You don't fit in, neither do I.

Maybe this rant will make you feel better...

But, for everyone else who's thinking that my credo really is, "I am Wimpy, hear me whine!" just hear me out.

Keep the Faith! Please don't give up because of me being "me".

I'm sorry for being quick to react. I need to work on it.

Of course sugar and stimulants don't help, but they're not the problem...

Of course my upbringing didn't help, but it's not the problem...

Of course the church doesn't seem to know how to help, but it's not the problem...

Of course you have the same exact problems as me, but you're not the problem...

How do I deal with my emotions in a healthy way? Do I react and try to "fix it"? Do I sit and have a good cry before I do anything rash?

Has anyone modeled what "healthy emotions" looks like? Not what worldly wisdom says is healthy, of course.

Is every decision supposed to be scrupulously calculated? Am I supposed to let emotions take the wheel from time to time? Even if that means I lose friends, break trust, and find myself alone in the world?

When must emotions be expressed or when should they be suppressed? I'd be quickly categorized a "narcissist" by people around me.

So, is that how I get the "people skills", by being my "authentic self" in full (un)glory? After which, people would help me grow and develop...right? Eh, No.

They'd hate me. For being so judgmental, though I'd be reflecting back to the world the judgmental-ism that I feel.

They'd leave me. For being mean, though I'd be reflecting back to the world its own meanness.

They'd cancel me. For being different, though they said, "Be yourself!"

'No, Michael, if you'd just give us a chance...'

I thought I did.

I thought you rejected "me".

I've changed to suit you, but I'm still not good enough.

I'm alone.

And I'm not alone.

There are countless of us rejected by the world.

We have been rejected, ostracized, oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, and killed.

Some of us have come to terms: c'est la vie, "that's life".

Some of us have changed to suit the world to fit in where we can.

But we are still estranged.

I have found these people.

Some are religious, but not all.

I am.

They say I'd make a good pastor. They'd come to my church.

"Religious people" don't like "me", though.

I don't have "people skills".

I think it's that I don't "tickle their ears".

In my study of psychology, this is likelier an answer. Do I have my problems?

Yes, of course, but we all do. The way I see the world seems to be so different from the hegemonic ways for which people seem to clamor.

That's not me. But...

Like St. Paul, I'll try---I'll try to be "all things to all people". How?

I don't have a FUMEING CLUE.

Help!

Jesus, please help me. 

Is God's Kingdom in Earth? Heaven? Both?

I'm not treating the title specifically, but more pointedly. This blog post started out as a facebook comment, which has grown in size beyond the etiquette of posting on facebook! This is in response to a post on an eschatology (the study of the "last things") forum, "Postmillennialism - The Eschatology of Hope."

Short response:

Mark 9:1 "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

If this is a friend and/or friendly debate, it's probably worth it, but if it's just an avatar on the screen, *shrug*--ya' know?--discretion is the better part of valor.

If you really want to engage, check out my longer response at your leisure.

Feedback is always appreciated! Please let me know what you think. God bless!

Long response:

My Story
In my experience, all thinking is circular. That's not to say "all arguments are circular", which is a very different thing. Revelation breaks upon us and wrests our pride away from us, if we allow it. In our humility, we can stop justifying our beliefs and "transcend" what we hold as inherently true.

God has done this for me in my life. My father/the church did this for me from my youth. David Chilton/Gary North did this for me when I was 18 yrs old. Everyone I interact with becomes a source for me to rethink my thinking.

Why do I say this? If you subscribe to a coherent system of thought [of which Augustinian-Calvinism vs. Pelagian-Socinianism (per AA Hodge) are the two rival, theological systems], then you must understand the evidence proffered as proof from within that system and how it's necessary to that system to function. Anything less is throwing stones.

My opinion.

Note, most arguments are just stone-throwing-contests. It's why I've bowed out of general debate, which I did heavily in my twenties. I'm in my thirties now and OH SO WISE! (sarcasm of course; really, just burned enough, when I realized that even I didn't know what "Calvinism" actually was even though I defended it. Herman Bavinck helped).

How to Respond?
For a practical turn here from "my story", what can this person offer as evidence of their claim "Postmil[lennialism] by implication contradicts that and many other texts."?

You can continue to try and defend your stated position, but how well do you know it? People are often tripped up, not because they are defending the truth or a lie, but because they can't seem to defend it.

I believe a commitment to truth keeps more people in it than ability to defend it and that's okay. Obedience is more important than the sacrifice it takes to become a superb thinker/speaker/debater.

