Another Heard song...

All Is Not Lost - by Mark Heard When civilization takes a nasty turn And concepts are hushed when books are burned All is not lost All is not lost When swine are the ones who steal the pearls From the human oysters of the western world All is not lost All is not lost TRUTH LIVES ON TRUTH LIVES ON TRUTH LIVES ON When beauty seems beaten by the callous beasts And it looks like it will be 'cause history repeats All is not lost All is not lost You can still see grace in the children's eyes And this planet's face still gladdens the wise All is not lost All is not lost TRUTH LIVES ON TRUTH LIVES ON TRUTH LIVES ON When the hand of man becomes inept And sketches the truth in silhouette All is not lost All is not lost The hand of God has not worked in vain And this globe is fodder for the feeblest brain All is not lost All is not lost TRUTH LIVES ON TRUTH LIVES ON TRUTH LIVES ON

Stay Tuned...

Well I'm back. It was a hectic week away from home, and tomorrow night (Monday) we have an Open House with our Home School ISP. Thanks for the kind words in the comment section (and for confirming that I've got at least 7 readers). I've got a lot of things I'd like to write about... but I've still only been able to squeeze 24 hours out of a day. In the meantime, to stir up your thinking juices, here are the lyrics from a song by the late great Mark Heard.

The Golden Age They say this is the Golden Age Video millennium Tidings from the self-made media sage Tickings of the bio-bomb Jet-set etiquette consciousness Monosyllabic goodbyes No one cares about no one else We're so used to the capital "I" THE GOLDEN AGE (Electric Neanderthal) THE GOLDEN AGE (With digital morality) THE GOLDEN AGE NOTHING REALLY CHANGES IN THE GOLDEN AGE They say this is the Golden Age In which both virtue and flaw And the entire human element Are effects of the quantum laws Deep in the wells of the centrifuge The spectrum of the soul is mined It seems we know ourselves too well And we don't like what we find THE GOLDEN AGE (Electric Neanderthal) THE GOLDEN AGE (With digital morality) THE GOLDEN AGE NOTHING REALLY CHANGES IN THE GOLDEN AGE They say this is the Golden Age We've got the tapes of the truth in drag We've got thermographs of the fires of hell And renderings of the cosmic bang If this is the Golden Age Are we no longer human beings Are we civilization's afterbirth Some kind of flesh and blood machines THE GOLDEN AGE (Electric Neanderthal) THE GOLDEN AGE (With digital morality) THE GOLDEN AGE NOTHING REALLY CHANGES IN THE GOLDEN AGE

Out of town...

For my 5 readers... I'll be out of town until Friday, June 10th. Happy blogging!

See no evil...

Sometimes we only see what we want to see. In a recent post, Instapundit claims that

there's not much support for the idea that more-available porn (or pro-sex material generally) is doing any harm to America's children.

Only a few posts earlier, though, he praises a new children's book by Buzz Aldrin because, as per the NY Times,

Thanks to video games, TV shows and movies such as ''Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith'' that are loaded with special effects, today's children don't have a realistic impression of space or space travel...

Thus, on the one hand, more-available porn is not adversely affecting America's children; but on the other hand, more-available sci-fi is. How about a re-write? Consider,

there's not much support for the idea that video games, TV shows and movies such as "Star Wars: Episode III --- Revenge of the Sith" are giving today's children an unrealistic impression of space or space travel...

and

Thanks to more-available porn, today's children don't have a realistic impression of sex.

Yeah, that's it.

To Serve Man...

"Why should I follow Christ?" Is the 21st century paraphrase of this question, What's in it for me? Contrast with the first century question, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30) I recently heard preaching which included the line, "Jesus looked beyond my faults and saw my needs." Jesus looks beyond my faults? Is this the same Jesus that initially said, after a paralytic was lowered to him through a hole cut in the roof above, "Son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5)? Or is it the same Jesus who told the sinful woman that anointed him, "Your sins are forgiven" (Luke 7:48)? Perhaps it was the Jesus who told the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and from now on do not sin any more" (John 8:11)? My concern with over-emphasizing the relational and "need-meeting" aspect of encountering Jesus Christ is that we tend towards glossing over the politically incorrect notion that we are sinners in need of redemption. Jesus does not look beyond our faults. He stares right at them and brings them to our attention. Indeed, if it weren't for our faults, there would have been no need for redemption. That He is able to meet our needs is but the downstream result of whether or not we acknowledge our need for redemption.

Jesus, I am so in love with You

There are several good posts at Mere Comments regarding the phenomenon of how we tend to so focus our worship towards Jesus, that we effectively ignore the first and third persons of the Trinity. S. M. Hutchens writes, The Problem with Loving Jesus and More on Loving Jesus, and Russell Moore writes, Where Everybody is Somebody, and Jesus Ignored. What is it about our culture, here in America, that motivates us to emphasize a personal relationship with this Jesus who loves us? Do we tend to overemphasize this aspect and, as a result, the person of Jesus in our worship? Consider the worship song Let My Words Be Few, from which partial lyrics were used as the title for this post.

You are God in heaven And here am I on earth So I'll let my words be few Jesus, I am so in love with You The simplest of all love songs I want to bring to You So I'll let my words be few Jesus, I am so in love with You

Is this a pattern that is modeled in scripture? What are we to make of, say, Psalm 100?

Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth! Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing! Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name! For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations. - (ESV)

Or how about The Lord's Prayer? Or the doxology? Do we, in our eagerness to experience the closeness that a personal relationship entails, lose sight of proper Biblical Theology in the process? Why, indeed, do we worship God? Stop and listen to the lyrics of most of the worship songs sung at a typical evangelical church. Do the songs primarily echo the fact that God is God, and He is owed worship simply because of who He is (remember the Greatest Commandment)? Or do they more often than not exude experiential fluff, straining for an intimate relationship, in the hopes of satisfying a deep longing? There's a version of Let My Words Be Few that plays on the local Christian Radio station in which the female singer passionately sings,

And I'll stand [heavy breath] in Awe [heavy breath] of You [heavy breath]

Theological heavy breathing, I suppose. Who is the God we sing to in our worship services? For that matter, who is the God we hear preached about? Is it God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or is it a gentle Jesus caricature that we're supposed to be so in love with? As a kid, I remember hearing evangelicals deride Catholics for supposedly leaving Jesus on the cross on the icons in their churches. Have we evangelicals, through our misplaced zeal, confined the Father and the Holy Spirit to a back row in the church, only allowing the Spirit freedom to move about when we desire a life-changing experience? Hutchens, in More on Loving Jesus, states,

This has brought me to reflection on how God is worshipped in churches that do not deny the Trinity, but are obviously most comfortable directing their worship toward the Son, and the question of how true this worship is. (We might also bring in at this point the churches that place a great deal of emphasis on the Holy Spirit.) I am not going to make any judgments on individual cases here, but think an admonition is in order. When we speak of God, we mean the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Father being the Source and Origin of the eternally begotten Son and the eternally proceeding Spirit. It is the Father toward whom our worship is to be pre-eminently directed, in and through the Son and the Spirit, with whom he is worshipped and glorified. To the degree this or similar formulations give difficulty or sound offputting, I suggest it is to that degree our worship and theology need to undergo examination and reorientation. In this mind also (I believe) lies the antidote to a great many of the modern heresies with which Dr. Moore is so rightly concerned. I do not wish to by any means slight the fact that we only know the Father, can only come to him, can only worship him, through the Son, and in the power of the Spirit. What I am speaking of here is the difference between the means and the end in which the means is contained. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, but it is the Father to whom he is bringing us, and toward whom all true worship, that is, worship by and in the Son and the Spirit, is directed.

Amen.

Bad Theology...

Melinda Penner has a post titled, The Study of God, which addresses the all too prevalent phenomenon in which Christians (in this case, a pastor) seem to think that theological study is relatively unimportant (when compared to more experiential activities, such as ministering to people). Let’s take it one step further, though, Melinda. How about when theology is used, but it is bad theology? For instance, how many times have you heard Jeremiah 29:11 quoted as indicative of the blessings God is just waiting to bestow upon us? I’ve argued before that one must at least read Jeremiah 29:10-14, which is the paragraph that contains verse 11. This is an application of the Never Read a Bible Verse tactic that Greg Koukl, among others, teaches. When this approach is used on the paragraph just mentioned it should become clearly evident that the two sentences which bookend the paragraph, verses 10 and 14, indicate that the blessings mentioned were time, place, and recipient specific. But don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself:

29:10 "For the Lord says, ‘Only when the seventy years of Babylonian rule are over will I again take up consideration for you. Then I will fulfill my gracious promise to you and restore you to your homeland. 29:11 For I know what I have planned for you,’ says the Lord. ‘I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you. I have plans to give you a future filled with hope. 29:12 When you call out to me and come to me in prayer, I will hear your prayers. 29:13 When you seek me in prayer and worship, you will find me available to you. If you seek me with all your heart and soul, 29:14 I will make myself available to you,’ says the Lord. ‘Then I will reverse your fortunes and will regather you from all the nations and all the places where I have exiled you,’ says the Lord. ‘I will bring you back to the place from which I exiled you.’ - NET

Only when one ignores verses 10 and 14, and reads verse 11 as a standalone passage, does the idea emerge that God has plans of prosperity for us, here and now. In fact, if one really wanted to push their “imminent prosperity” claims, they should go the whole nine yards and butcher the entire paragraph, taking not just verse 11 but verses 12 and 13 as well. That’s exactly what I heard recently; Jeremiah 29:11-13 referenced as a foundation for the blessings God desires for us. Excised were verses 10 and 14 – key verses if one wishes to understand the meaning of the paragraph, let alone chapter 29, and let alone the book of Jeremiah. Now while it is certainly possible that God knows our plans, and has prosperity waiting for us, this passage of text is not telling us that. Melinda states,

…how can you minister to people without doing theology? You need to have a view of man before you can help someone in order to accurately diagnose their spiritual condition. You have to have a view of God and Jesus before you know how God might help the person in need.

I would also argue that, while limited theology could hinder effective ministry, bad theology hijacks it.

Rusty Nails, 5/18/05...

You Decide Russell Moore posts on Evangelical Effeminancy, at Mere Comments. He writes,

Every American evangelical is familiar with the phrases "I just don't have a peace about it" or "Let me pray about it." To many these comments seem deeply pious and spiritual, but they can just as easily mask the sin of a lazy and indecisive Christian. This is particularly a problem among Christian men, who often are paralyzed for months or years about decisions ranging from wedding engagements to career choices because they are still "seeking a word from the Lord."

How did we get to the point where, in seeking a word from the Lord, we ignore the Word from the Lord? ******** They just don't get it Over at The Panda's Thumb, in the post Note to meteorologists: You're next, we get the drivel,

Now, of course, I don’t actually think for a second that naturalistic meteorology actually undermines Christianity. People still pray about the weather, even though they know that weather is caused by natural processes. Belief in natural processes, and belief in God’s action in the world, are simply not in conflict for these people. If God can act through natural processes, then a natural explanation of something is not a threat to the belief system. ...What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology.

This is nothing more than the tired old end-around run in which any acceptance of the laws of physics is equated with acceptance of naturalism. If you can accept that God works through the laws of physics that produce tomorrow's rain, then there is no reason to not expect Him to use those same laws to turn a wolf-like creature into a whale. There are at least two problems with their argument: 1) the question is not whether or not God can use the laws He created to work out His will and, 2) smoke and mirrors are not required to demonstrate how meteorology works. Also check Steve Wagner's post at STR. ******** Our story was wrong, but the story is true Check The Agent 2, at the Belmont Club, for a glimpse at the nonsensical workings of the inner mind of your typical Washington Press Corp. ******** But it's not science Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author with Jay Richards of The Privileged Planet, has had an article accepted for publication in the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. ******** Tick-Tock Per William Paley,

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer, which I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.... The watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

"But," as the Darwinists will claim, "biological organisms are not like a watch!" Per the journal Structure, Recent Cyanobacterial Kai Protein Structures Suggest a Rotary Clock. HT: ID the Future ******** Emergent Church update Melinda Penner, over at Stand to Reason, has been posting quite a bit on the Emergent Church. She not only covers the dangers, but she addresses the positive ideas that are emerging from this group. Check: Values of the Ancient Church, I'm an Ancient Christian, and Worship Emergent Style.

