Thu - March 5, 2009
Thu - November 20, 2008
The Advent of.... Advent
After months of literally no sleep and a nasty
bout with a nagging memory leak, I'm happy to announce that our first iPhone app
- Advent08 - is up on the
iTunes App Store! It's an Advent calendar, with virtual doors that open up each
to reveal a devotional each day. I'm really proud of how it turned out. I
think its a beautiful mashup of classical art, hymns, scripture and prayers and
I pray that a lot of people will be lead to a deeper faith and a more blessed
Advent through it. We've talked
here in the past about serving our neighbor through our vocation and
art, and thats what we aim to accomplish with this
app.
Here's a few images to give you an idea of what the app looks like:
Check it out - this link opens it up in iTunes - and let me know what you think. Also, we'd like any help we can get in spreading the word. Advent is less than a week away (November 30th) and we'd want as many people as possible to hear about it before then.
We've formed a company called iHabitus. and we're hoping to roll out more of these in the near future. Here's our official statement: iHabitus was founded to foster the daily practice of faith through the use of modern technology. iHabitus develops software that delivers Christianity's rich cultural traditions using the latest technological advances in a way that is careful, reverent and deliberate. The company's process is careful, because technology can too often lead to distraction over devotion; it is reverent, so to act as ambassadors of Christ; and it is deliberate, so not to let the medium define the Message.
Here's a few images to give you an idea of what the app looks like:
Check it out - this link opens it up in iTunes - and let me know what you think. Also, we'd like any help we can get in spreading the word. Advent is less than a week away (November 30th) and we'd want as many people as possible to hear about it before then.
We've formed a company called iHabitus. and we're hoping to roll out more of these in the near future. Here's our official statement: iHabitus was founded to foster the daily practice of faith through the use of modern technology. iHabitus develops software that delivers Christianity's rich cultural traditions using the latest technological advances in a way that is careful, reverent and deliberate. The company's process is careful, because technology can too often lead to distraction over devotion; it is reverent, so to act as ambassadors of Christ; and it is deliberate, so not to let the medium define the Message.
Posted at 02:16 AM | Read More | | |
Mon - September 15, 2008
Education?
A new story from the AP has the following startling
detail:
"A new study calculates, one-third of American college students have to enroll in remedial classes. The bill to colleges and taxpayers for trying to bring them up to speed on material they were supposed to learn in high school comes to between $2.3 billion and $2.9 billion annually."
Remember that old bumper sticker that says "If you think education is expensive, try the alternative" - how is it that we are trying BOTH?
(h/t Chuck Muth)
UPDATE: I would be remiss if I failed to point out that these are the students that actually went to college. One-third is bad enough, but the number is probably over half once you factor in all the kids that didn't make it to college. That means a majority of high school diploma holders wouldn't have learned the basic skills supposedly required in the earning of that diploma.
"A new study calculates, one-third of American college students have to enroll in remedial classes. The bill to colleges and taxpayers for trying to bring them up to speed on material they were supposed to learn in high school comes to between $2.3 billion and $2.9 billion annually."
Remember that old bumper sticker that says "If you think education is expensive, try the alternative" - how is it that we are trying BOTH?
(h/t Chuck Muth)
UPDATE: I would be remiss if I failed to point out that these are the students that actually went to college. One-third is bad enough, but the number is probably over half once you factor in all the kids that didn't make it to college. That means a majority of high school diploma holders wouldn't have learned the basic skills supposedly required in the earning of that diploma.
Posted at 04:12 PM | Read More | | |
Mon - September 8, 2008
Mon - July 28, 2008
Help Eric escape his garage
My friend Eric is launching a new site - FellowTip.com.
It's a pretty cool site, based on the idea of "Powerful Conversations". The
basic premise is this: You have a burning question or something cool to share -
like say "How do I remove the middle seats in my Honda Odyssey?" or "I just
figured out a cool way to get more throughput on my router" - you share it with
the community. Then someone else comes along with the same question, sees your
perfectly articulated entry, and improves their life.... one Odyssey seat at a
time. But it doesn't stop there - there's a little Tip button at the top of the
post, so you can share a little love with the person who gave you the answer.
Just a simple couple-a-bucks via paypal, and in a few clicks, you made their
day, they made your day, the world is
improved.