In "defense" of thy kingdom come...
I understand what they're saying. From their perspective this "proof text" does not constitutes proof. Agreed! Check out Mark 9:1 for something more like a proof text.

But their response fits well my understanding of thy kingdom come. Let me explain...

Theoretical and Practical Postmillennialism
IF they actually do what they're saying, I'd argue that the faithfulness of the bride increases AND influence increases. Or else the church is impotent.

What the church militant does in history is the apparent way the kingdom advances on earth (by His direction). If they reject that, fine. If they can't understand postmillennial thinking as a system of thought, well "aye there's the rub."

Epistemology (How we know "what we know")
Appealing to "context" is not a good argument against systematics. It's a good argument against eisegesis, aka "forcing in" our thoughts. But who would accuse Jesus or any of the Apostles with interpreting out-of-context when they applied the Old Testament in ways that were hitherto unconventional?

This person claims that postmillennial implications contradict Jesus' teaching. Can they show how? How can you be expected to respond with "truth in love" if you have nothing to respond to?

I wish I could sit down with every person I disagree with and we could logically work through every disagreement. Alas, this will not happen. And there's not enough time.

I hope this helps as you think through important issues.

Woman as Shield and Protector

I'm supposed to be writing a paper on authority. It's going to defend Paul's words according to the direct reading, but it's also going to dig a little deeper and find some agreement with the egalitarian position, though my paper will likely be seen as "complementarian." The problem is that Paul only seems to tell "half the story." Here, in this post, I try to finish "the other half" so that I can crystallize my thoughts. This will allow me to get back to report writing.

Let's begin with Psalm 3:3 (NIV).

But you are a shield around me, O Lord; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head. 

The Head of the Woman is Man

As I was thinking about the nature of "male-headship" (in I Cor 11:3-10), I wondered what it could possibly mean, other than "authority over," which is a forced concept. Although this is the nature of systematic theology:  you are trying to tie loose scriptures together into a coherent system of thought. Sometimes it looks like Picasso.

Paul uses the word "head" for a reason (I think he means head) and it's not directly apparent when you have the debates between Christian feminists and patriarchalists bouncing around in your head! As I continued to read, I realized that Paul is talking about this in relation to head coverings. I wondered, 'is Paul insinuating the head as a form of covering?'

As I thought about coverings, the shield as a motif of scripture popped into my mind. I searched for verses on shields and pulled up a page with ten verses on God being our shield. I noticed one verse that talked about God being our helper and shield. Then I thought of woman as helper. My next thought was, "Is woman as helper also shield?"

The Shield Lifts the Head

I then realized the connection between the shield and the lifting up of the head. Warriors hang their head in defeat when they have no "shield." It is when they feel fortified that they can lift their heads and face their enemies! The shield's effect is to protect and as a byproduct, lift the head ("lift the head" means so much more than that, but it also means just that too, so it's enough for now).

This dovetails cleanly with the imagery of the husband as head. That means the wife is the "body." Yes, she even turns the head! Lifting up of the head is one of the ways in which she has the power to turn the head. The head needs the body, the body needs the head.

Woman Represents God as Protector

In any case, I am seized with the idea that woman represents God as protector. This cuts against the grain of so much of what I have heard. But as I ponder what my "momma bear" would not do to protect her children, I know it is true. Woman is the protector.

Most of us also know woman as the nurturer. Putting them together, I see the woman as the nurturer-protector. It is in this way that she represents God. God is nurturing. God is our protector. Woman is the nurturer to the little ones. Woman is protector of her home. This is normative. I'm not speaking about theories.

What is Woman?

Woman is life: she is the mother of all living. Woman is occupier: she carries the life of the child within her. Woman is nurturer: she feeds the babies. Woman is protector: when evil comes to hurt her child, she contends with evil.

Woman is intelligent. The studies show it. Women know it. Interestingly, in the paradigm where man is "the authority," and the woman must appeal, the more complex position requiring greater intelligence is the appellate role. It's easy for a simpleton to say, "No!" It's eminently more difficult and requires greater intelligence and finesse to appeal the decision, thereby "turning the head."

You may think I'm justifying a broken system. I disagree. And I'm willing to have a discussion about this. I have thoughts about what this means for man.

Man Represents God's Authority

In the direct reading of scripture, man is the head. Traditionally, when taking all of scripture together, man is understood to be the leader of the home and the prototypical leader of the church. If woman is nurturer-protector, then man is leader-and what?