Rusty Nails 5/14/05...

Worshipping the mood Check Bonnie's post, Is it time to dance?, at Off the Top. She wonders aloud why our worship songs tend to focus so exclusively on our feelings. Her analysis of I Could Sing of Your Love Forever is quite revealing.

Gratitude does lead to a good feeling, but that isn’t necessarily why someone could sing of the Father’s love forever. One can sing as an expression and as an offering but not necessarily while feeling happy or feeling like dancing. When something traumatic happens, the natural (and appropriate) human reaction is to feel terrible. Feeling terrible does not bring about happiness or dancing, usually. But can someone feel terrible while at the same time being able to sing, honestly, of the Father’s love forever? Of course!

Indeed. Consider the lyrics,

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way When sorrows like sea billows roll Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say It is well, it is well with my soul - It is Well With My Soul, Horatio Spafford

Spafford wrote those lyrics while onboard a ship at the approximate location where another ship had sunk, a few weeks prior, killing his four daughters. Did he feel like dancing? Most assuredly not. But he did feel like worshipping. ******** Oops Macht, over at Prosthesis, has been providing well written blog posts for quite some time now. All the while he's had a link to New Covenant in his Required Reading blogroll. And all this time I thought I had him linked in my Blogs to Check blogroll. Imagine my surprise, and dismay, when I discovered he wasn't on my list! Sorry Macht, I've corrected my error! ******** SAHM Checkout this past Time magazine article on Stay-at-home-mothers. ******** Charitable Chastisement Joe Carter, ex-Marine (c'mon now, you know there's no such thing as an ex-Marine), has an excellent post titled, A Tent Full of Tax Collectors: A Semi-Charitable Rant on Humility and Heresy. Go read the whole thing. ******** Forget Middle-Earth Go check this site for a sneak peek at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which is due to be released December 9th. Follow the link to the movie trailer. HT: Prosthesis ******** The Tilde This is good.

Rusty Nails 5/12/05...

New Camera Update I recently purchased a Canon Rebel XT dSLR. I've posted some new images at Imago Articulus that I've taken with this camera. First impressions are that the camera is very versatile and opens up vast new vistas for serious amateurs. It's been a while since I've shot seriously with my SLR. So now I'm finding that I need to tune up my SLR techniques once again. I'm also finding that I need to learn the ins and outs of the digital medium of RAW format. Many fun days lie ahead. ******** Genetically determined In the comments to my Transcendant Naturalism post there seemed to be a bit of confusion over how I view the role of genes and evolution, and of genes and behavior. I am aware of how gene expression can vary physical features on an organism and how said features may give said organism a survival advantage. One need only look at the beak of the finch and how a variation in seasonal rainfall effects its survivability by means of beak size. Yet, the finches remain finches nonetheless, and it is only through unwarranted extrapolation do we hear of the ability for these minor variations to produce completely new and different species. Genes and their effect on behavior is something of a quandary. The naturalist will tell you, with a straight face no less, that an abstract concept, such as love, is derived from gene expression. The love gene, I suppose. The implication being that virtually all our behavior is due to the mechanics involved within our genes. While I would argue that behavior is not entirely determined by genetics, we can certainly find behavior that is altered by genetic rearrangement. But, and here is the catch, does the fact that a behavior is potentially caused by genetic structure alter how we should view the behavior itself? If a person’s behavior is determined by the same physical interactions that determine their hair color, then by what authority can we declare p_dophilia immoral and altruism moral? Inasmuch as we see no moral difference between two different hair colors, we should not see a difference between p_dophile and altruistic behavior. Or, one could turn the tables around and logically conclude that it is permissible to declare people with blue eyes inherently immoral, worthy of imprisonment or death. Of course we would need to address the concept of logic itself and, if it too is genetically determined, the logical conclusion that it is, therefore, not a binding concept. Hence, one would use logic to dismiss logic. Naturalists cannot consistently live out the implications of their worldview without sneaking abstract concepts in the back door. They know that love exists in the abstract sense, and attempt to tie this abstract concept to physical behavior, whose existence they continue to attribute to genetic combinations – the same type of genetic combinations that produce one’s hair color. If they cannot, or will not, declare that love is morally good; there is no reason not to consider it to actually be vile and immoral. If they do declare that love is a moral good, they have no transcendant authority with which to base their claim. The bottom-line is that it makes no difference whether or not behavior is determined by genetic combinations, for it is the abstract concepts, that we know exist, with which we must deal with. ******** Gotta get the shot After seeing this photo of Bonnie, from Off the Top, getting that perfect shot, I decided to post this pic I took of two photogs, going that extra mile, to frame their shot just so. Of course, being in the right place, at the right time, sometimes helps - hence, my shot. ******** No ACLUnacy here You're walking through an open-air market and spy a rug for sale that has an image of Jesus on it. Close by you notice another rug with an image of the Virgin Mary. While public displays of anything religious may eventually be forbidden here in the United States (despite our First Amendment), it seems that such displays are permissible in the city of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. (HT: a friend of mine living in Abu Dhabi) ******** Search engines: no thinking required Do an advanced search on Google with all of the words:

qualities required in a candidate for a dermatologist post

and you'll get this blog on the return. ******** Cambrian Explosion? What Cambrian Explosion? From a FoxNews interview of Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute, and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, we get the following:

GIBSON: Ms. Scott, I, for instance, have read several pieces written by scientists who question the Cambrian explosion, in a relatively certain period of time, a sudden profusion of a gazillion different life forms, for which evolution doesn't seem to have enough time. What is wrong with raising that question with students? SCOTT: The so-called problem of the Cambrian explosion and it being a problem for evolution is nonsense. If you talk to paleontologists who actually study the Cambrian explosion and the Cambrian evolution of invertebrate body forms, they will tell you it's a fascinating puzzle, but it has no problem for evolution, even evolution through natural selection.

