Verse 19 says, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

The contrasting verse is verse 21, which says, “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

It seems to me that this is not a case of men seeing the light of Christ and then evaluating how they should respond.  It’s not like they were presented a choice and could go either way.  On the contrary, their response was predetermined by who they were.

Those who love the darkness do so because they are evil doers.  Those who accept Christ do not become lovers of truth as a result of coming into the light; rather, they come into the light because God has awakened them to the truth.

Going back up to verse 8 (and preceding), Jesus compares the Spirit (Gr., pneuma) with wind (also pneuma).  He says that a re-born spirit is the work of the Spirit, and the Spirit is like the wind in that it “blows wherever it pleases.“  The main point is that spiritual rebirth is a very real thing despite the mechanism being unseen.  However, the passage also implies that the Spirit is not only the “mechanism” that does the regeneration, but also the reason why regeneration takes place.

John 3:16 (and 15) is frequently read as if belief is the criteria for being born again, which is in turn the criteria for eternal life.  However, that is not what Jesus said.  He simply said that those who believe will have eternal life.  I contend that it makes more sense in the context of the chapter to think that those who have been born again are those who will believe.  In other words, spiritual rebirth is the criteria for belief, not the other way around.

Related posts:

1. A Tense Calvinist My wife likes to say that she is a “Calvinist...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A necessary component of developing precise definitions is understanding how people interpret the things they hear.  I’m going to make some assumptions about what people think about a “Calvinist with tension,” but the most helpful thing would be for you to tell me what you think when you hear this.

One of the things I assume people hear in this statement is a distinction from a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist or a militant Calvinist who is completely unwilling to listen to objections or arguments from another point of view and thinks non-Calvinists are either uninformed, deceived, or worse.  That sort of Calvinist does not feel any tension; instead, they are rigid in their beliefs.  I would say that this understanding is, at least in part, a proper part of what it should mean to be a “Calvinist with tension.”

It’s also possible that hearers may interpret this as saying, “I consider myself a Calvinist, but there are aspects of Calvinism that I have doubts about.”  The understanding here is that the speaker favors Calvinism over other formulations, but isn’t really satisfied that Calvinism has the right answers.  While this is probably true for some people, I do not think this is a good understanding of what I would mean if I said I was a Calvinist with tension.  I think this understanding infers that the speaker is a Calvinist “for lack of a better option.”  If someone could show them a system that relieved their “tension” (doubts about Calvinism), they would gladly accept this other system in lieu of Calvinism.

In contrast, I would not define “tension” as doubts, but as a realization that some aspects of Calvinism may be difficult to grasp (not only for others, but for myself!).  I understand why people might have objections to Calvinism, and I recognize that some of these objections stem from principles that are true.  There are not always simple, cut-and-dried explanations that are satisfying.  It’s not a matter of a simple proof-text for all issues.  The tension comes from the very real need to reconcile things that are true that seem to be at odds with each other.

I think that an intellectually honest Arminian must also be an “Arminian with tension.”  This need not mean that they are not convinced of the truth of Arminianism.  It means that they don’t see objections as smoke-screens or man-made resistance to their position.  Instead, they recognize that a human explanation of divine truth may not be satisfactory to everyone.  There is limitation on both ends, in the human who gives the explanation and the human who listens to the explanation.

I believe that Calvinist positions are faithful to what the Bible teaches, but there is a tension between two (or more) different directions someone may take on an issue, and it is not always easy to explain how everything fits together.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The series is now over, and I find myself asking, “Can you have a good story without having a good ending?”  Reading a few reviews and comments on the series finale, you find some people who are completely thrilled and satisfied with how the series ended. Others, like me, are disappointed and feel like the ending lacked a sense of meaning and resolution.  We had followed the stories of the various characters, hoping to understand the connections between various events.  We were hoping to be let in on the secret story arc that explained “why,” but we walked away empty-handed.

In my view, the letdown is primarily the result of writers who have been infected by existentialism.  Many people have bought into existentialism, whether they realize it or not. To an existentialist, existence is meaningless, outside of the meaning that you bring to your existence. The individual, and their choices, is all that really matters. It is not important for there to be “reasons” that tie the story together.¹

The biggest problem with this (from the standpoint of a compelling story) is that when the individuals pass on, so does the meaning. There is no meaning for an outside observer; the “meaning” of LOST is trapped inside the church with all the characters.

Some good stories feature a mystery that is solved, or a problem that is overcome. When the mystery is solved, we understand what transpired and why certain things happened. When the problem is overcome, we are relieved, because we understand why the problem was bad and why the solution is good.

As LOST ended, some questions were answered and some problems were solved, but there was a lack of meaning. LOST had lots of storytelling, but the overarching meta-narrative or story arc was incomplete.  The smoke monster is defeated, but it’s never quite clear why he was so evil, so powerful, or what would happen if he wasn’t defeated. The island is saved, but it’s never quite clear why that was so important, what role its unique characteristics played, or what the consequences would be if it were destroyed. The primary role of the island seems to be a plot device that generated experiences wherein the characters could interact.

It’s okay to have a character-driven story without mysteries to solve or hurdles to overcome. However, one normally expects the characters to reveal something to us about ourselves or our fellow man.

Throughout LOST, there have been references to finding deeper meaning in life, to pursuing one’s purpose, and exploring the mysteries of free will and destiny. Although we should not expect a TV show to provide satisfactory answers for all these questions, many people were hoping for some explanations that would make some sense of all that has happened on the show.