Is it a stretch to look for symmetry? I don't think so. What emerges is that man is leader-'judge.' In the servant leadership paradigm, his leadership is a "submissive" function. It's in the judging that the power-under-authority is exercised. Wait a second.

Woman Also Represents God's Authority

What does this mean about the role of women? The protector role is also an authority function! This makes the nurturer role a submissive function, as it expresses servant-hood, similar to leadership. So men and women both represent the authority of God, but in different, dare I say 'complementary,' ways. Likewise, men and women both represent the submission of God, but in different ways.

Men and Women in Unity Actually Represent God's Authority

Each without the other, we cannot represent God fully in his authority nor can we represent him fully in his humility. But there are differences in roles. So if Paul says that he does not permit a woman to exercise authority over men, it's in the leading-judging way that is meant. Women are not meant to cast their own vision, but to flesh out the vision of the man (similarly, men are not to cast "their own" vision, but to cast the vision which belongs to Christ; I know you'll think I'm equivocating, I'm not. However, it's too big to discuss in a parenthetical). And when I say man and woman, I really mean husband and wife, in the sense that marriage is normative in Christianity.

But women are to exercise authority in the form of protection. No man will oppose this, not in his right mind!

Why Do We Need Authority Anyways?

While there is evil in this world, God will need judges (those who sentence) and protectors (those who implement) on the earth. He has set up a paradigm *in the creation order* along the lines of sex, however unfair it may seem. I take this to be normative, but I don't take it to be exclusive ("I do not permit ... " would seem exclusive, but as I've stated, I think it's because it's a judging authority, vice a protecting authority, which is an authority under the judging authority. Think 'judge and bailiff').

Also note that in the absence of men exercising the judgment function of leadership (i.e., leading authority), women have risen up to exercise their protection function (i.e., nurturing authority) as a substitute. Because I don't view these roles as exclusive, I do not argue against temporary, limited, or minimal role-reversals. It is not normative, but I don't think it is forbidden. "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial."

Back to the Beginning

Over the years, my wife and I have worked out these concepts in our marriage. You may say that it is only for our marriage. Okay, but is true peace only for my marriage too? What about happy, obedient children? Is that only for my family or is it for all families? There are scriptural principles which apply to all.

Whether you accept or reject them is another issue entirely. I know my wife has been my shield. I know how she has protected this family. I know how she has protected others outside of our nuclear family. That is her role. It is normative. She does it without thinking about it.

Those of us who ponder things could learn a lot by observing those who do not. I didn't have to tell my wife to be a shield, she just is. But, ya know, now that I've told her that she's a shield, she understands her role much better. She can live in freedom. And so can I, because she's got my back! She is my earthly shield, protector, helper, and defender!

UPDATE 8/24/19:
I read an article which refined my thinking about the paradigm (see edits above inside the asterisks) being tied to creation order vice the curses at The Fall. Check it out: http://www.rabbisaul.com/articles/childbearing.php

The Long Answer to a Fairly Complex Question (Short Answer is Bolded)

NT 500:  Introduction to the New Testament
Dr. Cletus Hull
Starter Question (in italics) - Week 1 (posed by a classmate)

My first question is: I wonder if there is anything instructive for us today in looking at how the Hellenistic world received the gospel.

Do we know such things?  Can we homogenize the Hellenists that came to faith into a single group in order to do such things?  If so, we should figure it out and employ what we learn.  

We are saved as individuals and a body...Yes, but can we really talk on grand scales?  I see balance between objective/corporate faith and subjective/individual faith, but I have a hard time talking about overarching schemes at the expense of the introverts of the world.

I think we need to be careful about viewing our efforts on the grand scale.  Did the "Hellenistic world" receive the Gospel, or did individuals receive the Gospel?  I ask these questions, but as I come to the end of these thoughts, I realize that half of people (possibly more than half) are extroverts.  

But this thought only complicates matters.  Some people align themselves along social norms.  Are they to be condemned for doing so if they are aligning themselves with the Christian faith?

Does this bear out the necessity of the Christian nurture of our covenant children?  If so, shouldn't we be fighting for Judeo-Christians ethics as the basis for civil law? More than that?  I think I raise more questions as I attempt to share my thoughts!

Are there any similarities with how people are inclined to hear the story of Jesus today? 

I hear your question about similarities, but first I have to address a dissimilarity so that I can move past it to your questions.  The Greeks and Romans lived in a time before Christ and the ascendancy of the Christian church.  