One wonders if it started snowing in the studio. Before Ms. Scott tries to pull a fast one like that she'd better do a bit more general research. She could start with On the Origin of Phyla, by James Valentine, an interview with Simon Conway Morris, from Reasons to Believe, and The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, by Meyer, Ross, Nelson, and Chien (or, even the wimpy explanation from PBS' Evolution series). HT: The ID Update

When the word “crap” means… crap

You would think that an associate pastor would, at the very least, have a basic understanding of the reverence that should attend the call to worship. You would think that an associate pastor would, at the very least, be cognizant of the fact that expressions of crude jocularity have no place within the call to worship. You would think that an associate pastor would, at the very least, have the common sense not to use even mildly vulgar language when attempting to make an un-Biblical illustration on how God can turn our dung into fertilizer. You would think. But then, you’d think that, a week later, an apology would also include an admission of wrongdoing. And you’d think that the “apology” would not attempt to sidestep the issue by accusing some congregants of taking the words spoken “out of context” (it was all really our fault, I guess). And you’d think that the “apology” would not be effectively negated by the senior pastor with a sarcastic admonition to the congregation in the form of, “I’m sure that none of you have ever made a mistake” (yeah, that’s the issue – the fact that none of us are perfect). You’d think.

Mothers and careers...

Update (see the end of this post) ******** I recently finished reading 7 Myths of Working Mothers: Why Children and (Most) Careers Just Don't Mix, by Suzanne Venker, and found it to be a very enjoyable read. As we prepare to celebrate Mother's Day, it seemed timely for me to share my thoughts on Venker's book. To say that Venker has chosen a hot topic is an understatement. Indeed, our society seemingly lives by the mantra that a woman's ultimate fulfillment comes not from her children, but from her career - having it all - if you will. Venker categorizes the seven myths as such,

"Men can have it all, why shouldn't we?" "I could never stay at home full-time." "You're so lucky you can stay home." "I could balance work and family if I had more support." "I'm a better mom for working." "My children love daycare." "I have it all planned out."

How much time does a career take? For those who truly wish to move up a corporate ladder or simply make a difference at their place of work - how much time must be devoted to the task? Venker reminds us that such occupations are full-time endeavors. So... what of the snippets of time left for - the children? She states,

The basic premise of 7 Myths of Working Mothers is that raising children is a full-time job, one that dramatically alters the paths women were on prior to becoming mothers.

She presents three basic arguments first claiming that while the choice to bring children into the world is an inherent right, choosing to do so without the intent to raise them is not. Secondly, she claims that if motherhood were viewed as a full-time job it would not be considered something that can be done on the side. Lastly, she argues that those who get paid to watch other people's children (e.g., daycare) are, in fact, doing the actual job of raising other people's children. Venker lays most of the blame for the myth that women can have a full-time career, while also being full-time mothers, squarely at the feet of the feminist movement.

...one of the reasons Betty Friedan, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), won the support of so many women in the 1960s was that her organization appeared merely to support the idea that men and women should be treated equally. ...Every man and woman would be expected to earn an income, and children would not be raised in their own homes by their own parents, but would instead grow up in government-subsidized child care programs or in the care of come-and-go nannies. And, as it turns out, that's exactly what happened. But the women's movement went even further. Despite asserting that its platform was all about "choice," it simultaneously belabored the notion that full-time motherhood is not a worthy ambition, that children drag women down, and that women can only find true satisfaction in the workplace.

What are we to make of women who contend that they could never stay at home (with their children)? Venker leads off a chapter with a few lines of script from the television drama, Judging Amy,

"Mommy, I don't want you to work. Why can't you be more like Joey's mom? She stays at home with him." "Well, maybe that's because Joey's mother can't do anything else."

You got that, kid? You're not worth your mom staying home because she can do something else. The myth of "Oh, I could never stay home full-time." Venker relates the comment of one former working mother, who says, "It amazes me that women say this as though [being with one's children] were a punishment." Interestingly enough, on CNN.com, there's an article exhorting career mothers to "lose the guilt" this Mother's Day. In Master the Working-Mom Shuffle, Sarah Max evidently considers her four-day work week a sufficient enough sacrifice to warrant placing her two daughters in daycare for 25 hours per week. She writes,

Like many working moms, I sometimes fantasize about quitting my job to spend all day every day doing art projects and play dates with my soon-to-be three-year-old twin daughters, Fiona and Isabel. Instead, I work four days a week, count on my husband to take on key parenting duties and "let someone else raise my children" about 25 hours a week. (Someone else, where were you last night? The kids woke me up three different times.)

Max is clueless. Ask any full-time mother if she gets to spend all day every day doing art projects and play dates. Drop in on this full-time mother and you'll most likely find the house littered with piles of yet to do laundry which, after they're being processed, are replaced with new piles of yet to do laundry. If the mother is home schooling, then expect to find her explaining grammar to her 4th grader while guiding her pre-K child through a kindergarten level workbook, keeping in mind that she's also figuring out how to get the grocery shopping in after fixing lunch for her and her kids. More to the point, though, is the fact that the full-time mother, regardless of whether or not she is engaged in art projects all day every day with her kids, is the one who gets to impact their character formation. Despite the obvious nature of this point, it is lost on those who have bought in to the I could never stay at home full-time myth. Max writes,

Like a lot of working moms, there are days or weeks when I feel guilty and completely overwhelmed. Take recently, when I overheard Isabel tell Fiona, "When the little hand gets on the five, then you can have your mommy." I was heartbroken. I deconstructed that sentence a hundred times. "I pick them up at 4 o'clock, so why would Isabel say 5 o'clock?" ...I talked to my editor, came close to quitting my job, and then decided I wouldn't be happy expressing myself with construction paper. I also decided I'd wasted so many of my precious work hours obsessing about my issues I better turn the experience into something productive. So in honor of Mother's Day, I've been frantically researching the working mother's struggle to balance children, marriage, household, career and selfish indulgences, like showering and sleeping. (emphasis added)

The three year-old already understands (even if Mommy can't) where she sits in Mommy's list of needs. It's beneath Mommy to relate to her child at the construction paper level, so the child - her child - becomes simply one more category on her list of items in her life that she needs to balance in order for her life to be fulfilled:

Children Marriage Household Career Selfish indulgences (e.g., showering, sleeping)

