making certain tasks harder. It took me several hours to get a project assembled, after which I still couldn't create anything but .as files (it kept complaining about the project association).

So, I decided to see if I could create a customized Emacs environment for Flex in Linux. I haven't been too worried about certain features (e.g. debugging, file browsing, and intense code-completion). My primary focus is on syntax-highlighting, template generation, and easy compilation. Obviously, I'm keeping my expectations low for now. Hey, it's either this or log into Windows and use FlashDevelop which is really good, but not good enough to log into Windows.

Anyway, I found two great .el files for integration with Emacs, providing some level of syntax-highlighting and code-completion. Both can be found here: EmacsWiki. The two files are as follows:
1. actionscript-mode: provides a custom ActionScript mode (as it says)
2. nxml-mode: a bundle of files which provide extensive XML support (including MXML)

I was also able to integrate a third .el file which provides customizable templates using hotkey-esque strings: snippet.el.

All of these are searchable on the Emacs Wiki.

Anyway, I got these libraries integrated into Emacs (I also setup ECB, but I haven't used it much yet) and used this great tutorial for creating a "Makefile" for a project: . After this, the coding was pretty easy.

I attached a few screenshots for the basic view of the Bible verse memorization tool I'm developing. It's rudimentary at best, but this mock-up should show a decent view.

This first shot is a simple login screen:

The second is the main GUI with a left-side Accordion control for displaying verse references associated with different Leitner piles (I call them "buckets").

Interestingly, I wrote a similar GUI using PyQT4, which took me about 3 days. The Flex GUI shown in the screenshots took about 20 minutes. I wrote it while watching a movie on TV with my wife, and I bet her I could have it pounded out before a commercial break.

Anyway, I have the data-retrieval code written in Python. I'd like to use the ESV Web Service site as the data-source. I haven't heard back from them on licensing. We'll see how that goes.

So, here's the irony. As I mentioned before, I'm terrible at memorizing verses. Hence, I'm writing this app. Unfortunately, the application is taking more of my time away from memorizing verses...

Go figure...

New Project in the Making

2009-03-15T15:06:00.000-07:00

I'm starting a new project based on some concepts I learned in the flashcard program.

That program is still in beta testing. The basic feature set is ready, but I'm trying to decide if I should delay the 1.0 release to move everything into a database (rather than files).

Anyway, this one will be a memorization tool for Bible verses. I'm terrible at memorizing Scripture, and I really want to improve. Therefore, I'm working on a new utility which will help with my ability to remember.

Instead of randomization and probabilistic weighting for short-term learning (like the previous flashcard system), this one will feature a long-term memorization technique, much closer to the original Leitner algorithm. A GUI (web-based Flex, or desktop AIR, or desktop QT) will be used to select and display verses in a list, associated with a user. The verses being displayed will be weighted according to the user's ability to remember and repeat them. As users are better able to remember, they'll see them less often every day. I have some investigation to do regarding how to do the time calculations (e.g. I guessed a verse right, when should I be asked again), but that's another post altogether.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it goes.

Flex and RIA development

2009-03-08T14:35:00.000-07:00

I had a project at work to complete. Our automated testing infrastructure has aged beyond the point of usability, and no money has existed for upgrading to a more recent version, or investing in a different system for automated and manual test deployment, tracking, and maintaining.

One of my coworkers began (several years ago) piecing together a web-based automation utility which would allow us to quickly configure and execute test servers with automated tests. The solution was, conceptually, a combination of Javascript, CSS, and Ajax, in which users could add machines to a table, drag&drop test configurations to each machine, edit the test configurations (e.g. modify the command-line parameters passed to each test), and execute the overall config by sending it to the test automation system as a single CSV string.

His work lasted about 3 months, and resulted in the drag&drop interface.

Shortly after this, another coworker extended upon this work by adding the test config storage and retrieval via Ajax. Users could [in theory] add tests to each machine, edit their respective parameters, and execute said tests. They could also quickly create test configurations which would map directly to their respective automated tests in the version control repository.

The result was pretty good, but fell short in several ways: Ajax calls only worked 70% of the time, resulting in failures to execute tests, save configurations, and retrieve various pieces of information. Each test config was stored as a Javascript file on the web server, which required users to understand Javascript syntax if they wanted to manually add or edit existing configs. It also refused to work in IE.