We, in the West, live among pagans who know that Christianity is/was the dominant religion of the West.  I think it's important to keep this in mind as we talk about the enemies (aka, the mission field) of the cross.  It is especially important if/when we discuss a special case: militant/hostile ex-Christians.

"It's all about peace man."  I feel like a lot of people (in the Pacific Northwest) hold to the idea, "It's okay to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone."  Partnering with the idea of peace, we can talk about the Prince of Peace.  

People will resonate with the idea that Jesus was "all about peace."  It gets tricky when we have to talk about forsaking all else to follow Jesus (i.e., the point of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 10:34).  Ultimately Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  

We will eventually have to teach ethics, which will run contrary to "do whatever you want."  I think we need to learn how to understand, then teach the concept of accountability as a tool for promoting peace (cf. Matt 18:15).  I believe there is a way to have these discussions with pagans, ex-Christians, "unchurched," etc.

Could we describe certain aspects of our culture as neo-pagan, and should this impact how we minister and bear witness in our own present day?

Absolutely!  Self-consciously so, in fact.  People in the West are purposely throwing off the "schackles" of Judeo-Christian ethics.  You don't have to look far to see the cultural fascination with pre-Christian paganism.

Before we got rid of Netflix, there was a whole slew of new shows coming out which heavily featured pre-Christian paganism.  While we had Netflix I watched/knew of several shows featuring magic (the practice of which was a capital crime in the OT).

As the ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Gospel spread, we will come to face violent opposition (until/unless revival really happens; I'm neither a doomsdayist nor a revivalist).

Understanding where people are coming from will always help in how we frame the discussion.  Ultimately, that's what we're talking about, right?  How should we frame the discussion knowing what people believe?

See Matthew 10:16ff.

I wonder what their experiences of living under oppression and waiting for a messiah can teach us about bearing witness to Jesus in our own age, in which we wait not for a messiah but for his return. 

As long as we understand a few things.  Jewish captivity came as a result of covenant breaking.  We are not under severe oppression in the West, though it could happen.  Anything can happen!

Did they obey the law of God?  Did God bless them as He promised to do so in the law?  I think these would be strong indicators of what model of faith to follow.  Even after God could have rejected them for breaking covenant with Him, he continued to bless them when they were faithful, even in the years of captivity and oppression (brought about by their own disobedience!).

But this is the pattern shown to us by scripture.  God's mercy endures forever!  He wouldn't bring back the Israelites from Egypt too soon.  He wouldn't bring judgment on the Amorites before their time.  God is gracious and we should not presume on His kindness.  

He left a Priestly order in the city of Salem (Melchizedek, cf. Hebrews 7:3) calling them back to repentance.  How many generations scoffed and God was patient?  We don't know.  We only know the bits we have in scripture.

So we wait.  We occupy till He comes.  No matter what.  I believe that's what the faithful Jews did.

Overall, my question is: What is important about the religious and cultural milieu into which Jesus was born? 

For me, understanding this milieu helps me tie in even more strongly to what Jesus did and said.  If he had grown up in an ascetic community, it might be easy to write him off as a product of his upbringing.

However, he astounded people because a "person of the land" was not 'supposed' to live a holy life or speak with such authority/doctrine.  But he did.  We would be wise to hear him.  I am encouraged that what I learned as a Pentecostal youth still applies.

I can live for Christ with abandon!  If this statement does not make sense, try to follow Jesus words explicitly and see what opposition you find.  Apply Jesus' words principally and even more resistance will develop.

Jesus grew up around people like us.  He gave us an example of holiness we can follow.  He gave us an example of learnedness that we can follow!  Praise be to God!

Should we study it purely to understand the history of the early church, or can we see in that world a parallel to our world, especially now that we are living in a society that many are calling post-Christian?

History is as bad as memory.  We can learn from it.  We can also "rewrite" it.  How we frame the narrative matters a lot.  I think we should study history so that we can learn from it.  In my mind, there would be no greater purpose for "understanding" the history of the early church.

Of course, I'm a fish in water.  I live in a "post-Christian" world (haha).  Transport me to a different time and place; maybe I would think otherwise.

Dr Hull chimed in:

I would love to hear about the methods people in the class are reaching others for Christ in a neo-pagan and post-Christian world. What can we learn from how the apostle Paul dealt with this situation?

See Ecclesiastes 12:9-12.  I think there is wisdom in understanding Greco-Roman culture and beliefs but there is also a danger.  I think there is wisdom in learning what people today believe, but there is also a danger.  