Venker gives some very practical advice in her chapter on Myth #5, "I'm a Better Mom for Working." She relates that our society is fast-paced enough without having to add to it the stress of being a working-mother. Yet this added stress of trying to add a full or near full-time work schedule into the week can only wreak havoc on the well being of our children. And how can one consider themselves a better mom if, by their very choice of actions, they are depriving their children of a lifestyle conducive to healthy growth? Venker outlines the detrimental effects that a fast-paced schedule can have on a child's sleeping, eating, and exercise habits, as well as considering how effective one can be in disciplining a child when they only get to spend a few hours with them at the end of the day. Other aspects of the fast-paced lifestyle she touches on include how important consistency is with regards to school and homework, and how detrimental a lack of presence can be with regards to life after school. Perhaps the most disheartening chapter is the one which deals with Myth #6, "My Children Just Love Day Care." Max's CNN article reiterates this mantra with,

Research shows that children who go to "day school" are no better or worse off than those who stay home. "Whether a child is in childcare or not doesn't seem to make a difference," said Sarah Friedman, project scientist and scientific coordinator for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early child care and youth development, which began tracking infants in 1991. Although children who spend long hours in daycare may be slightly more prone to behavior problems -- just as adults who spend too much time at the office may be prone to behavior problems -- "the majority of children are in a normal range," said Friedman. "The worries that people had are not well-founded for the majority of the children." A better predictor of how the child will do is the family environment and -- interestingly enough -- household income. "More income seems to create conditions more favorable to development," said Friedman, explaining that this could be for any number of reasons, including that kids pick up on parents' stress over money matters.

It's truly amazing, isn't it? A supposedly well educated adult believing the statement, Whether a child is in childcare or not doesn't seem to make a difference. Do you really believe that placing a child - your child - into a group setting, to be cared for by adults who are performing the task for payment, compares with an environment in which the child - your child - is under your loving care? Are we to expect that a child - your child - will experience healthy emotional grow what with the multiple and temporary bonds that form with paid caregivers who periodically move on to other endeavors? Or are we to expect that a child - your child - will experience healthy emotional growth within the consistency of a stable environment at home? Never you mind, however, for the justification is complete with the line A better predictor of how the child will do is the family environment and -- interestingly enough -- household income. What better reason for positing the working mother myth? Venker closes the chapter with,

It is disturbing that we have become so used to day care that we do not appreciate that mothers are our most vital resource. Children do not raise themselves, and they do not "thrive" in day care. They just get used to it. CHildren will get used to anything we ask them to; this is why our power is so frightening. And it is the reason we have a responsibility not to ask our children to get used to anyone but us. Regardless of how a working mother explains to her children her reasons for being gone all day, the only thing her children will take from her explanation is that there's someplace else she would rather be.

Some mothers have to work. If they don't, there's no food for dinner. But many mothers have either bought into the myth of having it all, or they've been coerced into a lifestyle they'd just as soon get out of. If you're a working woman, considering having children, you would do yourself good by reading 7 Myths of Working Mothers. Update: I was wondering what types of comments, if any, would appear on this post. Let me say that it is refreshing to see so much of Venker’s analysis ringing true what with criticisms such as: the need for Dad to engage in more “motherly” activities (with the absurd claim that men are equally capable of performing the role of mother as women are), the need for flexible work hours, unequal comparisons cast as “equal” (e.g., comparing the results of a two-income family in which the working mother is deeply involved with her children’s education vs. a one-income family in which the stay-at-home mother does not care about her children’s education), predictions that a return to stay-at-home mothering will throw us back into the days of Leave it to Beaver, accusations that Venker has made generalizations and that she considers working mothers to not care about their children, as well as accusations that Venker has not done a thorough job of researching her work. Two overall points: Before generalizations and / or accusations are made as to what Venker has done, perhaps her accusers should read or, at least, seriously peruse her book? Also, I must reiterate that the issue is about whether or not a child is best raised by their mother. While there are complexities within the issue, the issue itself is not very complex. Consider the following scenario with the notion that the issue is about whether or not the parents care about their children. You have a two-income family and you have a one-income family. Both sets of parents care equally for their children’s welfare (in the sense that both sets have the same desires). I agree that husbands need to be more involved in parenting, so both of our husbands in this example contribute to the parenting equation. Now simply do the math. Subtract the time that the working mother must commit to her career and then compare the available time that the working mother has to be with her children vs. the available time that the stay-at-home mother has. Which set of kids will have the chance to get the proper amount of sleep? (kids need more sleep than adults – lots more) Which set of kids will have the chance to eat proper meals without being rushed? Which set of kids will find their mothers at home when they return from school? Which of the two mothers will understand that kids define “quality time” as “less time”? Which set of parents will have to find the time to make-up their time away from work (for “flexible time” just means that the work periods have shifted)? Which of the two mothers will have the time to… well, which of the two mothers will have the time?, period. I find the notion that men can perform the task of motherhood equally as well as women to be absurd. For one thing, there are physiological differences that should immediately inform us that men and women are not “equal” in this regard. While men can physically feed an infant with a breast-milk filled bottle, the bond formed pales in comparison to the one formed when a woman has breastfed her own baby. Regardless of how politically incorrect the following statement is, it remains true nonetheless, Women are physiologically better suited than men to raise children. If men are from Mars, and women are from Venus, it really shouldn’t be so difficult to see this point. But this criticism veers off from the main point of Venker’s book in that the issue isn’t really whether the role of mother is interchangeable between men and women, but whether or not a parent, preferably the mother, should be the one raising her own children. To argue that the man should take more a role in parenting (or mothering) does not justify the conclusion that the woman should take less of a role. The accusation that the likes of Venker want to throw us back into the day of Leave it to Beaver, while amusing, is unfounded. Did we ever really live like Leave it to Beaver? Underlying this criticism, however, is the notion of radical feminism. As Venker discusses, the feminist agenda is not “what’s best for the children,” but the so-called fact that women have been oppressed. She illustrates how radical feminism views offspring not as a blessing but, rather, as a hindrance to the ultimate self-fulfillment of women. That your average working-mother does not hold to such radical ideas is beside the point because the viewpoint she does hold owes its genesis to, and continues to be fed by, radical feminism. Simply put, Venker does not advocate that women volunteer to be subjugated, nor does she advocate relieving men of their fatherly responsibilities. She also does not recommend that women completely forego careers, nor does she claim that working-mothers do not care about their children. Lastly, regarding the issue of economic viability, Venker’s claim (to which I would agree) is that many two-income families are quite capable of existing off of one-income. The issue isn’t so much that they can’t as much as it is that they won’t. Again, do the math. Could you live off of one income? Is it impossible, or simply difficult? What do you want to have? What do you need to have? Are you entitled to send your child to Patrick Henry College regardless of whether or not you’re family income supports the costs? Do you, as a mother, spend 11 hours per day outside of your home, foregoing the raising of your own child, in order to be able to send him or her to PHC? Do the needs of society override your family’s needs? Are you expected to hand over your child’s upbringing to a paid stranger simply because we live in a consumerist society? For the good of the State? Children are resilient. They’ll accept quite a bit, especially if they have no choice.