So what does this have to do with helping him escape from his garage? Well, the launch seems to have been a bit hard on poor Eric. And it led him to come up with a desperate scheme - he's locked himself in his garage until FellowTip.com has 500 memebers. And to prove it, here's a live webcam of him in his garage.
So check out FellowTip.com - I think you'll dig it and Eric will thank you for it.
UPDATE: I forgot to ask.... Hey Eric - I know you're a really awesome photographer and all that, and I'm sure you have some cool lenses - but how are you going to shoot a wedding if you're stuck in your garage?
UPDATE 2: Eric got some local press - WJHL (local TV) interviewed him (from the garage, of course).
So what does this have to do with helping him escape from his garage? Well, the launch seems to have been a bit hard on poor Eric. And it led him to come up with a desperate scheme - he's locked himself in his garage until FellowTip.com has 500 memebers. And to prove it, here's a live webcam of him in his garage.
So check out FellowTip.com - I think you'll dig it and Eric will thank you for it.
UPDATE: I forgot to ask.... Hey Eric - I know you're a really awesome photographer and all that, and I'm sure you have some cool lenses - but how are you going to shoot a wedding if you're stuck in your garage?
UPDATE 2: Eric got some local press - WJHL (local TV) interviewed him (from the garage, of course).
Posted at 02:01 PM | Read More | | |
Tue - June 24, 2008
D.A. Carson, Maple Mountain and the arts
At the very good Maple Mountain Story Club, Samuel quotes the following from D.A. Carson and
asks what, if any, crossover there is with Christianity and the Arts (a popular
Maple Mountain
topic):
"Redemption terminology in the NT is so bound up with Christ's work for and in the church that to extend it to whatever good we do in the broader world risks a shift in focus. Not for a moment do I want to deny that we are to serve as salt and light, that exiles may be called to do good in the pagan cities where Providence has appointed them to live (Jer 29), that every square foot of this world is under Christ's universal reign (even though that reign is still being contested), that the nations of the world will bring their "goods" into the Jerusalem that comes down from above. But many of those who speak easily and fluently of redeeming the culture soon focus all their energy shaping fiscal and political policies and the like, and merely assume the gospel. A gospel that is merely assumed, that does no more than perk away in the background while the focus of our attention is on the "redemption" of the culture in which we find ourselves, is lost within a generation or two. At the same time, I worry about Christians who focus their attention so narrowly on getting people "saved" that they care little about doing good to all people, even if especially to the household of God. Getting this right is not easy, and inevitably priorities will shift a little in various parts of the world, under various regimes. Part of the complexity of the discussion, I think, is bound up with what the church as church is responsible for, and what Christians as Christians are responsible for: I have argued that failure to make this distinction tends to lead toward sad conclusions."
I thought this was such a good question that I ought to actually engage it with a blog post and not just a comment. The first thing that comes to mind is the direct application of what he is talking about - namely politics and the social gospel. With the whole Jeremiah Wright controversy fresh in our minds, that springs up as an excellent example of how the Gospel "is lost within a generation or two." I know a number of pastors who responded first to that controversy by simply saying "what a waste of the pulpit!" Regardless of whether you think he should be damning America or blessing it, you first must lament that he's more concerned with material things than preaching the Gospel, and the Gospel is what people desperately need to hear from the pulpit.
But moving to how this interacts with the arts and Christians involvement in the arts, I think his distinction between "the Church as Church and Christians as Christians" is very helpful here as well. Often we make the mistake of conflating those two concepts and either ditching the Gospel in our Church services in order to be more arty, or stamping crosses on our mints.
When it comes to the Church, we need to realize that the Gospel and its proclamation can take a back seat to nothing. The Gospel must be proclaimed in everything we do as Church. Mike Horton once said that the reason we need to hear the Gospel every Sunday is because we'll convince ourselves every week that its too good to be true - the Law is written on our hearts; the Gospel is entirely alien to us. Every time we miss an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel in church is a time we leave someone bowed under the weight of their conscience. This is a great argument, for instance, against church services that are exclusively music - i.e. don't contain a confession/absoluion, sermon or Bible readings.
When it comes to us as individual Christians, I think the Lutheran idea of vocation is helpful. Just as Christ did not think of equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself for our sake, we are called to empty ourselves for our neighbor's sake. We have no need of good works (Christ has already provided for us there), but our neighbor desperately needs them. Every different role that we play (whether as Software Engineer, Author or Daddy) should be carried out to the service of our neighbor. There is a distinction between the work we do in service to a Church and the work we do in our normal lives, but it is a mistake to consider one as better than the other.