In some sense, each of the characters discover their purpose and fulfill it. But it’s a hollow purpose that doesn’t add any meaning to the story. If Jack had failed, if Hurley had not taken his place, would it have really mattered? People have experiences; they do bad things; they do good things; they end up back together again with the people they love. But there is no substance behind it. There are no reasons to explain why those experiences mattered.  It might have even been okay if it had simply ended as a battle between good and evil, where good won out.  But the ending made the actual events irrelevant.  It’s simply, “here we are, all together again, isn’t this nice.” As Richard Vine blogged, “Heaven is a Drive Shaft gig: altogether now, ‘You all, everybody!’” Or, as one commenter summarized, “Sentimentality 1, Making sense 0.”

1. Contrary to existentialism, Christianity declares that God defines human essence, He gives us our purpose, and He determines our destiny. We belong to Him, and our life is meaningful if we live according to His purposes. Read/Listen/Watch John Piper give a great explanation of this reality.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I would just like to thank you for your many years of service as a representative for our area.  While I may not have agreed with every vote you cast or decision you made, I believe that you served our area well.  I do not doubt that you honestly tried to do your best to vote according to your convictions, and I believe that your commitment to godly standards and strong families is sincere.

Thank you, too, for not seeking to deflect or minimize your sin, and for doing the right thing in stepping down from your position.

As a fellow Christian, I encourage you to not back away from your church or switch churches, but to allow your elders and friends at Emmanuel to assist you in seeking complete repentance and reconciliation.

My wife and I will keep you in our prayers.

Sincerely,

Steve Long

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some of his detractors are practically giddy. (The only thing they would like better is if it had been a homosexual affair.)  Here is a conservative, evangelical Christian; a staunch proponent of family values; if anyone should take the high road, it should be him.  Yet here he is, caught in the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I’d like to examine that hypocrisy.

Here are a couple definitions of hypocrisy:

• a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. (dictionary.com)
• a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. (merriam-webster.com)

In a sense, there are two ways in which one can be a hypocrite:
1) Saying something that you don’t really believe.
2) Doing something that is contrary to what you believe.

In a strict sense, hypocrisy mainly belongs in the first category.  As someone has written on Wikipedia, hypocrisy “is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done.”  The line between the first and second category is sometimes blurry, as our actions typically reveal our true convictions.  However, there is a difference between pretense and inconsistency.

I think Souder’s hypocrisy falls into the second category, of failing to live up to his beliefs.  I do not think that his stated convictions have been a “put on” to appeal to conservative voters.  I suspect that he truly believes in biblically-based morality.  If his affair had gone undetected, and if he continued to serve in Congress, I think he would have consistently voted for laws that affirm Judeo-Christian ethics and strong families.

The reason I’m glad Souder is resigning, is not primarily because I see him as having a hypocrisy problem.  It’s because I see him as having an integrity problem.  Many of the things Souder supported are things that I support too, and I think that his convictions were honest.  The problem is that he failed to live according to his convictions.

Somewhere along the line, Souder allowed himself to believe a lie.

Maybe he believed the lie that his situation was special, and his actions were justified.  This is possible, but I suspect he fully understood that his actions were wrong.

Maybe he believed the lie that the benefit outweighed the consequences.  I’m speculating that he thought they could keep it under wraps, and that this “one little indiscretion” would not impact his work.

This is the type of lie that I’m prone to succumb to.  I know something is wrong, but I think it’s not really THAT destructive, and the payoff is worth it.

Related posts:

1. Who should get Evan Bayh’s job? In a little more than a month (May 4), Indiana...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If you’re wondering who will be on the ballot, here’s a list of the Indiana primary candidates for all offices.

One of the most significant races is for the Senate seat that Evan Bayh will be vacating.  Bayh announced his resignation too late for anyone else to get on the primary ballot as a Democrat, so the party leaders get to pick the candidate who will be on the ballot in November.  Although it’s not official yet, the Democratic candidate is expected to be Brad Ellsworth, who is currently representing the 8th District in Congress.

On the Republican side, there are five candidates vying for the chance to go up against Ellsworth.

1.  Don Bates, Jr., who currently works in the banking industry.
2.  Richard Behney, who currently owns a plumbing business.
3.  Dan Coats, who was the 4th District Congressman from 1981 to 1989, Senator from 1989 to 1999, and Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005.
4.  John Hostettler, who was the 8th District Congressman from 1995 to 2007, when he was defeated by Brad Ellsworth.
5.  Marlin Stutzman, who is currently an Indiana State Senator (District 13), and was a State Representative previously.

I know very little about any of these candidates.

Coats certainly has the most experience, and was generally held in high regard for his previous service.  He is more conservative than either Bayh or Lugar, but probably not as socially conservative as some of the other candidates.

Neither Bates nor Behney has much name-recognition, which doesn’t mean they couldn’t go a good job, but it does make it unlikely that they will be able to get a lot of votes.   Nor does either candidate have any political or legislative experience of any kind.  Being a political newcomer isn’t always a bad thing, but a US Senator is the highest legislative office in the country; I think some kind of prior experience ought to be a prerequisite.

Hostettler and Stutzman are similar in a lot of ways, although they come from opposite ends of the state.  Hostettler has more experience and recognition, having been a US Congressman.  As a farmer, Stutzman may have more in common with the average Hoosier.  Stutzman has been endorsed by the majority of his Republican colleagues in the Indiana House and Senate, which speaks well to his character and effectiveness.