Pavlov Reloaded...

While viewing elephants at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, recently, we were told by one of the zookeepers to meander down to a gate which leads from their main paddock into a larger, much more open, area. The zookeepers had just dropped off piles of hay out in the larger paddock. It would soon be feeding time… and the elephants knew it. So we proceeded to the overlook point and positioned ourselves by the gate. A minute later it was opened and, sure enough, we got a great glimpse of all the elephants making a mad dash for the piles of hay – their afternoon dinner. ---------- The company I work for will, occasionally, have a lunchtime session on topics which vary from how to fill out an expense form to how to avoid stress. Typically you are expected to bring your own lunch to these sessions and, typically, they are not very well attended. Last week we had a lunchtime session on health and safety, with pizza and soda provided free of charge. There wasn't an empty seat in the conference room. ---------- Every Sunday we typically arrive at 8:45 a.m. for the 9 a.m. service at church. At that time the parking lot is sparsely filled, and remains so even at 9 a.m. As late as 9:20 a.m. stragglers are finding their way into either church or Sunday School. For those who may be thinking that it is difficult for people to get to church at the early hour of 9 a.m., it’s interesting to note that the phenomenon is essentially the same for the 10:45 a.m. service. A few Sunday nights ago our church had a special 5:30 p.m. dinner banquet promoting the various Missionaries they support. Arriving ten minutes early, at 5:20 p.m., I expected we would be one of the first families there. Much to my surprise we were actually one of the last to be seated! Oh yes, the dinner was free (save for the usual requests for donations). Food – the great motivator.

Transcendant Naturalism...

Does it make sense, rationally, to posit that evolution has the capacity to produce a moral code? Consider that a sense of right and wrong, if valid, must transcend pure opinion. In other words, if it's wrong for John to murder Mark, then it probably follows that it's also wrong for Mark to murder John. Yet, the real issue in that case is not who is murdering whom, but whether or not murder itself is wrong. However, the issue is unpacked even further by addressing the question of whether or not the abstract concepts of moral right and wrong even exist. Proponents of naturalistic evolution fail miserably when attempting to give account for the existence of morality. If naturalism rules, and all our actions are merely determined by the laws of physics in conjunction with random variations, then exactly how does naturalistic evolution account for a transcendant rule of law - a moral code - an abstract reality that we all recognize? Furthermore, by what authority are we compelled to recognize a naturalistically derived moral code? Another, more sovreign naturalistically derived moral code? And why should we recognize that one? C. S. Lewis wrote,

When men say "I ought" they certainly think they are saying something, and something true, about the nature of the proposed action, and not merely about their own feelings. But if Naturalism is true, "I ought" is the same sort of statement as "I itch" or "I'm going to be sick."

Update: Tom comments, We're driven towards eating apples over dirt clods. It's transcendant. It's abstract. Yeah, there might be a weird dirt eating cult in Houston, say. But they'll be in the minority. Can you see why evolution might give us THAT drive? (And if you can get that far, is a mother nurturing her child that far away? I would argue that we eat apples based on data collected by our senses, not on some abstract notion that drives us to eat them. However, the color of the apple you eat is based on the notion of redness (if you’re eating a Red Delicious). The quality of redness is abstract and would still exist whether or not your senses properly interpreted the photons reflected by the apple. Or consider, for instance, that you see a single, red apple on the table. Your senses tell you that there is one apple there. But where do you get this concept of “oneness”? Where does the number “one” exist? You believe in the existence of numbers yet you have no empirical data to prove that they exist. It is an abstract concept, which comes from a mind. Note: Simply because you may believe that numbers exist or that a mother nurtures her child, does not, in and of itself, show us how evolution could have provided you with that belief. As for Lewis’ logic, perhaps another rendering of the passage you refer to will help alleviate your confusion: Jesus made certain truth claims about himself. They either were not true or they were true. If they were not true, then he either knew they were not or he didn’t know they were not. If he knew they were not true, then he is a liar. If he didn’t know they were not true, then he was crazy (or… just very stupid). If they were true, then he is who he claimed to be. Also, I didn’t present that argument in my Lewis’ quote, so while it is possible he could have been wrong in the passage you refer to, that does not mandate that he was wrong in the passage I referred to as well. Paul said, I'm getting a pretty clear sense of your desire for an unequivocal foundation for morality. But as strong as your wish may be, it doesn't make it so. … It [naturalistic evolution] does account for a morality that humans tend to subscribe to, which is easily explained by evolution with only one assumption: that a sense of morality is a competitive advantage. If that assumption is true, then beings that exhibit such a sense will tend to do better than those that do not. Actually, I wish I could do whatever I wanted, for my pleasure alone. I certainly don’t wish for an unequivocal foundation for morality… I simply see that that’s how it must be if morality truly exists. Otherwise, if there were no reason to follow one morality over another, then they all become valid (or invalid, depending on how you want to look at it). Either way, the very concept of morality becomes meaningless. Acknowledging that morality exists and then backing it into the goal-less process of evolution (goal-less except for, I guess, the one assumption presented) is hardly a convincing argument that evolution actually produced morality. By what authority are you appealing to by claiming that we use only one assumption? That we tend to do better? How do we know what better is? By how many organisms are left alive at the end of the day? Says who? How about by insuring that only the healthiest organisms are left alive at the end of the day (providing we know what healthy means)? So instead of waiting for natural selection to do its handiwork, we’ll circumvent the process and eliminate the unhealthy members of the species on our own. But we still have too many living members of our species breathing at the end of the day. So let’s not only kill the unhealthy ones, but let’s grind them up and cook them for the next day’s meal as well. After all, our one assumption is that we have a competitive advantage that allows us to do better – and what could be better than insuring that the healthiest members of the species survive? Is that right, or is it wrong? It matters on what the majority says? Says who? Pragmatism? And by what authority are you appealing to for that? Etc., etc., etc. What opponents to this idea of moral truth need to understand is that in presenting your argument, i.e., that naturalistic evolution can produce a moral code, you can appeal to nothing - save determinism and chance. No competitive advantages, no warm cuddly feelings, no emergent (read: magical) properties, nothing. Just electrical impulses and chemical reactions interacting amongst the myriad of pathways found within that extraordinarily complex entity known as homo sapiens sapiens. ********** I’ll be out of pocket this weekend which, for me, now starts on Fridays. We’re finally getting away on another trip to visit some more California Missions and scope out any remaining wildflowers (the third try must be a charm). Hopefully LotharBot or Bonnie will join in the discussion on this post.