So how does this apply to the vocation of an artist? The artist serves his neighbor first by creating beautiful things, and in so doing reflecting the beauty of God's creation. We serve our neighbor by amplifying and giving him a venue in which to ponder the wonderful things in life. Here is where aesthetic concerns are helpful - Unity and Diversity, Truth, Goodness, Beauty, etc. This is the biggest diversion from where Christians as Christians function differently from the Church as the Church. The Church has no case to say that it's Sunday morning service would be less beautiful if it HAD to include a direct and clear proclamation of the Gospel. The artist, I think, is afforded some liberty. Perhaps the themes of redemption are so strong that Christian symbols and types assert themselves in the work, when other times it would be as offensive as stenciling LOLspeak words on a Monet. This is what Lewis claims happened with The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. He said that it wasn't some work of evangelical calculation that deemed the most effective means of converting kids was to make this Christ figure lion, but rather that as he wrote the story it seemed to have that it mind on its own. Tolkien is an excellent example on the opposite end. The Lord of the Rings has nowhere near the explicit proclamation of the Gospel as Lewis' Narnia, but anyone who doesn't see the trilogy as a deeply Christian work is sorely mistaken.
Another means of serving our neighbor through art is holding the mirror up to our fallen condition. By showing the awfulness of sin and our need for God, we can awaken his conscience to his need for the Gospel or perhaps expose the folly of a sin and prevent him from falling into it. This, of course, also affords the artist some license in that they need not necessarily shy away from mature things. There are some pretty ugly and horrific aspects of our nature and our world, and the reflection in the mirror sometimes does not look so nice. We must be careful, however, to keep in mind that this is done in service to our neighbor. This precludes us from including salacious scenes or things that are there for the mere purpose of titillation. It also, perhaps less obviously, prevents us from condemning a sin too harshly and engendering pride in our neighbor. I don't know who said it (I thought it was Matthew Henry, but Google tells me nothing) that "there is nothing a man likes to hear more than the condemnation of someone else's sins." The artist must be careful to guard against this tendency in himself as well, lest we end up like David and find that "those people" count us among their number.
May God grant that we have the ability to strike the proper balance in service to our neighbor, that we might be salt and light and never lose our focus on the Gospel.
"Redemption terminology in the NT is so bound up with Christ's work for and in the church that to extend it to whatever good we do in the broader world risks a shift in focus. Not for a moment do I want to deny that we are to serve as salt and light, that exiles may be called to do good in the pagan cities where Providence has appointed them to live (Jer 29), that every square foot of this world is under Christ's universal reign (even though that reign is still being contested), that the nations of the world will bring their "goods" into the Jerusalem that comes down from above. But many of those who speak easily and fluently of redeeming the culture soon focus all their energy shaping fiscal and political policies and the like, and merely assume the gospel. A gospel that is merely assumed, that does no more than perk away in the background while the focus of our attention is on the "redemption" of the culture in which we find ourselves, is lost within a generation or two. At the same time, I worry about Christians who focus their attention so narrowly on getting people "saved" that they care little about doing good to all people, even if especially to the household of God. Getting this right is not easy, and inevitably priorities will shift a little in various parts of the world, under various regimes. Part of the complexity of the discussion, I think, is bound up with what the church as church is responsible for, and what Christians as Christians are responsible for: I have argued that failure to make this distinction tends to lead toward sad conclusions."
I thought this was such a good question that I ought to actually engage it with a blog post and not just a comment. The first thing that comes to mind is the direct application of what he is talking about - namely politics and the social gospel. With the whole Jeremiah Wright controversy fresh in our minds, that springs up as an excellent example of how the Gospel "is lost within a generation or two." I know a number of pastors who responded first to that controversy by simply saying "what a waste of the pulpit!" Regardless of whether you think he should be damning America or blessing it, you first must lament that he's more concerned with material things than preaching the Gospel, and the Gospel is what people desperately need to hear from the pulpit.
But moving to how this interacts with the arts and Christians involvement in the arts, I think his distinction between "the Church as Church and Christians as Christians" is very helpful here as well. Often we make the mistake of conflating those two concepts and either ditching the Gospel in our Church services in order to be more arty, or stamping crosses on our mints.