I’m not sure who I’ll vote for, but there’s a lot to like about Marlin Stutzman.  I’d like to see either Stutzman, Hostettler, or Coats take over Bayh’s seat, then I’d like for Lugar to retire and one of the other two to take his seat.

Mark Souder is also being challenged for his 3rd District Congressional seat.  Tom Hayhurst is running on the Democratic ticket, but there is also someone named Thomas Schrader.  I think it’s safe to assume that Hayhurst will be the Democratic candidate.  What’s not so sure is whether Souder will be the Republican candidate.  I’m guessing that he will, but there are three other Republicans who think they can do a better job:  Greg Dickman, Bob Thomas, and Phil Troyer.

Related posts:

1. The Mark Souder Affair Yesterday it was revealed that Representative Mark Souder has been...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It probably comes as no surprise that a Unitarian Universalist has no real grasp on the gospel.  However, it may surprise some people that an atheist is actually closer to the truth than someone who considers themselves a “Christian.”  I found it interesting to compare and contrast the views of atheist Christopher Hitchens and Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell in this interview between the two.

A few interesting exchanges are highlighted:

Sewell:

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens:

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Sewell:

Let me go someplace else. [continues with next question...]

While Hitchens rejects God and the gospel, at least he understands what the gospel message is.  Sewell thinks you can have “Christianity” without the gospel, and doesn’t really want to talk about the gospel.

Sewell:

…I agree with almost everything that you say. But I still consider myself a Christian and a person of faith.

Hitchens:

Do you mind if I ask you a question? Faith in what? Faith in the resurrection?

Sewell:

The way I believe in the resurrection is I believe that one can go from a death in this life, in the sense of being dead to the world and dead to other people, and can be resurrected to new life. When I preach about Easter and the resurrection, it’s in a metaphorical sense.

Hitchens rejects faith (in anything outside himself, at least) as a basis for a reasonable worldview, but he recognizes that faith requires an object.  “Faith” by itself is meaningless.  We must have faith in something or someone.

Sewell:

Times change and, you know, people’s beliefs change. I don’t believe that you have to be fundamentalist and literalist to be a Christian. You do: You’re something of a fundamentalist, actually.

Hitchens:

Well, I’m sorry, fundamentalist simply means those who think that the Bible is a serious book and should be taken seriously.

Sewell:

I take it very seriously. I have my grandmother’s Bible and I still read it, but I don’t take it as literal truth. I take it as metaphorical truth. The stories, the narrative, are what’s important.

I wish more people understood Hitchens’ definition of a fundamentalist, rather than seeing it is an epithet  for stodgy narrow-minded people who think everyone should think and act just like them.  Sewell betrays that she really doesn’t take the Bible seriously, despite her claim to the contrary.  If truth is only revealed in metaphors, then each individual can decide for themselves what the metaphors really mean.  Truth is then simply what you make it, so the Bible is irrelevant.  If you only use the Bible to illustrate truths that you determine independently, you could just as well use the Koran, Mother Goose, or Dr. Seuss.

Hitchens:

[Some people think] that “faith” is an automatically good word. I think it’s not. When people say, “I am a person of faith,” they expect applause for it as we see in every election cycle. If I could make one change in the culture it would be to withhold that applause, to say, “Wait a minute, you just told me you’re prepared to accept an enormous amount on no evidence whatsoever.

Hitchens recognizes that faith must have an object, but he apparently thinks that such faith is always a “leap” with no rational basis.  That is not true of Christian faith.  Our faith in God is rational.  The Bible is worthy of trust.  A Biblical worldview is cohesive and is the only worldview that can consistently make sense of the world in which we live.

Sewell:

I don’t know whether or not God exists in the first place.  . . .  I don’t believe that God intervenes to give me goodies if I ask for them.

God is a mystery to me. I choose to believe because—and this is a very practical thing for me—I seem to live with more integrity when I find myself accountable to something larger than myself. That thing larger than myself, I call God, but it’s a metaphor. That God is an emptiness out of which everything comes. Perhaps I would say “ reality” or “what is” because we’re trying to describe the infinite with language of the finite. My faith is that I put all that I am and all that I have on the line for that which I do not know.

The God of the Bible describes Himself to us, and calls us to know Him.  Praise God that we don’t have to waste our lives pursuing that which we do not know.

I’m not sure why Sewell holds on to the Christian label; she certainly rejects everything that makes Christianity unique.  Hitchens sees through the facade that Sewell tries to portray as authentic faith.  For his part, Hitchens recognizes that humans are different than animals and that there is more to life than just the material world around us, but he can’t reconcile this with his rejection of the supernatural and a higher authority.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Related posts:

1. Is Postmodernism for real? [D]on’t we live in a postmodern culture in which…appeals to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I use my blog primarily for article-length posts that I want to save.  Short, random thoughts I’ll just post on Facebook, and I’m not worried about losing track of what I wrote.  Since the longer posts tend to be a bit more rare, and since few (if any) people are going to subscribe to my blog’s RSS feed, it’s nice to have a way to bring some attention to new blog posts.  Thankfully, there are several ways to have new blog posts show up in your Facebook feed.

Facebook provides a convenient way to import a blog into your Notes.  Just go to http://www.facebook.com/editnotes.php and paste in the address of your blog’s feed.  Then whenever you post something to your blog, it will also show up as a note in Facebook.  However, if someone comments on your note, the comment will only exist in Facebook; you may wish that comments would be reflected on your blog page as well.