Rusty Nails, 4/22/05...

Koukl on why Naturalism asks why: Greg Koukl asks, in Earth Day for Evolutionists?,

Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment. But why?

Indeed, a very good question. No Greg, you aren't the only one noticing. I've posted on this essential topic many times in the past. Reference:

What should we have done? Additional thoughts on human obligation and natural law Do the practical thing: Contrasting worldviews against current events Do the right thing, or should we? Was Darwin wrong? Pragmatic Nihilism: How a naturalistic worldview renders our existence supreme Naturalism, flu vaccines, and the survival of the fittest

********** Mandatory Preschool, for the good of society: World Magazine's blog has a post titled, The Meathead's back, in which we revisit the liberal agenda of universal preschool (for the good of society) which, if left unchecked, could quickly degenerate into mandatory preschool. I've written at least two posts on this topic. Check Johnny is 3 years old, goes to preschool, and..., as well as Mandatory Preschool in California. Also check a report by the California Family Council which addresses the question of whether or not preschool is as beneficial as some people claim. You might also want to simply sit back and think, think long and hard, about whether or not a preschool-age child - your child - is better off being cared for by someone paid to do so, in an institution filled with other people's children, funded by bureaucracy; or whether or not your preschool-age child's entire psyche is better off being shaped and formed by the person(s) he or she should be most closely bonded to? ********** Fun with Dowd: From Mere Comments,

Maureen Dowd from her column in today’s editions of The New York Times on the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI: "For American Catholics— - especially women and Democratic pro-choice Catholic pols— - the cafeteria is officially closed."

Are these the women Dowd is referring to? ********** Dembski's Blog: After the recent start-up of the Intelligent Design blog ID the Future, contributor Bill Dembski has finally started his own blog (c'mon Bill, I've been at it for 18 months now). You can find his posts at Uncommon Descent and, for all you Panda-maniacs out there, he allows comments to be posted (so be prepared to see accusations that he's dishonest, disingenuous, a liar, uses double-speak, is incompetent, blah, blah, blah).

Turning kids into adults...

I wrote a post recently in which I essentially stated that whether or not one has well-behaved children is not dependent on whether one has compliant children or strong-willed children. The comments on the post quickly ran down the path of whether or not spanking was a valid form of discipline - something that, while a valid topic for discussion, was completely tangential to the subject of my post. What is the objective of discipline? Order? Stability? Strict adherence to rules? Well, at least for our household, the objective of discipline is to teach our children how to eventually become responsible adults. Their bodies are physically transforming from that of a child to an adult automatically; but what of the mental and spiritual aspects of their transformation? Is that automatic? In our Narcissistically Pragmatic, self-sufficiently prosperous culture, we seem to thrive on the pleasure and gratification of the self. Responsibility goes out the door to make room for personal rights. How can this help me, now? becomes our main concern. Is it any wonder, then, that kids have trouble transitioning from the carefree realm of childhood into the responsibility laden mire of adulthood? Is it any wonder that some adults reject the responsibility they must / should carry and return to a life of self-indulgence? Will we all eventually become Twixters? Perpetually adolescent? (HT: True Grit) Or will we, as parents and adults, put forth the effort to discipline? To instruct, teach, guide, mentor, and... love? Hugh Hewitt's book, In, But Not Of, is written primarily to those between the ages of 18 and 30, those most likely to influence the world in the near future. The chapters of the book are, in reality, pithy expressions of advice - advice on how young Christian men and women can effect cultural change in society. Discipline and responsibility. Indeed, consider some of the chapter titles (with my comments in parentheses): Assemble the Right Credentials (your choice of university and major), Learn How You Got Here (respect for history), Tattoos: Don't (ouch)*, A Message About Visa/MasterCard: Don't (ouch again), Know What You Don't Know, Choose a Church and Join It - Genuinely, and Avoid Thrill Seeking (seeking instant gratification). Hugh's advice is timely, but is mainly for those either currently in or recently graduated from university. What about those preparing for adulthood? Is it really practical to expect 18 - 22 year-olds to act, well... responsible? In an encouraging post over at Mere Comments, we read about a private college in Virginia by the name of Patrick Henry College (PHC). Kenneth Tanner writes, in The Remarkable Patrick Henry College, of a letter from Anthony Esolena, contributing editor to Touchstone Magazine (parent to Mere Comments) regarding a speaking engagement he had at PHC. Esolena writes,

The first time I spoke there, two years ago, I was stunned to meet young men and women who—who were young men and women. I am not stretching the truth; go to Purcellville and see it for yourselves if you doubt it;... The young men stand tall and look you in the eye—they don’t skulk, they don’t scowl and squirm uncomfortably in the back chairs as they listen to yet another analysis of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, or one of the healthier poems of Sylvia Plath. They’re frank and generous and respectful, but they hold their own in an argument, and they are eager to engage you in those. They are comfortable in their skins; they wear their manhood easily. And the young ladies are beautiful. They don’t wither away in class, far from it; but they wear skirts, they are modest in their voices and their smiles, they clearly admire the young men and are esteemed in turn; they are like creatures from a faraway planet, one sweeter and saner than ours. Two years ago I spoke to them about medieval Catholic drama. They are evangelicals, half of them majors in Government, the rest, majors in Liberal Arts. They kept me and my wife in that room for nearly three hours after the talk was over. “Doctor Esolen, what you say about the habits of everyday life—to what extent is it like what Jean Pierre de Coussade calls ‘the sacrament of the present moment’?” “Doctor Esolen, do you see any connections between the bodiliness of this drama and the theology of Aleksandr Schmemann?” “Doctor Esolen, you have spoken a great deal about our recovery of a sense of beauty, but don’t you think that artists can also use the grotesque as a means of bringing people to the truth?” “You’ve suggested to us that Christians need to reclaim the Renaissance as our heritage, yet we are told that that was an age of the worship of man for his own sake. To what extent is the art of that period ours to reclaim?” And on and on, until nearly midnight.

