My Terribly-Stream-of-Consciousness Answer

Michael, I also appreciated your blog post. I am curious about the danger you see in studying too deeply the arts of the Enemy. Do you mean something along the lines of what Jerome meant when he dreamt that Jesus told him, "thou art not Christian, thou art Ciceronian?" Do you think there's danger in learning about Greco-Roman culture because it can lead to what happened in the Renaissance, a turning away from Christian orthodoxy to classical ideals? (Extreme, gross simplification, but just wondering if that is kind of what you meant.) Or do you mean we should be careful about immersing ourselves too deeply in contemporary culture or philosophy that is un-Christian or anti-Christian, in secular learning, etc? I think that would be a very fascinating discussion!

Yes. Haha! I think all of those are dangers because there as many ways to stray as there are people! The way of truth and life is narrow and found in a person. Jesus was scrupulous, ethically and philosophically. It behooves us to mimic him. 

Lara, generally speaking, I'm thinking of what we often do to quantify sin and measure our success in overcoming it.  Some groups I've been in seem to be preoccupied with sin and cannot seem to get past staring at the thing as they fall into it.

As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence.  Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.

I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought.  The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions.  If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.

We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles?  If God is for us, who can be against us?

I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture.  I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).

There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture.  All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives.  To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.

Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points.  Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.

This undermines consistent reasoning.  If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.

Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.

In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.

If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?

The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it.  They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.

I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God.  I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision.  I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.

I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program.  I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.

I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes.  As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more.  Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.

After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating.  This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism.  In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.

If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad.  That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it.  This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly.  Instead it will be a by-product.

Knowing that secular philosophies are like bad maps from the outset should always allow us to have a healthy skepticism of every aspect they present.  Do leftist ideologies really result in saving the world?  Do far right ideologies preserve a holy way of life?  Only  Christ does these things and yet you will find Christians on both sides of the political divide saying "Yes" to one my questions.

Secular philosophies and eastern religions are even more treacherous.  They tend to "feed our flesh" and seem 'so right' at times.  When they do, we tend to be disarmed and accept what is being presented.  Rhetoricians have been practicing these methods for thousands of years.

Do we fashion ourselves to be too clever to be beguiled?  You betcha!  And it is then that we are taken.  Every time.  Whether as an individual "Hey look guys, we were wrong this whole time..." or as a body "Miracles were their way of explaining..." (at least the part of the body that chose "science").

Some may consider me uncultured.  Sour milk is cultured, well, it's on its way to be!  But I believe strongly in reading the bible devotionally, primarily and critically in support of devotion.  And I am a critic.  I will take the word of God to task, but as a son demanding to understand his father.

That is the only safe premise, or as safe as we can be with the God of the universe!  Academic theology is a waste of our resources when we are producing  PhD theses on the "cutting edge" which are not internally consistent.  These guys are convinced they are right because of their much studying.

Their depth exceeded their breadth.  I am too broad, which is why I am trying to gain some depth by working through the MDiv (and a masters of theology? I don't know).

I know what I subscribe to and I have barely plumbed the ideas core to my theological camp.  I may never get around to reading the pagan literature myself.  I trust those whom I read who have done so.  If God sees fit to promote me to the service of slogging through the swamp to rescue some pearls, I will do so.

But we have so much work to do with what we already know we are supposed to be doing.  Why entertain fantasies?  Are we so good with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, faithfulness, and self-control (did I get 'em all? ha!). 

Once we have mastered (as a church) all virtues, let the speculative theology begin!  We will be so grounded in the truth that we will never accept speculations which would turn our hearts away from God.  But maybe I'm describing our life in glory.

I think we should be very careful how much time we spend advancing our knowledge while our character remains underdeveloped.  Character first; knowledge second!  Tree of life first; tree of the knowledge of good and evil second (if at all).

Our thought life has a very real impact on our moral life.  If we cannot discern truth well, we have a good chance to be swept with every new teaching (Eph 4:14, the first part of that chapter is on 'unity in the body', which should be our premier task).