Depending on your blogging software, there have been attempts to write plugins that attempt to import comments on notes from Facebook into your blog.  I use WordPress for my blog, and there was a Facebook Comments plugin that served this purpose, but it no longer seems to work.

If you don’t feel it necessary to have your blog posts imported into Facebook as Notes, but you want an update to appear on your Facebook wall when you make a new post to your blog, there are plugins for that too.  For WordPress, the Wordbook plugin makes it easy to to this.  This plugin will just post a little one-line story on your Wall with a link to your blog post.  If someone wants to read it, they have to click over to your blog.

Today I’m trying a new method, using the Wordbooker plugin.  This plugin purports to show new blog posts on your Wall without importing them into your Notes.  If Facebook friends comment on your Wall post, those comments are supposed to be imported into your blog page as well.  I’m not sure how it’s going to work, so this post is a test.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Although I don’t really know, I’m guessing that responses to Jonathan Edwards frequently fall into one of several different categories:

1.  Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy!  He was a great thinker and theologian; there is much that can be learned from him.

2.  I’ve heard of him, but that’s about it.

3.  Yeah, I’m not a big fan of those “hellfire and damnation,” “fire and brimstone” types.  We serve a God of love!

These are exaggerated generalizations, and I’m sure there are other categories, but I suspect these three are fairly common reactions.

In my imagined scenario, the person to whom I was speaking fell into the 3rd category.

At that point, I don’t bother trying to convince them that Edwards may have something valuable to offer.  That maybe they have the wrong impression of him; that maybe they should actually read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, instead of just dismiss it.  Instead, I suggest that maybe they should do a study on God’s wrath.

John 3:16 is a wonderful verse.  It’s great news that God offers eternal life to those who believe in Jesus.  But it’s a mistake to focus solely on the positive.  It’s simply not true that the only barrier to eternal life is man’s unwillingness to accept it.  The real barrier, an insurmountable barrier (unless God removes it), is God’s wrath.

John 3:16 says that if we believe in Jesus we will not perish.  We had better ask the question, “why would we perish otherwise?”  We need to read the whole chapter.  John 3:36 tells us that if a person doesn’t believe (and obey) Jesus, then God’s wrath remains (or abides) on him.

I think it’s also worth noting that John isn’t just saying, “one day (in the future) you’ll face God’s wrath” if you don’t trust in Jesus.  It’s true that the day of Judgment, when God pours out His full wrath, is still coming.  But John 3:36 says that God’s wrath “remains.”  It’s already there.  John 3:18 says that the one who doesn’t believe is already under condemnation.

Another instructive passage is in Romans.  Romans 5:8 is quite popular, and rightly so.  But many seem to have lost sight of Romans 5:9.  When we are saved by Christ, what are we saved from?  From ourselves?  Are we rescued from Satan’s grip?  Certainly salvation includes release from bondage to many things, but primarily, we are saved from the wrath of God.

When Jesus died for us, he drank the cup of God’s wrath for us (Matt. 26:42; Isa. 53:4-5,10; Gal. 3:13).  Those who do not trust in Jesus will have to drink the cup of God’s wrath on their own (Rev. 14:10).

There are some within Christianity who minimize or deny the importance of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.  This is a problem, not due to differing interpretations of theological minutia, but a problem of not understanding and appreciating God’s wrath.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When I think about this topic, I always recall Dale Ahlquist’s description of G.K. Chesterton in his book Common Sense 101: Lessons from G.K. Chesterton.

He seems so frivolous and so careless, but he gives money to beggars, not frivolously or carelessly, but because he believes in giving money to beggars, and giving it to them “where they stand”.

He says he knows perfectly well all the arguments against giving money to beggars. But he finds those to be precisely the arguments for giving money to them. If beggars are lazy or deceptive or wanting a drink, he knows only too well his own lack of motivation, his own dishonesty, his own thirst.

He doesn’t believe in “scientific charity” because that is too easy, as easy as writing a check. He believes in “promiscuous charity” because that is really difficult. “It means the most dark and terrible of all human actions—talking to a man. In fact, I know of nothing more difficult than really talking to the poor men we meet.”  (pp. 13-14)

I have given money to someone with a sob story, and afterwards concluded that I was scammed.  I have given a few bucks to someone in need, and afterwards regretted that I didn’t do more.  I have spurned a beggar’s request, and wondered if I did the right thing.

The thoughts from Jon Bloom and the example of Chesterton convict me that it is better to give than to worry about analyzing the situation and attempting to predict the outcome.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

[D]on’t we live in a postmodern culture in which…appeals to traditional apologetic arguments are no longer effective?  Since postmodernists reject the traditional canons of logic, rationality, and truth, rational arguments for the truth of Christianity no longer work!  Rather in today’s culture we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.”

William Lane Craig responds:

In my opinion, this sort of thinking could not be more mistaken.  The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable.  Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison.  If you’ve got a headache, you’d better believe that texts have objective meaning!  People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they’re relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics.  But that’s not postmodernism; that’s modernism!  That’s just old-line Positivism and Verificationism, which held that anything you can’t prove with your five senses is just a matter of individual taste and emotive expression.  We live in a cultural milieu which remains deeply modernist.  People who think that we live in a postmodern culture have thus seriously misread our cultural situation.