His work lasted several months as well before he moved on to bigger and better things. I inherited it and took on the work to make it work more consistently with our test infrastructure. This lasted for about 3 months on the system before I decided to investigate other solutions.

Enter Flex.

The original interface put together was quite sound: dragging and dropping test configs to various machines is a great idea, though difficult to implement. I wanted to keep the use model of the system, but move away from pure Javascript.

After hearing some buzz regarding Flex around the office, I decided to take a look and see if it could offer a better solution.

Frankly, I was amazed. Within 3 weeks of starting, and without any prior exposure to Flex and ActionScript, I had completely reproduced all interface functionality, and even added several extensions. Rather than relying on Javascript for test configurations, I was able to introduce XML (a more logical choice, in my opinion) for configuration storage and retrieval. Relying on the Flash player resolved the issues between IE and Firefox (and other browsers which support the issues with storing and retrieving information from the web server.

In short, Flex is a fantastic solution for developing "Rich Internet Applications." The presence of a standardized API (*cough -- javascript!*) and a full-fledged object-oriented language quickly and easily resolved all issues I had with prior implementations.

In essence, though I'm impressed with the usability and functionality of Javascript and CSS, for web apps I'm likely going to stick with Flex and potentially Cappuccino if it's as cool as it looks.

Flashcards Project Status

2009-01-11T14:15:00.001-08:00

For those of you who don't know, I've been working on a new project for the past several months. My initial desire was to create a simple little app which would help me learn Python, and would also facilitate my learning of Classical Greek endings. Verb and noun endings in Greek are vitally important to understand, and there's so bloody many, I felt a learning application would be a fun project.

The last 4 months of coding have been some of the most fun I've had.

Though the project is still in its infancy, and though I'm struggling with massive amounts of scope creep, I have an "alpha" which is almost ready to be released.

Here are the initial requirements/specifications:
1. The system will provide "questions" and allow users to provide "answers"
2. The system will check the user's response and either accept it as a match, or reject it
3. The "questions" posted by the system will initially be in the form of Classical Greek verbs, nouns, or prepositions. Answers will be posted in English.
4. Verbs and Nouns can be put together by the system as a "cross product" of two sets: roots and endings. In other words, the system should be able to take a list of roots and apply endings to each one.
4a. In addition to this, the system should be able to discern the correct answer
5. The system will use Leitner's System (or a modified version) for "learning" which words the user knows and which ones they don't.
5a. The system will provide "questions" for those less-known words more often than those of well-known words
5bi. The system should have a means for accessing less-known words more often than well-known words (see point 8b)
6. The system will provide a means of "hinting" at the answer
6a. The hint system should be configurable
7. The system will provide statistics for the learner to gauge their progress
7b. The system should output information regarding the number of successes, failures, and hints posted or requested by the user
8. The system will allow the user to modify the underlying details of the Leitner Algorithm while currently engaged with the application
8a. The user should be able to modify the number of "piles" (called "buckets") in which the cards are distributed, within the range of '1' or '10' buckets
8b. The user should be able to modify the means in which the buckets are distributed (e.g. 30% of the time, the system will pull cards from the least-known bucket, 5% of the time it will pull from the well-known bucket)
9. The system should use a QT-based GUI for viewing
10. The system should be able to preserve the current state of user-execution
10a. The system should allow the user to save/restore the current state whenever they desire
11. The system should be configurable via XML configuration files, allowing users to "hot-swap" different card-input algorithms
12. The system will provide detailed documentation for use, administration, and flashcard development.
13. The system will host 'hotkeys' for easier navigation

These are the basic requirements. All but 10 and 11 are pretty much finished, though there are a number of defects and design issues which need to be addressed.

One requirement I'd really like to investigate and get working is #11. My buddy Bump suggested this: apparently, the current Flashcard systems don't have very well abstracted algorithms which can be swapped out. I'm not sure what this will mean, but it sounds interesting and fun.

In the meantime, here are some screenshots of the GUI in action. In order they are:
I. The main GUI and dialog for choosing the card "set"
II. The main flashcard GUI -- note the Unicode characters for the Greek words and the statistics in the lower left corner
III. Main flashcard GUI -- posted failure when user guess is incorrect
IV. Main flashcard GUI -- posted hint when user requests
V. Main flashcard GUI -- posted success when user guess is correct
VI. Main Algorithm Admin GUI -- note the Leitner and Hint system administration options

Brief Update

2009-01-03T15:59:00.000-08:00

We just returned from SD yesterday. It was a great trip, albeit pretty short. We flew out from Denver on Tuesday morning and arrived in Sioux Falls (about 45 miles northeast of Freeman) around 1 in the afternoon. All in all, the flight was ok. Our departure was an hour late; apparently, the plane was falling apart and they needed to piece it back together. Such things do not instill massive amounts of reassurance in those of us who are a bit trepidatious when it comes to flying.