As Tolkien said in the Fellowship of the Ring, “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill.”  Be careful in trying to integrate worldly philosophies/ideas (note: I am an "integrationist" according to the Assoc. of Certified Biblical Counselors; though I consider Biblical counsel 'alone' to be the starting point.  I know, I know, we always read from our context!).  Colossians 2:8 may apply here.

See Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

Truth is truth.  Philosophers will eat me alive for saying what I just said but [T]here is a simple truth (wisdom) in obedience.  It is not complex, but it is true.  

Growing up in fundamentalist circles, I have seen the misuse of Scripture as pretexts for whatever rules seemed right.  And yet, I also see that the scriptures may be reduced to principles and adapted/applied.  

However, I have come to learn that a lot of people do not read things the way I do.  For those who can get to the principles of scripture using an English bible, the study of languages, history, and culture will move us from reading "black and white" to reading in "technicolor"!  

For our more linear thinkers, these studies are indispensable.  They must get to the original mindset of the writers with more effort (they have incredible strengths elsewhere, but intuitively getting to the writer's mindset is not one of them.  The ability to predict what someone would say is reason enough to assume you understand them.  Take 'em or leave 'em; those 'er my thoughts!).

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Revisiting Writing as a Career

What has gone on that you want to know about?  Well, I haven't blogged as you know.  I have participated in music a lot more this year than any other year of my life.  I am getting comfortable with singing into a microphone (it was weird the first dozen times, or so).  I made the decision to attend seminary.  Really, it was a decision 16 years in the making, but the plan is for the fall of 2019.  Trinity School for Ministry (TSM, aka "Trinity")(near Pittsburgh), here we come!  I have learned to type, finally!  I am getting up at 4 am, reading a bit of scripture, then reading a book on homiletics (in preparation for seminary).  How did we get here?

Singing
The volunteers for serving at the altar have increased in number.  The amount of times I am on the schedule for each quarter has dropped, freeing me up to join with the musicians in leading congregational worship.  Some days I fare better than others.  No, it's not a "performance."  Yes, the word "perform" still applies to how a person 'does' music.  In that way, my performance isn't always where I would like it to be.  I want to aid in the worship, not distract.  Enough on that.  Morning singing?  Yuck!  Who knew?  Not I.  I don't have enough time to warm up my voice and then give it time to recuperate following the inevitable over use/straining/whatever I am doing.  I am left on the horns of a dilemma.  Do I warm up or do I risk losing my voice (due to fatigue, yeah, I think that's what it is)?  Any morning singers out there who could help me on this one?!  (Maybe I should ask my voice coach.  I just stopped going after 5 sessions in 2017 partly due to time and partly due to money.  But if your'e ever in Seattle and want a good coach, check out Chris McCafferty, he really helped me on my journey of getting to the next level.)

Seminary
It started back when I was 18 years old.  I have never lost that desire to attend seminary and become a pastor.  Is it the INFP in me?  More on that later.  Anyways, I attended the Diocese of Cascadia 2018 Spring Men's Retreat and was confronted with many thoughts.  What is God trying to tell me?  Will I leave this weekend with answers?  If I get quiet enough, maybe.  My Bishop poked me about attending Trinity for something like the third time in as many years.  God, do you really want me to uproot my family and leave all of the connections we have been making here in the Pacific Northwest?!  I was brought up in Evangelical circles.  If there is anything that we want to hold onto more than God, let that be ANATHEMA!  I put my growing attachment to this area on the "altar" and it became abundantly clear to me that it was time to pack my bags.  Three years prior, when I was leaving active military service, we counted the cost and realized that we would not be able to afford going to seminary at that time (we are on track to be debt free as we embark on this journey, God willing).  Then I threw a proverbial dart at the dartboard, aiming for the Fall of 2019.  And here we are!  Time will tell if God is with us.  I have a sneaking suspicion, He is.