Indeed, I think that getting people to believe that we live in a postmodern culture is one of the craftiest deceptions that Satan has yet devised.  “Modernism is passe,” he tells us.  “You needn’t worry about it any longer.  So forget about it!  It’s dead and buried.”  Meanwhile, modernism, pretending to be dead, comes around again in the fancy new dress of postmodernism, masquerading as a new challenger.  “Your old arguments and apologetics are no longer effective against this new arrival,” we’re told.  “Lay them aside; they’re of no use.  Just share your narrative!”  Indeed, some, weary of the long battles with modernism, actually welcome the new visitor with relief.  And so Satan deceives us into voluntarily laying aside our best weapons of logic and evidence, thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us.  If we adopt this suicidal course of action, the consequences for the church in the next generation will be catastrophic.  Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality, while scientific naturalism shapes our culture’s view of how the world really is. (emphasis added)

from Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics

Related posts:

1. An Atheist and a Unitarian Universalist They’re really not that far apart. It probably comes as...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The old way to launch programs:

1. Click on the Start button.

2. Move the mouse to Programs.

3. If you’re using “Personalized Menus,” some of the Program folders may be hidden, so you have to click or hover on the two little arrows at the bottom of the list.

4. Remember which of your many folders contains the program you’re looking for. You may have to browse multiple folders and subfolders to find it.

5. Finally, once you find it, click on it to launch the program.

Alternatively, if it’s a frequently used program, you can put a shortcut on the desktop. This works fine if your desktop is showing, but if you already have one or more open windows, you first have to minimize those windows before you can click the icons on your desktop. You also have to decide in advance which icons to put on the desktop. Personally, I like to keep my desktop icons to a minimum.

Another alternative would be to create hotkey combinations (eg., Ctrl-Alt-M, Ctrl-Shift-W, etc.) for your frequently used programs. This allows you to launch selected programs without navigating through the Start menu or minimizing open windows to expose the desktop. However, in addition to deciding which programs are worthy of having hotkeys (usually only a small number of programs), you have to remember what all those hotkeys are.

I have come to prefer a specialized application launcher. My current favorite is Find And Run Robot (FARR). Another popular choice is Launchy.

These and similar apps require you to remember ONE hotkey, and it’s one that you will use frequently. You type the hotkey (in my case, Ctrl-Space), and a small window pops up, in which you start typing what you’re looking for. Don’t worry, you won’t have to type much!

In this example, “cha” was all it took for FARR to find the Windows Character Map program (if you’ve never used this, it’s a useful program for inserting special characters like ±, ½, ¿, ©, etc. in your text). Using the Start menu to launch this program requires navigating to Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Character Map. At this point with FARR, all that is left is to hit Enter on the keyboard. (There is no need to finish typing “character map.” You don’t have to select it either; FARR will automatically launch the first result in the list once you hit Enter.)

If Character Map wasn’t what I had in mind, I can keep typing to further refine the results, or if the program I want is further down the list, I can use the arrow keys to select that program and hit Enter to launch it. For example, if I was really looking for Chip’s Challenge, I could hit the down arrow three times, then Enter, and Chip’s Challenge would open. The next time I use FARR to search for something beginning with “cha” FARR remembers that I wanted Chip’s Challenge last time, and this time it automatically comes to the top of the list.

Launchers like FARR and Launchy aren’t just for finding shortcuts in your Start Menu or on your desktop. They can also be configured to find other files on your computer. You can find executable files (*.exe) that don’t have a shortcut in the Start menu. You can find documents, spreadsheets, presentations, images, music, internet favorites/bookmarks, etc., and automatically open them with the associated program. For example, instead of opening Microsoft Word, then using the File > Open dialog in Word to search for a file, you can just type the file name in FARR (or Launchy), the open the file in Word all in one step. Or, if you can’t remember whether that file you’re looking for is a Word document, Excel spreadsheet, Powerpoint presentation, or Adobe PDF just start typing the filename and chances are you’ll find it quickly and easily.

Plugins and other advanced options extend the flexibility even further. For example, the “jscalc” plugin for FARR adds a powerful calculator.

All this and more is available at the tip of your fingers. App launchers like FARR and Launchy are especially popular with users who attempt to do as much as possible from the keyboard, minimizing the need to move your hand back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse. (Hint: you need your mouse a lot less than you think; especially if you use Firefox.)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Several websites confirm an understanding of this phrase that is more-or-less the way I have normally understood it.

For example, The Phrase Finder defines the meaning as “I too, like someone seen to have suffered misfortune, might have suffered a similar fate, but for God’s mercy.”

Adrian Room, writing in Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, says that the phrase (normally uttered upon observing the disaster or disgrace that has befallen someone as a result of their actions or misdoings) “implies that most of us have committed the same follies, sins etc., but have been fortunate enough to escape the consequences.”

The Free Dictionary has an entry explaining the phrase to mean that, “I would likely have experienced or done the same bad thing if God had not been watching over me.”

Finally, here are the definitions provided by Wiktionary:

1. A recognition that others’ misfortune could be one’s own, if it weren’t for the blessing/kindness/luck bestowed by fate or the Divine.
2. Man’s fate is in God’s hands.
3. More generally, our fate is not entirely in our own hands.

Each of these definitions is true. It’s not my intention to dispute these definitions, but to provide an alternative mindset for thinking about this phrase. The standard thought behind this phrase is that we are passive. I am attempting to change my thinking about the grace of God to include an active element.

“There but for the grace of God, go I,” not because I passively managed to avoid (by luck or by providence) what befell someone else, but because God granted me grace to live a different life.