We stayed with Jenn's family over the duration. Her family on both sides visited over lunch on the 31st and 1st. I didn't spend much time with her mother's side: it was only the women, and I had the opportunity to have lunch with her younger brother and father. It was a worthy trade off.

We left yesterday morning at 11 and arrived here at 12:30pm. Ofelia did very well throughout the entire trip. The first time she fussed during travel since Tuesday was yesterday as the plane was descending. Other than that, we could tell she enjoyed the adventure immensely. She made friends with people all over the airport and in the plane, her smiles inspiring others everywhere she went. I'm amazed at how much happiness she seems to bring to those around her. She's very friendly, and has a way of endearing herself to everyone. While we were sitting on the plane waiting to take off, she kept peering through the gaps in between our seats, giggling, squeaking, and smiling at the elderly couple behind us. She did the same for several people behind and next to us as well. It was cute, and very fun to watch.

Of course, I was primarily focusing on not freaking out over being 30,000 feet in the air, but that's another tale for another time.

She was also baptized a week ago tomorrow. The ceremony was held in a local Confessional Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and we've established a nice relationship with the lead pastor. I don't think the liturgical service is for us, per se, and we have disagreements with Lutheran doctrine, but it was an interesting exposure to a historical side of the Christian church which we hadn't seen prior.

That's all for now.

Some Post-Election Thoughts

2008-11-08T07:25:00.000-08:00

I wrote this to my sister a few days ago. I won't paste the mail in its entirety, but it pretty much sums up my thoughts regarding the debacle that was our 2008 Presidential election:

Last night was an utter abomination for those of us who are conservative in our politics. It seems like our country is giving so-called "right-wingers" an ultimatum (or perhaps, just the finger) regarding our views. The amendment in Colorado which would have made the definition of "human" as starting at fertilization was TROUNCED (27% support), and the other governmental reforms were overturned. It was pretty sad. In addition, we now have a socialist-controlled government. We'll see what happen over the next few months/years. It's likely to get harder.

We Christians (the right-wing voters, including myself) have always assumed we have a "safety net" in our life here. Let's face it: this is the land of the free. We have First Amendment rights, don't we? We have freedom to worship as we please, and to tell people the truth without any consequences. This is America--we are a Constitution-led federal republic. But these words (the Bill of Rights and Constitution) are only words, unless they are truly believed by those who enforce them. The new government doesn't (and I'm not convinced the Republicans do either). We often hear about the Constitution as the be-all and end-all for our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's an amazing document, but...it's still just a document. The Constitution gives us no more rights than the government is willing to provide. Unfortunately, the new government will likely revoke what liberties we have.

For Christians, however, the Constitution, though a wonderful example of what God-fearing men can do with a government in a depraved world, is of middling importance. Will we face higher taxes over the next few years? Yep. Will we face increasing energy costs? Yep. Will we see our "free speech" rights restricted? Yep. But what does this mean for us as God's children? Well, it means life is going to be harder...no doubts about that. But our calling from the Lord remains: "'...make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.'"

But let's face it, we have no guarantee in life which says we will get the majority of our earnings, or have access to cheap energy, or have local grocery stores filled with food. Our prosperity in this country has given Christians (and believe me, I'm 100% included in this) a false sense of security regarding our life and comfort here. Yeah, we might have some opposition when talking to people about Jesus, but this is America. We can still attend the church of our choice without penalty. We can still talk to people on the street without getting arrested. We can still shop at the local store and buy what we need for our existence. We can work and take home the fruits of our labor. We live in America--we can say we trust the Lord to provide, but...we don't necessarily need to back it up with real faith because...this is America.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not knocking America. I don't want to live anywhere else, and I think the Founding Fathers had insight into the nature of power-based corruption and did what they could to minimize it. Unfortunately, their dream of America is flawed and unsustainable. Depraved mankind will not allow it.

