What I wanted to find was an accurate map or globe. I've seen different map projections over my life and during my time spent as a civil engineering student. While searching for this information, I read an article on the true size of continents in relation to each other linked to a cool little resource. Check out this interactive map. I was reminded about the earth being an oblate spheroid and learned that it's not really perceptible to us, so a sphere globe is fine. I read an engaging article about the earth being a "bumpy spheroid." What I found interesting is a quote by geophysicist Richard Gross about the crust "rebounding upward on the order of a centimeter a year." He calls it postglacial rebound. In my mind, I cross-referenced it as possible data supporting the earth expansion (EE) theory. So, is the crust rebounding or is it bounding or both/neither?
Returning to my informal online research, I find this snippet about the earth gaining mass. Hmm. Physicist Dave Ansell attributes it to space dust and an effect of global warming (BTW, it's 0.4% of the mass that space dust adds, but hey "global warming"). What I'm really interested in however, is the nuclear reactor that he says is at the center of the earth! If I remember correctly, this is the sort of thing that the EE theory says is at the center of every planet (obviously every star too, but that's not disputed; although fusion vice fission, eh, a topic for a different discussion). Getting back to the article, the writer states that Uranium is the "most dense substance in our planet." But there are transuranic elements! What is he saying? Oh, maybe it's in reference to actual availability instead of mere possibilities that can be created "in the lab" (or in the cores of nuclear reactors!). So, let's take a look at a graph of abundance of the elements in the earth's crust (on a log scale). Anything not on this graph, is just about theoretical (I mean, we predicted it and produced it or found it somewhere and documented it, but we don't dig the stuff up). Despite having been challenged to think about the reality of the earth's elements outside of the framework of the periodic table of the elements, it seems like the Space Daily article will be a fun read for most scientifically minded people.
As I was reading this article (haven't finished it yet), I'm reminded about what Eric P. Dollard says about the creation of mass that occurs from "the square root of negative one." It makes me think about God in the act(s) of creation. I think, if a uranium powered natural reactor is "powering" the earth from the inside, what are it's capabilities? Does it take part in the creation of substances we find in the earth? We know that elemental decay is required to initiate and sustain the nuclear chain reaction. But what about creation? Can the decay (or spontaneous creation and recombination) of elements be a part of the creative or re-creative process? Is God using the decay even now for "making all things new" (Revelation 21:5)?
These thoughts seem far outside the scope of scientific inquiry. But I make no qualms. God created the world; I am simply trying to figure out how he did it.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Musings and Interesting Articles
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Writing Sample for Seminary: Ministry of Reconciliation
In 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Paul describes the ministry of reconciliation as the central ministry encompassing all others. We could easily confuse this phrase with the ministry offered by those involved in a specific type of counseling (i.e. reconciliation), but we would be conflating two concepts with different foci. In this discussion, I will not focus on describing the variant of counseling mentioned nor will I contrast the two. Instead, I will limit the discussion to defining the phrase Paul has used and describing what this might look like in our contemporary context.
When I study the scriptures using online tools, I typically use the website www.blueletterbible.org (BLB). I have enjoyed the ability to select a verse and choose from several bible study tools. Most often, I have used the tabs: “INTERLINEAR,” “BIBLES,” and “CROSS-REFS.” Within the last year or two, I learned that BLB uses the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge (TSK) for its cross-references. I also conduct more thorough word studies by reading every verse that a word appears in, including its cognates. I have gained much by the study of words and phrases using these tools and will be making use of them for this paper.
In this section, I will define the phrase “ministry of reconciliation” using the TSK cross-referenced verses listed by the BLB (as a more thorough study of the key Greek words in this passage is beyond the scope of this paper). Second Corinthians 5:18-20 describes reconciliation as the central act within salvation. Isaiah 52:7 is an inspiring passage that visually depicts and describes the ministry of reconciliation as good news, peace, news of happiness, salvation, and announcing, “Your God reigns!” Isaiah 52:19 details praise of lips, peace, and healing. Mark 16:15-16 speaks of preaching the gospel, believing and being baptized to be saved, and disbelieving to be condemned. Luke 10:5 records Jesus telling his disciples to proclaim peace to those who receive them. Luke 24:47 states, “that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Acts 10:36 tells of preaching peace. Acts 13:38-39 speaks of the forgiveness of sins and freedom from [sins]. Ephesians 2:17 refers to the preaching of peace to those far and near. Colossians 1:20 indicates that reconciliation is made, “having made peace through the blood of His cross.” In my preliminary estimation, it appears that the ministry of reconciliation is synonymous with “salvation.” From these few verses, I think we can begin to draw out the central themes: peace, preaching the gospel or “good news,” healing, salvation, reconciling, repentance, and forgiveness.