I do believe we should interact with the world, but how we interact matters.  We should influence, not be influenced.  This proposition is not a simple one to implement.

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

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

Notes: Comparing The Trinity and The Three Aspects of Transcendence/Immanence

Transcendence/Immanence: Creation, Redemption, Revelation

[Five Point] Covenant Theology

Reference:  That You May Prosper, Ray Sutton (at https://www.garynorth.com/SuttonCov.pdf)

Here are the five points identified (for an explanation read Sutton's book!).

T - Transcendence/Immanence/Sovereignty

H - Hierarchy/Authority/Legal Representation

E - Ethics/Laws/Obligations

O - Oath/Sanctions/Reward/Punishments

S - Succession/Continuity/Inheritance

Sutton quotes Meredith Kline, 

The purpose of the covenantal Preamble is thus to proclaim the lordship of the Great King, declaring transcendence and immanence and making it clear from the outset that his will is to be obeyed by the vassals, his servants. Biblical treaties set forth God's transcendence and immanence by referring to one or more of three activities: creation, redemption, and revelation.

Sutton's footnote citation: "David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 49. Emphasis in original."

Heidelberg Catechism

Reference at:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.vi.html

Part of the discussion of the necessary articles of true Christian belief (i.e., the "Apostle's" Creed) follows.

Question:  "How are these articles divided?"

Answer:  "Into three parts:  The first is of God the Father and our creation; the second, of God the Son and our redemption; the third, of God the Holy Ghost and our sanctification."

My Thoughts

I have previously identified (though it appears I have never written it down) the connection of the five points of the biblical covenant with the three persons of the Trinity in terms of roles(? Help me clarify this connection!).  I will outline it here.

T - God the Father
H - God the Son
E - God the Son
O - God the Son
S - God the Holy Spirit

This lends credence to the emphasis on Jesus, but reminds us that we are Trinitarians and why it matters.  I will have to write more on the reasons and implications in another post.

The point I am trying to make concerns the three aspects of transcendence/immanence and its explicit-though-not-exclusive relation to the roles of each person of the Trinity (I don't think the Heidelberg Catechism would have intended an exclusive position either. Certainly the Father created, but we know He created through/with/by the Son).

Incidentally, the Heidelberg Catechism identifies two aspects of transcendence/immanence with two persons of the Trinity (i.e., Father and creation; Son and redemption).  I am merely proposing identifying the third aspect of transcendence/immanence, Revelation, with the Holy Spirit.  Instead of sanctification* we should talk about the work of the Holy Spirit as the work of revelation, specifically general revelation** as realized through the growth/maturity of the church on earth.  Or as Jesus said it, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples" (John 13:35, ESV, emphasis mine).

Conclusion

Anyways, getting back to the Heidelberg Catechism, this means that the true articles which must be believed are simply statements concerning God's transcendence/immanence (point 1 of the covenant).  

Philosophical Postscript (I'll toss this in here for free!)

We see the full participation of the Trinity in the first point of the covenant.  If we looked at each point of the covenant, we would find the same pattern.  It is fractal-like.  This implies (or maybe I've merely inferred) that as we break down all of reality into its component pieces, we should be able to identify the full participation of the Trinity at each distinctive point.

Footnotes:

*On a side note, sanctification as a theological term may not be enough to quantify the relevant issues (I have previously posted about the weaknesses of the theological terms: justification and sanctification at http://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2015/02/using-bible-to-define-justification-and.html).  

**According to Sutton, special revelation aligns with the third point of the covenant, ethics, which I explicitly-though-not-exclusively associate with Jesus.  To illustrate this, Sutton, supporting his supposition that "history is covenantal", has a footnote which contains the statement, 'the third point of covenantalism called "ethics," or law, being "special revelation" to man'.  This forces me to clarify my association of revelation to the work of the Holy Spirit with the term general revelation.  Also implied, is that Redemption, an aspect of transcendence/immanence, through the person of Jesus shares a connection to Hierarchy, Ethics, and Sanctions.  To be clear, you are not saved by external observance of God's laws.  You are saved by the lawgiver, unto good works (as exemplified by Hierarchy, Ethics, and Sanctions).