Does the fact that ninety percent of the students at PHC were homeschooled have anything to do with their demeanor? Possibly. Yet I think that the foundation of the maturity displayed by these students lies in the fact that they were properly disciplined prior to their arrival at PHC, regardless of whether or not that discipline came about through home schooling. Should we be viewing the teenage years, therefore, as a time of playful frivolity, expecting aberrant behavior from adolescent human beings who, by their very nature, are unwilling and incapable of expressing maturity? Or should we view the teenage years as a time of transition - from that of a child into that of an adult? A time that, despite its inherent playfulness, is filled with lessons of responsibility? Can we truly expect our children to accomplish such a task? Yes, we can. ********** Additional reading: From Boy to Man--The Marks of Manhood, Part One - Al Mohler From Boy to Man--The Marks of Manhood, Part Two - Al Mohler Perpetual Adolescence - Melinda Penner Wimps and Barbarians: the Sons of Murphy Brown - Terrence O. Moore Heather's Compromise: How Young Women Make Their Way in a World of Wimps and Barbarians - Terrence O. Moore * Interestingly enough, according to Hugh Hewitt, the two page chapter on Tattoos received the most criticism of any in the book, primarily from student-age readers.

Christian Carnival...

Check out the LXVI edition of the Christian Carnival, over at PseudoPolyMath.

Rusty Nails, 4/19/05...

Laura, over at Words Behind Me, comments on one pastor's statement regarding how he'd like his church to be viewed in Wanting the Church to Look Like the Mall. Needless to say, Dude, check it out. ################### The church referenced above, Radiant Church, is located in Surprise, Arizona. In checking their website, under the What to Expect? section, we read,

We're Relevant Our goal is for each service to be fun, creative, and relevant to your life. Our services begin with rockin', upbeat music from the band, are followed by a humorous and relevant message by Pastor Lee, and only last an hour. We'll even give you a handy outline with the Bible passages, so you will go home encouraged and equipped each week! (emphasis added)

Heaven forbid we should expect anyone to approach God and worship Him simply because of who He is. ################ Melinda Penner continues to clear the air with regards to the non-ambiguity of the ambiguous meta-narrative through which we get a slight glimpse of when reading the EmChurch's non-exclusivistic teachings as expounded by its purported guru Brian McLaren. (oh yeah, you can find Melinda's post at STR's blog)

Never Read a Bible Verse...

Update: in response to LotharBot, and to more fully explain my position, please refer back to some posts I wrote in January, 2004 - The Plain Reading of the Text 1, 2, and 3. ********************** Greg Koukl, over at Stand to Reason, has a nice article titled Never Read a Bible Verse. He states,

If there was one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could impart, one useful tip I could leave that would serve you well the rest of your life, what would it be? What is the single most important practical skill I've ever learned as a Christian? Here it is: Never read a Bible verse. That's right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph–at least.

Once we understand that meaning, within a text, comes from the top - down, or from the larger unit to the smaller unit, then we'll more readily see how easy it is to take a smaller unit of thought (e.g., a verse of Scripture) out of context. The Never Read a Bible Verse advice is probably violated more often than not when we venture into the book of Jeremiah. For it is in chapter 29 that we find a veritable El Dorado for the 21st century Christian,

For I know what I have planned for you,’ says the Lord. ‘I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you. I have plans to give you a future filled with hope. - Jeremiah 29:11 (NET)

Wow! What a verse! What could be clearer than a direct declaration from the Lord that He has plans to make us prosper?! Indeed, this verse was the cornerstone of this morning's sermon at our church. While the point of the message was not one of financial prosperity, it was an irresponsible use of Scripture, nonetheless. Would that we instead hear a message which informs the church that Jeremiah 29:11 is one sentence in a paragraph, which begins at verse 10, and concludes at verse 14. A paragraph. A unit of thought that is larger than the unit of thought contained within in a sentence. Here are verses 10 - 14 of Jeremiah 29,

“For the Lord says, ‘Only when the seventy years of Babylonian rule are over will I again take up consideration for you. Then I will fulfill my gracious promise to you and restore you to your homeland. For I know what I have planned for you,’ says the Lord. ‘I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you. I have plans to give you a future filled with hope. When you call out to me and come to me in prayer, I will hear your prayers. When you seek me in prayer and worship, you will find me available to you. If you seek me with all your heart and soul, I will make myself available to you,’ says the Lord. ‘Then I will reverse your fortunes and will regather you from all the nations and all the places where I have exiled you,’ says the Lord. ‘I will bring you back to the place from which I exiled you.’

Doesn't a reading of the entire paragraph now put verse 11 into proper perspective? Is verse 11 really about the Lord having plans to bring us prosperity? If so, then can we also infer that we'll have to wait seventy years for this prosperity to arrive (after, of course, the Lord gathers us back from our exile). Would it be too difficult to reference back to Jeremiah 29:1 and find out that the discourse in Jeremiah 29 is from a letter that Jeremiah sent to the exiles in Babylon? Perhaps, in our self-centeredness, we've come to think that virtually every passage in the Bible must have some significant meaning for us - the How does this apply to me? syndrome. While it may tickle our ears to hear that the Lord has specific plans to make us prosper, I think we would be better off understanding the history from which we came: that of the nation of Israel, how they were chosen by God, how they related to God through the Old Covenant, and how we should relate to God through the New Covenant.

The Heavens Declare...

Check Richard Hammar's See the Glory website for some beautiful astronomical photography. One of his photographs was featured on NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day a few months ago.