With this in mind, what might a ministry of reconciliation look like in a contemporary context? Verse 20 of our primary passage gives us an idea. “Therefore,” it says, “we are ambassadors…” through whom, it seems, God makes His appeal to the world. The mechanical pieces of this process would include evangelism of the lost, preaching to the saints, cure of souls, care for others physical well-being, worship with liturgy, practicing piety, modeling study and apostolic action, in short, using the gifts God has given us to serve Him and a world in need. Recently, God has been teaching me to seek for the lost that have prepared to receive the gospel by bringing to mind the following passages. Jesus spoke to his disciples,
Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ Luke 10:5-11 (NASB)He also said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6). “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10, cf. Matthew 18:11). “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.” (Matthew 9:12, cf. Mark 2:17 & Luke 5:31). It is too easy for me to think I am ministering in the way God wants me to, when I reach out to those around me who are comfortable, healthy, middle-class, and happy. Because they will not admit need and tend to spurn my attempts at gently helping, I am learning that approach is important as the message. But in light of the passages above, I am also learning that the “who” is just as important as the approach. If I spend all of my time trying to reach the happy and “healthy,” I am burying my talents. Instead I am seeking to employ a more effective approach: Use my strengths to minister to the greatest needs. It is incredible when we get out of God’s way, the work He will do through us. He has brought broken people to my family so that we may minister to them. Families are falling apart all of the time; we can most help those who are ready to be helped. When God brings them to us, we do not always recognize it. We sigh and think, “It’s so-and-so; they are so needy!” We are not always ready to love and guide them, especially if they resist. Having taken a counseling class in biblical counseling, I learned a little about directive and non-directive counseling. I recognize that some people will need different types of counseling at different times in their life. What I am finding out is that in my urban context, directive counseling seems to be necessary for many of the people that God is preparing to hear the good news. These are often simple people who recognize some amount of brokenness in their lives but lack the background and tools to adequately make the necessary changes to bring about reconciliation. Additionally, I suggest that three things are essential to keep us maturing in the faith: the Holy Spirit, our will guided by godly wisdom, and the community of believers (the antithesis of the flesh, the world, and the devil). So I am bringing the positive peer pressure to bear when the person in question has made a vocal decision to do the right thing, but wavers. I also pray that the Holy Spirit keeps them. So what about peace? Healing? Salvation? Reconciliation? If you cast your pearls to the swine, they will turn and rend you. It amazes me to see how scriptures tie together. Many Proverbs are devoted to the idea of keeping the peace. Many verses in the New Testament describe the Christian life as one of peace making. The ministry of reconciliation epitomizes the Gospel truth (John 14:6), a gentle approach (Col 4:5-6), and wisdom (Mat 10:16) in identifying those who have been prepared to receive. And in every case, it relies on dependence on Holy Spirit (cf. Phil 1:6).
In my mind, a description of the ministry of reconciliation in a contemporary context will not look very different from what it looked like 2000 years ago. We have not changed appreciably since the creation of the world. Reconciliation looked very different in the Old Testament, but Jesus Christ renewed our understanding. Today, especially in the Pacific Northwest, it is imperative that we rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, take the lead by modeling discipleship, and labor to understand the people to whom we preach the gospel, serving them in humility by meeting specific needs.
I know that God is at work and it is amazing to feel like I am along for the ride! Of course, that also means an outpouring of myself into the work to which he has called me. All of the blood, sweat, tears, angst, hurt, depression, and conflict are integral to our human experience and no less in being used by God to reconcile the world to himself, through Jesus Christ. But there is also a peace beyond comprehension experienced in the salvation and sanctification of the people He has chosen to reconcile to himself. Peace and grace to you.
Monday, July 4, 2016
The (In/De)structive Power of Knowledge
ty·pol·o·gy
tīˈpäləjē
noun
1. a classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences.
"a typology of Saxon cremation vessels"
2. the study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally especially in the Bible.