I think American Christians have viewed their lives here as a form of "heaven on earth," where "live and let live" has been the norm. There's nothing wrong with prosperity and wealth--America has done more for helping raise the standard of living worldwide than any other country. America has also sent out more missionaries than any other nation. We have a rich heritage to be thankful for. But...this isn't heaven and we can't assume it will always be this way. And when life takes a turn for the worse, we should respond with faith and trust in the Lord's ultimate provision for our families and for the time when He will finally put to death all evil and sin. This is our hope and our

There's a law in physics which says, "everything is moving toward decay." Entropy is built into our reality--the heat given off by the sun for the growth of our crops (and for boiling Las Vegas ;) reveals the reality of its terminal state. Our world is dying and will continually move toward chaos and evil. The only real force in place stemming the tide is the Lord--not lower taxes, First Amendment rights, or limited government.

This is something which has slapped me hard in the face over the last 24 hours; the verse in Psalm 20:7 says, "Some boast in chariots, some in horses, but we boast in the name of the Lord our God." This has really challenged me to abandon my preconceived disposition to a comfortable life here. I don't think it's wrong to desire a peaceful life, but the Lord is ultimately in control...not our government.

Anyway, don't be troubled. The Lord is OUR shepherd and He will provide for our needs. The government will tear away every pound of flesh it can, but we have a future HOPE which cannot be taken from us.

Everlasting Lovingkindness

2008-10-17T07:06:00.000-07:00

Reading Psalm 136 (ESV), I see this:

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.
Give thanks to the God of gods, for his steadfast love endures forever.
Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who made the great lights, for his steadfast love endures forever;
the sun to rule over the day, for his steadfast love endures forever;
the moon and stars to rule over the night, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, for his steadfast love endures forever;
and brought Israel out from among them, for his steadfast love endures forever;
with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who divided the Red Sea in two, for his steadfast love endures forever;
and made Israel pass through the midst of it, for his steadfast love endures forever;
but overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who led his people through the wilderness, for his steadfast love endures forever;
to him who struck down great kings, for his steadfast love endures forever;
and killed mighty kings, for his steadfast love endures forever;
Sihon, king of the Amorites, for his steadfast love endures forever;
and Og, king of Bashan, for his steadfast love endures forever;
and gave their land as a heritage, for his steadfast love endures forever;
a heritage to Israel his servant, for his steadfast love endures forever.
It is he who remembered us in our low estate, for his steadfast love endures forever;
and rescued us from our foes, for his steadfast love endures forever;
he who gives food to all flesh, for his steadfast love endures forever.
Give thanks to the God of heaven, for his steadfast love endures forever

Think about these statements for a second: ...to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, for his steadfast love endures forever...

This doesn't sound like our definition of love, does it? Here we see God enacting judgment against the Egyptians, by striking down their firstborn. Here's how Webster defines love (the first of several): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties

Do you ever wonder if our definition of love falls dramatically short of reality?

Dynamic Inheritance in Perl

2008-10-11T19:28:00.001-07:00

Ok, I discovered this little tidbit while working on a relatively extensive project in Perl. I came across an issue where I had several OS-based "abstract" classes written in Perl (yeah, I know -- OOP in Perl is nothing but trouble), and I needed to inherit from one of them. The trick, however, was to do it dynamically, depending on the OS I was currently working on.

Casting scalars to functions and even classes is a pretty simple thing.

Consider the following example in foo.pl:


#!/usr/bin/perl

my $func = shift;
my $result = &$func(@ARGV);
print "$result\n";

sub add {
 my ($x, $y) = @_;
 return $x + $y;
}

sub subtract {
 my ($x, $y) = @_;
 return $x - $y;
}

The result of executing this code is fairly simple:


# perl foo.pl add 1 2
 3
# perl foo.pl subtract 2 1
 1

It's also possible to cast a scalar to a package/class type, allowing more flexibility on which objects or modules are called at run time.