PSA: Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You

PSA or PST or (P)
I continue to think about the critiques of the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement.  Here are my latest meanderings!

The article at this link isn't a defense per se, but it's a good read.  I hope that it could help as you think through your take on penal substitution.

Years ago I wrote a blog post pertinent to sin and redemption, which covers Christology, Anthropology, and Soteriology.  I identify the only two internally consistent rival theological systems of thought in Christianity and a third compromise system.  Most Christians likely fall into the compromise position, somewhere along a spectrum of developed theology.  You can find it here.  The post largely captures what I believe, though I might state things today in a more nuanced way to achieve a greater specificity in some areas or to open it up to more debate in other areas.

Flipping through the dissertation (The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: A Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution as An Explanatory Feature of Atonement by Blaine Swen) has led me to some further conclusions:

• I believe the author is Arminian and develops his theology along these lines.  This means that many of our fundamental premises will differ (I am a Calvinist).  Also see my blog post linked above on why this is an issue.  His reference list is radically different from what mine would be, if that makes sense.
• I am interested in the idea that Jesus appeared to forgive without demanding reparation.  The author of the dissertation does not put a citation in that sentence, but cites a Calvinist presentation in the previous paragraph (a bunny trail here, I follow up in the fourth bullet) (read it here).  As I am a Calvinist, I am interested why a speaker would say something that I would take issue with.  But it became clear to me after listening (reading software!) to most of his speech that we come from different camps regarding the continuity between the OT and NT as specifically relating to the application of biblical law in the NT church (I am a Theonomist).
• In searching for the speech I just mentioned (I found the above link on this page), I discovered a [late] former evangelical christian then agnostic atheist who criticized penal substitution.  Interestingly he also criticizes Philosophical Theology.  I kind of agree with his assessment of Philosophical Theology as he sort of agrees with my position (I am a Presuppositionalist), though he does not perfectly represent it.
• After realizing I was looking at the wrong citation, I edited the second bullet and followed through on the relevant citation. Perusing the Google book, looking up names (Rene Girard ... mimetic desire and scapegoat mechanism ... NO!), and reading the back cover has left me bewildered why the author of the dissertation would even quote this book favorably.  Maybe the philosophies align with his Arminianism.

I truly believe that the biblical approach to be taught is to reason from scripture (theology) not to reason to scripture (philosophy).  There is an inherent danger in attempting to reason to scripture.  I think that all Christians should be shepherded to reason from scripture and only mature Christians should be encouraged to join the great discussion (speaking with the enemy in the gates) and attempt to reason to scripture.  There is the danger of sophistry and making shipwreck of ones faith as Ken Pulliam did.

Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You
As I have reviewed these issues I am reminded that theological camps differ greatly and that premises determine outcomes (if arguments are cogent).  That being said, I don't wish to end the discussion but I would rather discuss presuppositions, world views, philosophical underpinnings, etc.  If you want to know why someone would be a Calvinist or the type of Calvinist that I am, I would love to discuss it.  Anything else is window shopping (as opposed to "how did the product get there?").  Choosing your theological camp largely determines your theological positions with regard to specific doctrines.  That sounds like a tautology.  But my point is to say that arguing which building has the greater structural integrity without discussing foundations is futile.

Delaying Moving for Seminary, Maybe Indefinitely

We have made the decision to stay in Washington state for the time being.  That time could be one year or indefinite.  We don't really know.  What we do know is that as a family we are not ready to go into the crucible that is seminary.  It is a crucible because it would involve three years of intense study, little disposable income, homeschooling challenges in PA, challenges regarding housing, and maybe a few more things that do not readily come to mind.

I think that deciding to deny myself something I've wanted to pursue since I was 18 years old is wise.  It is wise because it is the best choice for my family.  It is also wise because God has called me to minister in our local context. 