The "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" as Typology
In the garden of Eden, mankind was tempted to disobey God and to acquire knowledge outside of the timeline providence had laid out. I believe that every single one of us, fail in the exact same way as we choose independence from God as our first sin. We seek knowledge, experience, and life in ourselves: the very definition of selfishness. This can strike at any age. If you haven't looked into the face of a child, you understand that previous statement. But it matters little. You have but to speak truth in your heart to discover where you have done this in your life. I am ever the pursuer of greater knowledge. This has led me to the worst experiences of my life. Conversely, obedience followed by an unraveling of true knowledge has led to the best experiences of my life. By 'best' and 'worst,' I mean that my experiences themselves haven't changed much but my perception of them has. So what is typology and what are we looking at today? Think of the word symbolism when you read 'typology' and you'll be mostly there. It's more than that, but that will suffice for now. Today, I want to explore the idea that we can get too much knowledge too quickly or the wrong kind of knowledge too early.
Let's start with the easy examples. A two year old learns to unlock the house doors. He wanders out of the house at his leisure, which is dangerous if you live anywhere. Cars, animals, geography can quickly snuff out a life that acquired knowledge before self control. Oh, and then there's sex and drugs. I wonder what it's like? Pleasure is a type of knowledge. Ever heard of carnal knowledge? In our adolescence we explore. Are we doing so before we have the requisite character to exert self control? In most cases, I'm guessing, that is how it is. Anecdotally, I know it to be true for too many people. Lest I subscribe to an error of generalization, I look for more evidence in self reflection and in the source of true knowledge: christian holy scriptures. Upon reflection, I know that when I have pursued carnal knowledge, it has ruined my relationships. Weathering the storm, I realized if I had but followed the simple truths I knew to be true, but did not trust to be true, my life would be on a "higher path," so to speak. I say this as a warning to those who think themselves clever or wise. Follow the old wisdom and you will save yourself much heartache in life. I now understand that God had a timeline laid out for me. I would have learned what he wanted me to learn but it would have been in his timing and his way of doing business. The timing would not have been to my liking. I want to know things as soon as I can but it's not always for the best. Additionally, his way would have caused me a lot of turmoil but doing it my way cost me more. In the scripture, Judah and Dinah each in their own stories wanted to experience what others around them were experiencing but it did not go so well for them. Of course we have the prototypical story of Adam and Eve in the garden. They were supposed to eat of the Tree of Life. They were supposed to live forever! They were supposed to build their character and self control, in short become mature people. Then and only then would God grant them fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowledge of Good and Evil is not bad, but it is very bad to give that fruit to a child, this includes people who are "children" in their intellectual understanding and/or emotional maturity. I have not reached this conclusion lightly. But I do believe there is an innocence which must be protected in children. Training for obedience is the best way to do it. Everything else is secondary, but almost equally as important. In my line of work we say, "Trust but verify." It's exactly the right way to conduct this messy business of life. Find someone worth trusting, trust me on this, then trust them. Then verify that what they say is true. We do not advocate for blind trust here, but we do advocate for a thinking trust and loyalty. Back to obedience, children really want to know what it's like to grab that knife, but obedience serves them far better and when they develop the maturity to handle the knife, their curiosity has not lessened one bit, but there self control and self discipline has shot through the roof.
Now after saying all of that, I am not saying we should leave everyone in the dark until they blindly obey. I don't want blind obedience. I want obedience. (Babies) Then I want thinking obedience. (Children) Then I want thinkers who choose to obey. (Adults) This is how I see the path to the greatest knowledge. It passes through the corridors of the greatest maturity. Every other path reaches a dead end. Yes you will find great knowledge, just not the greatest. Yes, you will get more than you bargained for, just not exactly what you were hoping for. Self control must precede knowledge.
Should we teach our children philosophy? It's a double edged sword. If they do not have the requisite maturity to handle it, no, we should not. If we evaluate the individual child as being ready, yes, absolutely we should. Why do we "evaluate" children by age? We would do far better to take the time and effort (oh boy!) to individually assess and train up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord while challenging them to think.
Have I made my point clear? I'm not sure and will not be taking the time to take this "rough draft" post and clean it up. Knowledge is power. It can be instructive power for those mature enough to handle it but it can be destructive power for those who are not ready. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, because no one is ever mature enough to handle absolute power.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Using the Bible to Define "Justification" and "Sanctification"
Bp Tom Wright caused quite a stir when he proposed that we've been using the wrong definition of the word Justification.
New Perspectives on Paul
Apparently there's another hay-maker out there by the name of David Peterson. He's telling us that we've been misconstruing the word Sanctification for some time now, too.