I still recognize that, in my own power, I could not keep myself from the same behavior and the same results, no matter how hard I try or how much I want to. However, through God’s grace, I don’t just experience different circumstances. My life is actually different. I am a different person. “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift,” his exceeding grace, which is in us (2 Cor. 9:14-15, ASV). Quoting Matthew Henry again, this grace “enables and inclines” our hearts to do what we could not (if we wanted) and would not (if we were able) do on our own.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If you’re looking for a starting point, the author of the site has provided a 49-page “book” that he says, “weaves together most of my favorite ideas on personal finance and a lot of other goodies into one document.” It starts out with a single page covering “Everything You Ever Really Needed to Know About Personal Finance,” then explores the basic concepts throughout the other pages.

Click below to get it:

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/onepage/

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It is only through God’s grace that we can repent. Grace isn’t the overlooking of faults. Grace isn’t expressing appreciation of someone undeserving. Grace is the power to do what we could not do in and of ourselves. (Hard times come again more and more)

The common definition of grace as “unmerited favor” is perhaps a little misleading, at least the way we tend to understand favor. My tendency, at least, is to think of “favor” as simply to “look at someone” with a “favorable attitude,” or to ultimately reward someone despite the fact that they don’t deserve it. While this definition captures the “unmerited” nature of God’s grace, I don’t think it sufficiently captures the fact that grace doesn’t just mean an “award,” but it delivers an “ability.”

Matthew Henry states this dual aspect of grace better than I could have, in his commentary on Romans 7.

“We are under grace, which promises strength to do what it commands, and pardon upon repentance when we do amiss.”

I see a lot of focus on the forgiving nature of grace, but not much mention of the fact that grace is not just a status; it is the ability to accomplish what God intends for us.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Eight years ago when Shadow and I moved from my parent’s house into a house of my own, my mom went through a similar adjustment to life without Shadow around. The words she wrote then still ring true today. Here they are:

I never thought I’d miss him so much… that big, black dog who shed all over my house, who had to go out in rain or snow and then be cleaned up after.  I thought I’d enjoy the loss of those jobs.  But, oh, how I miss that “BBD,” (ed: Shadow’s occasional nickname, standing for “Big Black Dog”) my “Shadow!”

He was often waiting at the threshold of my bedroom door in the morning for the first sound or movement that would clue him that I was awake.  (Our bedroom was one of his “off-limits” rooms.)  As soon as I would stir, he would be right at my bedside.  (My bed IS right by the door, so it wasn’t TOO much of a violation!)  As soon as he got his morning greeting he would go into the room next to our bedroom while I showered and dressed.  Sometimes he would be right outside the bathroom door when I came out.

Next came breakfast.  If I were eating cereal, I’d usually eat standing up to save my sitting time for things that really require sitting.  Whether I was standing or sitting, Shadow would be right at my feet… just in case I dropped something or decided to share something with him!

After breakfast we would head for my sewing room/office where I read my Bible every morning.  He’d be lying near my chair. If it were a washday, I’d be popping up and down changing loads, folding clothes, etc.  If I was gone for too long, he would come to the room off the kitchen, “his” room, and lie there while I folded clothes.  Then we’d be back to the sewing room/office.  If I had ironing to do, as soon as I set up the ironing board, he would lie under it…on MY side!  I’d always have to send him to the end of the board so I had a place to stand to do the ironing!

If there were anyone around the house that didn’t belong, he would go off barking…a car or truck he didn’t recognize the sound of, a deliveryman, meter-reader, mailman, etc.  One day, two Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door.    Shadow met them at the door with his ferocious, protective bark!   The youngest “witness” was off to the end of the porch in the blink of an eye!  He left his braver partner near the door to talk and offer me the usual booklet.  I decided Shadow was a great way to filter out salespeople and solicitors who weren’t brave enough to endure the challenge!  It wasn’t unusual for me to go to the door and find people in the middle of the porch waiting to talk to me!  They didn’t dare stand too close to the door!  I don’t always hear the doorbell or things going on around the house, so Shadow would “hear” for me.

Lunch would find us in the kitchen with him again at my feet…just in case, you know!  Sometimes I DO drop things or get full before I finish my sandwich.  And he loves to share my cheese, apples and grapes!  Good stuff!  Healthy for both of us, right?

Sometimes, right after lunch, I might sit and read for a while.   If I sat too long, he would whine at me, not to go outside, but to come into “his” room and lie on the bed to read so that he could lie next to me!  He was only allowed on one bed, Stephen’s, and only by invitation!  When I’d had the maximum amount of sitting I could take for a time, I established the habit of lying on Stephen’s bed to read, so Shadow could lie next to me.  He liked it!  What can I say?  We enjoyed each other’s company.  I’d say, “You want to go to your room, right?”  And off he’d go!

We usually walked a mile a day.  When it was really hot, we might walk before breakfast; otherwise we walked when I needed a break from sitting later in the morning.  As soon as I put on my walking shoes or went for my key, he knew it was walking time and headed for the door!

Supper preparation again found us in the kitchen with Shadow at my feet…just in case!  He knows the sound of the cellophane wrapper on the cheese and was up in a second when he heard that!  (He also knows the sound of my stirring homemade granola while it’s cooling, another of his favorite things!  That brought him to his feet, as well, and he’d get a nice chunk!)

One morning while doing my exercises, I was lying on my back in a room where he could come, and before I knew it I had the legs and chest of a 75-pound dog across me.  Try to do your exercises like that!  He just had to be a part of everything!