First, I have been called to minister to my family.  I have recently taken over the finances and am paying off our debts as well as starting to set up budgets and spending plans that will be forward looking rather than merely resolving day to day needs.  I was not able to serve my family in this way during my navy days.  I have been out of the navy for four years now and we are in a position where I can now do this.  I am also the primary disciplinarian in my home.  If I focus more on my studies, I will focus less on the nurture of my children.  This is only natural.  But what is better, four classes at a time that max out my ability to focus or one class at a time which raises a challenge but allows for focus on the nurture and care of a large family with several young children?

Second, I have been called to minister in my parish and diocese.  Ministering to youth and families is the closest to my heart in terms of passion and calling.  I have a strong sense of informal calling to a parish that is experiencing the addition of energetic families and young couples.  I may also have a formal calling; we will see if it comes to fruition.

Third, there is the general calling and admonition given to all Christians in the Great Commission.  We have spent six years here and are building community.  We have many connections through church, work, and homeschooling.  We want to get more involved in responsibly sourcing our food.  That involves purchasing grass fed beef, buying from local food coops, and starting to experiment with growing some of our own food!  I want to transition to working from home.  We'll see if this one pans out, but it has already provided opportunities to talk to people and hone my skills in writing.  Just the other day I was reading On Writing Well while waiting for my eye exam.  The optometrist took down the title of the book because he also has an interest in writing!  These connections are built over time.  Entrepreneurship is a way to serve the people.  A career in writing does just that.  It is also a way to influence people.  Preaching the Gospel isn't merely an exercise in spewing facts or logic, though it may include those aspects, but it is an opportunity to create fresh and vivid vision with words that people can readily accept and cling to as if their lives depend on it; they surely do.

Why leave?  Why leave when everything that I truly feel called to do is staring at me in the face?  My work is cut out for me.  If I fail it is because I knew what the right thing to do was, but I didn't do it.

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.