INFP
Speaking of typing, er, I mean type; I love my 'impossible' segues, sometimes they're all you've got.  I slowed down my typing a year ago.  I was henpecking with the best of them, but I wanted change.  Now I'm typing about as fast (maybe faster, at times) than when I was a full time 'chicken.'  That has no relation to this paragraph's title "INFP" to which, we will now turn!  I have always tested as an ISTJ when taking those fun, online MBTI tests.  I have never been fully satisfied with it however.  Or I cannot just leave well enough alone.  Unfortunately people (read: I) take these things in a predictive manner (think: astrology).  I didn't intend to, it just came too easy in self-analysis to use what I learned and in verbally presenting myself to others.  In 2014 I learned about cognitive functions and I realized that my earlier assignment may have been wrong and I could likely determine what my personality type really was and is.  After a bit of reading and analysis, I determined that I could not be a J type and was clearly a P type.  So, I did the second worst thing you can do with personality typing (my created list of worsts, of course; the first of which I mentioned above) and I changed one letter of the four in ISTJ.  I now identified myself as an ISTP.  This I have learned is totally NOT legit'.  My brother, in one of his prescient moments over the years, said that he thought I was more intuitive than I gave myself credit for (uh! ending with a preposition, I know; hence the parenthetical, oh yeah!).  Reading more about cognitive functions, I came across this website:  Type in Mind (that's a link to my type, BTW).  I knew enough to figure out my type, finally!  I knew my cognitive functions and I could only be one of two types:  ISTJ or INFP.  Well now, doesn't that give you pause for reflection?  Maybe I am an ISTJ.  Really drilling down on my personal history (all in my head, so you cannot validate this, you'll have to trust me, or not), bending my powers of thought to the task, and trying my best to be frank with myself, I have concluded that I have always been an INFP and that I will probably test as an ISTJ for the foreseeable future given my upbringing and the first 30 years of my life spent in a "Te grip."  Look it up.  It took talking to a psychologist to break me out of this grip (none of this was discussed then and there, BTW.  This is all hindsight analysis).  It is all kind of a "laugh."  I should not have put so much stock into this stuff and yet I could not ignore it either.  If you suffer from what I do, I'm sorry for your plight.  Talk to me, maybe I can help.  After all, I'm a "healer" type (INFP), at least I think I am ;)

Homiletics
I have a suggested reading list for seminary preparation.  On that list is a book on exegesis and hermeneutics.  But as I was reading that book, I was starting to get "that" feeling.  You know what I'm talking about.  "We are probably going to argue, a lot."  My ink started to spill into the margins of the page as I progressed through a book which promised to be as helpful as a bowl of warm soup to an empty stomach (my metaphor, not the publishers).  Alas, I was disheartened.  Am I such a contrarian that I can't get along?  Does this foreshadow my seminary experience?  But before I could succumb to the "just deal with it," I remembered that I had a book in my library which pertained (if you are serious, you have a library full of books which you have not read and may never read, yeah, that serious, now you know).  As I started reading it, my fears and anxieties transformed into an excruciating intellectual "suck."  By that, I mean that it feels like I'm having to vacuum my mind of cobwebs and other junk which may be clouding my ability to put what I am learning from this book into practice.  Backstory - I read Days of Vengeance when I was 17/18 years old and became hooked on the way of thinking presented in the pages of that volume.  Fifteen years later, I finally read the book outlining a thesis which helped that former book to take shape.  This book is titled That You May Prosper.  In the bibliography, a seminal book was identified Sola Scriptura.  It is this book, the author intimated, which should be read by everyone who desires to preach the Word of God.  It is here, in the pages of this doctoral thesis, where my mind has been of late.  It is here where I grieve through the process of purifying my thinking, blundering about, trying to understand the author.  If I have cracked out any meat from the husk thus far, it has left me sore grieved to think about how badly we have preached the Word of God to the people of God.  I'm not talking about a "we've all been doing it wrong until now" kind of mentality.  I'm talking about an open discussion/debate which took place in the 20's and 30's in reformed churches in the Netherlands and was never settled, to the detriment of the reformed theology preaching community.  I haven't finished the book, so I really cannot say more without (probably) misrepresenting the issues at play.  Suffice it to say that, if Sidney Greidanus is right, I have a lot of work to add to the "a lot of work" I already knew I had to do in getting into this particular vocation.

Writing
Now to be more definitive (in line with the title of this post).  If you google the careers for an INFP, I have done the ones that are "bad" for my type.  Don't I know it!  I am revisiting the old ideas which have never quite left me alone.  Writing is one of them.  In a writing career I can tap into my strengths as long as I develop my career along those lines:  independent, creative, and innovative (not the qualities that the military is looking for, despite recent initiatives to the contrary).  It is scary to say the least, to contemplate another career change.  But I know that I have the support of my family and that a happier me (not that happiness is everything, but it is something) will alter our family life for the better.  I don't know if the "pulpit" of writing is what I have been called to or a pulpit in a parish setting or neither.  All I know is that I have thoughts, healing thoughts and they are burning in my chest.  The time to share them with the world has come (prompts like this help too!).  Stay tuned for more.