If Stephen was home in the evening, Shadow might stay with Stephen (he IS Stephen’s dog) or come in by me if I was working at my desk.  If Stephen was NOT home, Shadow would stay with me for a while, but then whine until we’d go to his room to read!

When our granddaughter arrived on the scene, Shadow began showing extreme jealousy whenever I was holding Alethea.  He would whine at me until I’d pet him, or tried to get his body or head between her and me!  He has shown no aggression toward her… just wants his share of the attention!

What a dog!  I find myself looking for him around every corner, expecting him to greet me every time I return home from somewhere and open the front door.  He sure won my heart in his five years of life!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Shadow was my first dog.  Although I got him shortly before my actual birthday, he was my 20th birthday present.  We had a German Shepherd-Collie Mix, Major, growing up, but he was Nathan’s dog, and being an outdoor dog he didn’t get as well integrated into the family as Shadow did.  I had a cat, Sunshine, when I was very young, but Sunshine got out and was hit by a car while he was still a kitten.  Shadow has been a part of my life for nearly 13 years.

Although Shadow was a whiner (he whined when he wanted attention, he whined to go out, he whined to come in, he whined when he was excited, he whined when he was scared, he whined every inning when I was in the field the one time I took him with me to a softball game), he was a wonderful dog and a great companion.  Shadow was a definite people-dog.  Around other dogs, Shadow was timid and nervous.  He would shy away from dogs 1/4 his size.  But when anyone came to the house, Shadow was certain they were there to see him.  He won the affection of even the non-dog lovers with his sweet personality.  He loved to play tug-of-war, and would tire out anyone willing to take him on.

Shadow also loved to go for rides, and he loved to swim.   My first car was perfect for him, because he was able to put his front paws on the center console and stick his head out the sunroof, taking in the world everywhere we went.  The very first time I introduced him to water, he wasn’t too sure about it.  However, once I led him into the water to the point where his feet were no longer touching the bottom, he realized that he could float, and off he went.  From then on, any time we went to the park he would start his whining as soon as we got into the park.  One time I made the mistake of leaving my window down and Shadow jumped over me out the driver’s side window before I even got a chance to park the car.  Last year Carrie and I took Shadow to the Indiana Dunes for the first time, and he got his first taste of Lake Michigan.  As soon as he saw the water he was carrying on and straining at the leash to get in.  His hips were already getting pretty bad from arthritis, and the waves would knock him down.  However, he would get right back up and run out into the water again.  He was bone tired the next two days, but he loved it.

By about age 10, Shadow was getting arthritis in his hips and starting to have trouble getting up.  Supplements and eventually a prescription anti-inflammatory helped quite a bit, but in the last few months his legs continued to get worse, and he was showing signs of problems in other areas of his body as well.  His behavior starting changing too.  Most of it, we just chalked up to growing old.  A few weeks ago, he lost interest in his food.  When he wouldn’t eat some of his past favorites like canned dog food, peanut butter, cottage cheese, etc., we knew something was wrong.  The vet noticed a yellow tinge to the whites of his eyes and suspected liver failure.  An ultra-sound showed what appeared to be two large tumors, one in his spleen and one in his liver.  That was eight days ago, Monday March 2.

In the past week, Carrie and I have been preparing ourselves for his approaching death, not knowing whether it would be days, weeks, or months.  However, Shadow got worse each day, not eating, rarely getting up, struggling to walk, throwing up, and not being able to eliminate normally.  We hoped that God would end his life naturally, sparing us the tough decision of putting him to sleep.  However, there was nothing wrong with Shadow’s heart, head, or lungs; his heart kept right on ticking, and he kept right on breathing.  By last night, it was finally clear to us that we couldn’t keep asking Shadow to lay around in pain, slowly starving, and struggling with the now very difficult task of getting in and out of the house.  We prayed earnestly that God would allow Shadow to take his last breath that night, but God must have thought it better that we were with Shadow when that happened, rather than waking to find him dead.  It was a tough phone call to the vet this morning, albeit a short one.  I took the afternoon off work so both Carrie and I could spend Shadow’s last few hours with him.  The vet and staff were kind, the injection painless, and the effect swift.

Carrie and I are sad to see Shadow go, and we will miss him greatly.  We know he made many friends throughout his life who will also miss him.  However, we are grateful for the immense joy that he brought to our lives, and we are relieved that he is no longer suffering through a slow, painful demise.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

(Note: Google has no results for the phrase “feels like a funeral day.” It’s about time it did.)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Steve Taylor wrote a song called “Harder To Believe Than Not To.” That song comes to my mind now and then, especially when people try to “sell” Christianity as a six-step process for life enrichment. The Apostle Paul implied that the Christian life is not one you would want to live if it weren’t for the fact that in Christ we have eternal life to look forward to (I Cor. 15:19).

So, what is it about being a Christian that is hard? Is it holding our tongue, being kind to others, helping others in need, and things like that? Sometimes those things can be hard, but I don’t think those things are what make the Christian life hard.

I want others to like me, so it’s not that hard to be kind to them. Sure, sometimes it’s hard to be kind to someone who is annoying or mean-spirited, but in general it’s not that hard to be kind.

I don’t like to see other people suffering, so it’s not that hard to offer help to people in need. Sure, sometimes I am too protective of “my time” or “my stuff,” and it can be hard to find motivation to help someone who continually makes poor choices, but for the most part, it’s not that hard to extend a hand to those in need.