Using biblical words in biblical ways
Sanctification is not about progress
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Answering Questions on an Application to a Non-Profit
1. I was brought up in a Christian home, expressing belief in Jesus Christ at 5 years old. I was baptized when I was about 12 years old. I experienced a change in my relationship to Christ when I was 17 years old and consider that the point of my conversion. Having been brought up in a legalistic church/family, I was pretty aware of my particular weaknesses and bore the guilt and shame of them for many years. My wife and I had a falling out several years back and God sent his servants into our life to keep us on the straight and narrow. It took several more years of me toughing it out before I released us both through forgiveness. For the last 22 months I have experienced the grace of God in a way I could only speculate about before. God healed me. God healed my marriage. God has further saved me from my weaknesses in a sanctifying sense; the battles are won daily by his grace.
2. The Bible is God-breathed and contains everything we need to know about God and how to have a right relationship with him. Jesus Christ is the messiah to the Jews first and the Gentiles by ingrafting. He is the Son of God and God the Son. He is fully God and fully man. He is my Lord and Savior. God raised him from the dead. His words will judge the world of sin in the last day. In his first coming, he came to save the world and not to condemn it.
3. I attend St. Charles Anglican Church in Poulsbo, WA. I am involved on a weekly basis with my church: co-organize a Sunday small group, teach Sunday School once a month, Acolyte once a month, meet up with an accountability group once a week, I am in the process of starting a small group fellowship in Bremerton which by God's grace will result in a church plant, and have just been elected to a three-year term to serve my parish as part of the Vestry.
Self Selected Positive Personality Traits
Adaptable, Agreeable, Alert, Amiable, Anticipative, Articulate, Aspiring, Balanced, Benevolent, Calm, Capable, Caring, Challenging, Cheerful, Clean, Clear headed, Clever, Compassionate, Conciliatory, Conscientious, Considerate, Contemplative, Cooperative, Courageous, Courteous, Creative, Curious, Decent, Decisive, Dedicated, Deep, Disciplined, Discreet, Dutiful, Dynamic, Efficient, Empathetic, Energetic, Enthusiastic, Faithful, Farsighted, Flexible, Focused, Forgiving, Freethinking, Friendly, Generous, Gentle, Genuine, Good-natured, Gracious, Hard-working, Helpful, Honest, Honorable, Humble, Humorous, Imaginative, Insightful, Intelligent, Intuitive, Kind, Liberal, Logical, Lovable, Loyal, Mature, Methodical, Meticulous, Objective, Observant, Open, Passionate, Patient, Peaceful, Perceptive, Personable, Precise, Principled, Prudent, Rational, Realistic, Respectful, Responsible, Scholarly, Scrupulous, Selfless, Self-critical, Self-sufficient, Sensitive, Sentimental, Sober, Sociable, Sophisticated, Studious, Subtle, Systematic, Thorough, Tolerant, Trusting, Understanding, Upright, Well-rounded, Wise
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The Depth of Leadership
David Marquet is a man who had the know-how and the opportunity to provide a counter-cultural shift in a heavily structured enterprise. Unfortunately his ideas have not been adopted by the bureaucracies that are at the same time threatened by his ideas, so it is no wonder. The military is not known for its innovation and creativity. This aversion to change may seem a necessary quality to some but it really stifles the ability to be human and to interact with others as humans.
Burdensome administration has clearly been identified as one of the hallmarks of the passing guard, but that guard has not yet passed. I think it will be at least a "generation" or more of the leadership changing hands before the cultural is unilaterally shifted. Adoption of Marquet's ideas now is only in the realm of possibility, vice probability. His situation was unique in that his squadron had all but given up on the idea of success of the USS Santa Fe. That being the case, his commodore had little risk aversion to try something innovative and creative.
Fast forward to today and you have an enterprise trying to systematize Marquet's ideas (a recognized "program" of success). Everyone is now ordered to use the phraseology, "I intend to..." and then carry on if there is no interjection by any team member present. But in practice the officer in charge will not carry on with the confidence he exhibits with this expression until acknowledged-essentially permitted-by his superior officer. So you have the enterprise paying lip service to an effective idea but without having the gall to actually live out the idea. Puppetization of followers into bespoken leaders is a far cry from the advice to "give control, don't take control."