Dreaming, Planning ... Doing *sigh*

The advice to do anything well, heck to do anything at all, is to do it.  It is so obvious that it might even a tautology in the way I have constructed the concept.  Hmm, to do anything at all, you must do it.  Yep, sounds like a tautology.  But deciphering my cryptic writing is not my purpose here.  My purpose here is to write.  The advice was to write for at least an hour a day.  I have not done this.  But I haven't been trying to craft my career as a writer either.  Should I have?  Perhaps, but I needed to give up the poorer qualities that I have carried with me since I was young.  This will not be subject to excruciating edits and will be more raw than you have seen elsewhere on this blog.  Again, my purpose is simply to write.  I have not written much and may not write ever again after this.  But for now, my purpose ... Okay, got it.  Why?  It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in anything, supposedly.  Not doubting it.  I also watch a Ted Talk or TedX Talk on the concept that it takes 100 hours to basically master something.  How many things have I reached 99 hours on?  I don't know.  But there are some things that I want to reach 100 hours on this year.  Writing.  Music.  That might be all.  Other things that I'm hoping to hit higher numbers than even that would include study of the word of God, presenting of the truths so eloquently presented to us in the word of God (and sometimes crassly put as well), putting the principles into practice, living life to the fullest (in the confines of the way God would have me live, that is consistent with his character), growing as a Christian, maturing as a good husband, maturing as a good father, and so on.  I didn't think I had to go through all of that but I also didn't want to give the impression that writing and music were the only things I'm after for this upcoming year.  In any case, I hope you get the point that I will [try to] do stuff instead of just talk about it.  I will do stuff instead of just plan on doing stuff.  I am an inveterate dreamer.  The more I dream, the less I do.  The less I change.  I can be honest about it because there's no point in obscuring the facts.  There are few things that I passionately pursue in my life, but those few things I intend to do well.  A word of advice to you, if you are reading this, and really to myself divest [or continue to divest] the things that waste time.  Facebook.  Netflix.  I'm not saying cut off all the things, all at once, unless of course you really need to go cold turkey.  Life is freer when you unplug.  I love technology, but I am also at risk of worshiping it as well.  It is because I know this that I avoid it sometimes.  I tend to trail behind in the technology department.  I trail behind people who are not "tech savvy."  Sounds kind of pathetic doesn't it?  I dunno.  I have rearranged my mental space and seemingly created space and time that I didn't think was available.  I can't be a good dad because I work too much.  Well, instead of grabbing a beer on the way home from work, I can head straight home.  Poof!  I created time.  You can see what I'm talking about, can't you?  I have a house that's too small.  But I am getting rid of things I don't use, making better use of vertical space, and rearranging to eliminate wasted space and ... Poof!!  The house has loads of more room.  How is this even possible?  How can I have an entire room, actually two rooms freed up to be spaces for gatherings and children to play?  There is a little dreaming, a little planning, but all doing.  Without doing, it doesn't happen.  I'm back to my tautology!  Ha, but what I want to get to in this discussion is really, doing what needs to be done.  Doing what is possible.  Doing now instead of later.  I don't have time to go through another career transition.  I don't have time not to.  I don't have time to go back to college.  I don't have time not to.  Whatever you do, do it well.  Dream well.  Plan well.  Do.  And do it well.  I'm not sure if I'm going to transition my career or what that will look like, but if I do it, I will seek to do it well.  Commitment.  But also, not being afraid to simply try something.  Everything does not need to succeed.  I will probably fail, but I will fail well too!  That will be a good teacher.  Failure always is.  Failing to do, is not really failure, so that teacher doesn't count.  That lesson is regret.  It's not the same thing I'm talking about, so let's move on.  My primary motivation (dream, not plan) is to work from home.  Before I plan or do something to realize those plans, I will do somethings that I should have started doing a long time ago: write and make music.  Last year I got voice lessons after 14 years of remembering the old lessons and working through the things I needed to work through in order to grow in my abilities.  I had recently reached a plateau and a need for novice musicians opened up so I decided to answer the call.  I decided.  I never really did answer the call.  I dreamed, but planned in the very next instant.  Doing came with 5 lessons.  And then was followed by a jamming session with a band during their practice and an impromptu singing with the music team at church.  One or two or three more times singing in the music team and then others came who fit well in that space so the need for novice musicians is filled.  I am happy to be displaced.  There are other things that I do at church and cannot do everything nor do I desire to do everything so it's okay.  I still want to be a part of the music team and will figure out how to incorporate when I can and when someone else is holding onto my children (lol)!  But I have a bigger dream than even that one which is to develop religious music.  What's awesome (sarcasm) is that I don't know how to play any other instrument but my voice and I don't know music theory.  My experience with theory and other instruments is not non-existent, to be fair, but it's minimal.  I have a piano.  There is no reason that I cannot put in 100 hours this year.  That will give me a step towards my dreams.  It seems like a good plan.  But now comes the hard part, putting in the 100 hours, the doing.  We'll see.  Hopefully I will do it.  Hopefully I will do the same with writing.  You will know about the writing for sure because I have no better place to hold myself accountable than this long neglected blog.  And if, perchance I keep up with the writing, you will know if I keep up with the music because I need some kind of fodder to write on.  The rule is to write for an hour which sounds impossible and also sounds like it's not enough time all at once.  For now, I will write just to keep my thoughts leaving my mind and heading towards a medium that some writers use.  So that was to say that I will probably provide updates to my progress in general to keep the digital ink flowing.  Running out of steam here, I really need to shift gears and think about all of the things that I also need to be doing.  Repairing the washer machine.  My dream of being handy will come to fruition as mountains of clothes loom and clothes get washed because of the generosity of donated time sharing someone else' machine, water, and electricity.  So, it seems that doing will happen in this sphere out of sheer need.  Other projects include getting rid of useless junk.  I am tempted to hang on to it because of the advice to never give away what could be sold, but the virtue here is the greater need to de-clutter than to teach my family how to be entrepreneurs.  We will find another way to inculcate those themes, just not with the useless junk, for now.  House wiring needs updating.  Garage needs to be cleaned/cleaned out.  Debris/refuse needs to be delivered to the dump.  Also, mental breaks need to be taken from writing to smile at the children. :)  They are my pride and joy!  What wonders does this new year hold for me and those entrusted in my care?  I have dreams.  Dream with me.  I am hatching plans.  Hatch plans of your own.  Now, what will I do?  Hmm, what will you do?

Musings and Interesting Articles

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.

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.

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.