High moral standards aren’t what set Christianity apart. Sometimes it’s hard to consistently maintain high moral standards, but that’s not what makes the Christian life hard. The world understands “good behavior.” The world understands the “golden rule.” What sets Christianity apart and makes the Christian life hard to live, is something that doesn’t occur to the world.

Repentance is hard

The hard thing about the Christian life is repentance. Repentance is hard. Not just confession. Confession isn’t that hard. Sure sometimes pride gets in the way of confession, but it’s not that hard to say, “sorry, I messed up.” It’s not that hard to say, “I see now that what I did was wrong.” “I knew it was wrong, and I did it anyway.” “I broke the rules.” The world understands confession. It also understands what is left unsaid after most confessions. “Now, cut me some slack.”

The hard thing is to not only confess, but then say, “I will change. I will not be like that anymore. I will live my life differently than I used to.” It’s hard for a couple of reasons. One, because often we don’t really want to change. We want to continue with what we know, avoiding the major failures, but not really changing our life. Second, because despite our best intentions we know that we’re likely to fail again. It’s hard to say, “I will stop doing that,” when we aren’t sure how long it will be before we do it again. The most challenging thing about repentance, the root beneath all areas of weakness in our lives, the thing that we are least willing to do, is relinquishing control of our lives. We want to be in control of our money, our happiness, our safety, our image, etc. The result of trying to be in control of our lives is greed, laziness, fear, pride, etc. We need to repent of living life on our own terms.

Ultimate Repentance: putting an end to the usurpation of our lives

The essence of sin and separation from God is living outside of God’s authority. When we sin, we live under our own authority (or so we think; we actually are enslaved to sin). We put ourselves on the throne of our lives. We aren’t actually ruling (we’ve actually turned ourselves into puppets), but we’ve lifted up an idol of ourselves, thinking that we know best. Repentance is acknowledging that our life belongs to God, and letting him take the reins.

The rich young ruler in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18 kept the commandments. But he wanted to keep living life on his terms. He wanted to keep his wealth. Jesus said that if we try to hang on to control of our lives, we will lose our life (Luke 17:33). The key to life is to turn our lives over to the rightful owner.

Giving up your life is hard.

Grace: the power to repent

The truth is, we won’t repent; we won’t relinquish control of our lives. Not of ourselves anyway. Everything in our flesh clings desperately to ownership of our lives. It is only through God’s grace that we can repent. Grace isn’t the overlooking of faults. Grace isn’t expressing appreciation of someone undeserving. Grace is the power to do what we could not do in and of ourselves.

In 1 Cor. 15:10, Paul makes it clear that grace doesn’t just free us from the past, it is the enabling power behind our new creation. Grace has an effect. It makes us into something we couldn’t be without grace. In 2 Cor. 9:8, Paul reminds us that the power to do good works is a result of grace. Grace isn’t just an idea or an emotion. It has legs. It does stuff in our lives. As Hebrews 4:16 says, grace helps us. It is by grace that we saved (Eph 2:8).

Grace makes it possible for us to do the hard work of repentance.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

That should make the liberals and “progressives” happy.

Before the conservatives and “obstinate, backward, Bible-thumping fundamentalists” (or whatever other labels are applied by the lib-progs) get all defensive, let me explain why.

First off, not only do I think “abstinence-only” programs should be eliminated, I also think the term “Sex Ed” should be eliminated. This implies that kids are being educated about the “noun,” the “act” of sex. Sexual education needs to be about the “adjective,” educating our children about everything that is sexual, every component of life that relates to our sexuality. (In this regard, I’m advocating for comprehensive sexual education, although not the way it’s presented by the lib-progs.)

Sexual education needs to be much more than just the mechanics of sexual intercourse, the pitfalls of STD’s and unexpected pregnancy, and how to minimize/avoid those pitfalls. Sexual education should teach healthy sexuality, which is a lot more than just the avoidance of disease and unwanted pregnancy. Sexual education should teach boys and girls how to be men and women, how to be husbands and wives, and how to be parents.

Sexual education should emphasize purity, not abstinence. What does it mean to be pure in your thoughts, in your actions when you’re alone, in the words that you say to others, in how you dress, and in how you relate to members of the opposite sex? These are the questions we need to help our children answer.

Does sexual purity involve abstinence? Certainly! But it’s much, much more than simply not having sex until married. (Speaking of which, the “stay pure until marriage” pledges have got to go too. What, once you’re married, purity goes out the window?)

Unfortunately, the lib-progs don’t like purity-based sexual education any better than abstinence-only. (If anything, they like it even less, because it dares to instill “values.”) Also, the proponents of abstinence-only programs really want the same things I’ve advocated.

My issue is really the terms of our engagement as Christians. Sometimes we try to “soften” our ideals to make them more palatable to the world.

“You don’t like our idea of ‘sexual purity’? Okay, how about ‘abstinence’?”

It’s a cheap substitute, and they’re not buying it.

You don’t like ‘creation’? Okay, how about ‘intelligent design’?”

Now the argument shifts from “is there a Creator?” to “is Intelligent Design repackaged Creationism?” I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile argument. But, that’s a topic for another time.

As Christians, we need to raise our standards. We need to define our terms appropriately, and make sure we’re pursuing the right goals. “Pro-life” is not just a positive spin on “anti-abortion.” It’s much bigger than that. “Purity” is not the same as “abstinence.” It’s much bigger than that. Let’s pursue purity, and health, and wholeness, and do so without reservation.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.