Consider the following two files, foo.pl, bar.pm, baz.pm:

foo.pl:


#!/usr/bin/perl

my $pkg = shift @ARGV;
require "$pkg.pm"; # only load the package specified on the command line

my $class_ref = $pkg->new();

$class_ref->to_string();

bar.pm:


#!/usr/bin/perl
package bar;

sub new {
 my $proto = shift;
 my $class = ref $proto || $proto;
 my $self = {};
 bless ($self, $class);
return $self;
}

sub to_string {
 my $self = shift;
 return "bar says hello!\n";
}

1;

and baz.pm:


#!/usr/bin/perl
package bar;

sub new {
 my $proto = shift;
 my $class = ref $proto || $proto;
 my $self = {};
 bless ($self, $class);
 return $self;
}

sub to_string {
 my $self = shift;
 return "baz says hello!\n";
}

1;

Now, execution looks like this:


# perl foo.pl bar
 bar says hello!
# perl foo.pl baz
 baz says hello!

Of course, there are some severe consequences of doing such practices. But, in my opinion, none of them compare to what else you can do with Perl's "cast-ability."

Consider the following hiearchy: Class linuxFoo is a class, specific to the Linux OS. Class solarisFoo is also a class, specific to the Solaris OS. Class Foo wants to inherit from either, but only does so in accordance to the OS it's currently running from. Here's the code:
linuxFoo.pm:


#!/usr/bin/perl
package linuxFoo;

sub new {
   my $proto = shift;
   my $class = ref $proto || $proto;
   my $self = {};
   bless ($self, $class);
   return $self;
}

sub to_string {
   return "This is Linux-based functionality!\n";
}

1;

solarisFoo.pm:


#!/usr/bin/perl
package solarisFoo;

sub new {
   my $proto = shift;
   my $class = ref $proto || $proto;
   my $self = {};
   bless ($self, $class);
   return $self;
}

sub to_string {
   return "This is Solaris-based functionality!\n";
}

1;

Foo.pm:


#!/usr/bin/perl
package Foo;

sub new {
   my $class = shift;
   my $os = $^O; # this gets the OS, in case you don't know

   # require the correct module, and use it as the parent
   my $pkg = $os . "Foo";

   require "$pkg.pm";
   our @ISA = $pkg;

   my $self = $class->SUPER::new();

   bless ($self, $class);
   return $self;
}

sub to_string {
   my $self = shift;
   return $self->SUPER::to_string();
}

1;

and test.pl:


#!/usr/bin/perl

use Foo;

my $class_ref = Foo->new();

print $class_ref->to_string();

The result of running this script on two different operating systems (linux and solaris) is as follows:


# perl test.pl # on linux
 This is Linux-based functionality!
# perl test.pl # on solaris
 This is Solaris-based functionality!

Now, why is this a bad idea??

Creating function references on the fly via string values is always iffy. It requires a full-knowledge of the underlying code in order to correctly identify which methods are required. Though it's possible to abstract this out to some extent (forcing function/method names to use a value which is immutable for the system--e.g. the OS type), it still creates a brittle interface in which to work.

Dynamically creating and using modules is likewise a bit iffy as well. Should a module need to be refactored in the future (or is replaced with a different one), this forces the programmer to update the string which is used to create it.

Either way, the ability to use a string value to execute a function or use a module is tenuous at best. Dynamic inheritance, however, is downright dangerous. Users can take objects and randomly redefine their hierarchical structure however and whenever they want. Languages such as Java and C++ (to name a few) prevent this by statically typing their classes at compile-time. This forces the contracts imposed by inheritance and interfaces (e.g. interface methods are always implemented, inherited methods are always present via the parent, etc.).

Dynamic inheritance throws it all out the window. If you have a Dog object, it can randomly inherit from a Wheel object. Not only this, it can inherit from a Wheel after it's already inherited from a Fire Hydrant. Ok, the rule of odd and bizarre inheritance structures is present in all languages. But redefining the structure at any point in the code, without compile-time checks, makes Perl a fun, but screwy and dangerous language to program in.

...of course...some would say not to do OOP in Perl, which is why I'm transitioning to Python...

Reformation Technologies

2008-10-11T15:57:00.000-07:00

Well, I've done a few other blogs in a few other places, and this is probably my final resting place. It hasn't been worth paying for the previous services, so I'll work with something free for once.

This blog is devoted specifically to discussing issues of technology and religion, specifically, Christianity.

While I don't necessarily consider myself to be "Reformed," I have been steadily deriving more and more of my theology (as a born-again Christian) from the Protestant Reformation and the early church fathers. Issues such as Calvinism, Amillenialism, Covenant Theology, and other such issues are fair game here.

I'm also a programming junkie, so I will use this blog for discussing various technologies and programming tips, tools, and techniques.

Other posts might be devoted to my family occurrences and whatnot, for those in my family who live farther away.