Power, responsibility, authority and technical competence shifts up not down in a bureaucracy unless you intentionally change the "natural" process. Leadership is all about accountability. A leader is held accountable for the mistakes of his team. At this point a leader has the choice of blaming his team or making his team blameless (i.e. competent by learning from the mistakes). Trust is an eerily appropriate term to use here. It's eerie because it doesn't seem like it should apply to this aspect of leadership. It's absolutely appropriate because it is the fabric that power, responsibility, authority and technical competence is woven into. When a leader has to take the punishment for his team, he is highly likely to lose trust in his team and hold his supervisors accountable. So the responsibility moves away from the craftsmen to the supervisors. Another mistake and the managers are given the responsibility to ensure the craftsmen and supervisors are "doing their job." The cycle of stripping trust continues to deteriorate technical competence of the craftsman until they no longer have pride in their work. At this point, you will see people "jump ship."
Honesty, clarity and clear goals are paramount. So in a politically driven environment how is one to show s/he actually cares about her/his people? There are two ways to do this. Convince your people that you care about them regardless of your true feelings (unfortunately it works). Or actually do what is the best for them, at your own expense at times (that's leadership). This last course will net you the love and respect of your team but not your co-leaders and possibly your superiors. It is humbling to be honest with your team. In a highly driven environment where humility is reviled and pride is exulted, you as a leader will appear weak, incompetent and unable to measure up to the acceptable and required standard.
I had the moral courage to not give in to the "You're an f****** officer in the United States Navy, you tell your people what to do and they will do it!" I refrained from "all caps" here because I hate how it looks, but it should have been put in all caps. I walked into an environment where the managers and senior leadership were not generally trusted. I could not work with my team on an open and honest level. It took me too long to build rapport with the supervisors and I came so close to the ledge of jumping into the stereotypical "in-charge" leader. By God's grace I did not. I knew it was not me and I could not sustain the role. I also did not want to change into the kind of leader the system was trying to groom me to be. So the system rejected me.
This was my experience. These are my observations. This is my perspective. You can take anyone else from that environment and potentially get a view contradictory to mine on every point. I think you won't. I had the unique opportunity to read David Marquet's book, "Turn This Ship Around!" at the very beginning of my interaction with this enterprise and to stand as an auditor or evaluator of sorts. I am not bitter. I do not hate this community. I forgive it for the culture of bullying. And I love it for the incredible people I was able to meet, influence and be influenced by. I absolutely love submarine technology and will continue to stand as an outside observer and commentator for years to come. I look forward to a day when people are the number one mission, because that really is our mission. Think about it. Peace and Grace.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Church-State...Christians-Politicians
I grew up very much being taught to be politically conservative. But not one to simply carry on, I studied the philosophical underpinnings of what the conservatives claimed: free markets. This inevitably led me to Austrian economics and libertarianism as a result. But from the start I had embraced "Christian Economics" and had arrived by a different gate than most libertarians. Mine came through my theological studies primarily, which is foundational to all of my [good] thinking. Even here I found no refuge and have forsaken all political parties. I have abandoned the idea of "rights" which seem to me to be extremely selfish and have instead adopted the idea of "duties." This is a perspective change, however and not some wholesale pitch of a new ideology. Instead of the right to bear arms I believe I have the God mandated duty to protect my family. Instead of "blah" rights I have "blah" duties before God to do "such and such." Our duty must also be weighed in the balance between obeying our earthly rulers with God's rule from heaven (obedience of course, as long as there is no conflict). This is a very different ideology from Ayn Rand's; I would daresay it's the biblical one. Thus, I reject outright the idea that the conservative party represents Christianity in American politics. In fact, it represents the worst of religiosity's use of "god" to invade other countries, claim more power over men's lives and meanwhile holding themselves up as substitute messiahs (even though they prove themselves philanderers, thieves and cheats).
What is a Christian’s responsibility when it comes to politics? I look to Moses who set up the system of judges. I look to Joseph who was the second most powerful person in Egypt. I look to Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael who served a pagan ruler but did not partake in wickedness. So Christians may be involved. And I would argue should be involved in order to exert a godly influence. My view of the biblical argument: Christians can be involved in government without committing sin. In the cases where Christians are involved, we have an established precedence that where God’s people are, God’s mercy is extended (i.e. mercy is God’s law and love). Anecdotally it's kind of like this; given a controlled culture and government that claims the sovereignty that belongs only to God, I appear as a libertarian or even anarchistic. But if I were to live in an anarchistic country, I would appear as a statist/monarchist/socialist since I would call for the restriction of violence by the state. This always seems to be the rule: moderation in all things.