When it comes to the Church, we need to realize that the Gospel and its proclamation can take a back seat to nothing. The Gospel must be proclaimed in everything we do as Church. Mike Horton once said that the reason we need to hear the Gospel every Sunday is because we'll convince ourselves every week that its too good to be true - the Law is written on our hearts; the Gospel is entirely alien to us. Every time we miss an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel in church is a time we leave someone bowed under the weight of their conscience. This is a great argument, for instance, against church services that are exclusively music - i.e. don't contain a confession/absoluion, sermon or Bible readings.
When it comes to us as individual Christians, I think the Lutheran idea of vocation is helpful. Just as Christ did not think of equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself for our sake, we are called to empty ourselves for our neighbor's sake. We have no need of good works (Christ has already provided for us there), but our neighbor desperately needs them. Every different role that we play (whether as Software Engineer, Author or Daddy) should be carried out to the service of our neighbor. There is a distinction between the work we do in service to a Church and the work we do in our normal lives, but it is a mistake to consider one as better than the other.
So how does this apply to the vocation of an artist? The artist serves his neighbor first by creating beautiful things, and in so doing reflecting the beauty of God's creation. We serve our neighbor by amplifying and giving him a venue in which to ponder the wonderful things in life. Here is where aesthetic concerns are helpful - Unity and Diversity, Truth, Goodness, Beauty, etc. This is the biggest diversion from where Christians as Christians function differently from the Church as the Church. The Church has no case to say that it's Sunday morning service would be less beautiful if it HAD to include a direct and clear proclamation of the Gospel. The artist, I think, is afforded some liberty. Perhaps the themes of redemption are so strong that Christian symbols and types assert themselves in the work, when other times it would be as offensive as stenciling LOLspeak words on a Monet. This is what Lewis claims happened with The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. He said that it wasn't some work of evangelical calculation that deemed the most effective means of converting kids was to make this Christ figure lion, but rather that as he wrote the story it seemed to have that it mind on its own. Tolkien is an excellent example on the opposite end. The Lord of the Rings has nowhere near the explicit proclamation of the Gospel as Lewis' Narnia, but anyone who doesn't see the trilogy as a deeply Christian work is sorely mistaken.
Another means of serving our neighbor through art is holding the mirror up to our fallen condition. By showing the awfulness of sin and our need for God, we can awaken his conscience to his need for the Gospel or perhaps expose the folly of a sin and prevent him from falling into it. This, of course, also affords the artist some license in that they need not necessarily shy away from mature things. There are some pretty ugly and horrific aspects of our nature and our world, and the reflection in the mirror sometimes does not look so nice. We must be careful, however, to keep in mind that this is done in service to our neighbor. This precludes us from including salacious scenes or things that are there for the mere purpose of titillation. It also, perhaps less obviously, prevents us from condemning a sin too harshly and engendering pride in our neighbor. I don't know who said it (I thought it was Matthew Henry, but Google tells me nothing) that "there is nothing a man likes to hear more than the condemnation of someone else's sins." The artist must be careful to guard against this tendency in himself as well, lest we end up like David and find that "those people" count us among their number.
May God grant that we have the ability to strike the proper balance in service to our neighbor, that we might be salt and light and never lose our focus on the Gospel.
Posted at 09:53 PM | Read More | | |
Thu - March 27, 2008
Review - The Truth of the Cross by R.C. Sproul
Bias disclaimer: Though I received
this copy of the book as a gift from Nathaniel, I will be receiving another
Reformation Trust book for free in exchange for reviewing this one (as part of
their Blog for a Free Book
promotion).
There is probably no other author who has had such a profound effect on my theology as R.C. Sproul (to be honest, this may present a more serious bias than getting the book for free). His Essential Truths of the Christian Faith was a formative book for me - my first real introduction to the world of theology. R.C. has a way of taking some of the more difficult theological concepts and explaining them so that anyone can not only understand, but see how exciting and wonderful it is to learn more about the amazing God we serve.
This latest book, as one would expect, is no exception to that. It is a very typical R.C. Sproul book - in a good way - in that its direct, concise, and easy to read. I finished off the entire book in about a week and a half, and that was with highlighting and note taking. The Truth of the Cross examines Christ's death on the cross from several different biblical angles - God's Justice, Christ as our Ransom, Christ as our Substitute, the exchange of Christ's blessedness for our cursedness, etc. In each he explains why the Cross is a necessary part of Christianity, and expounds the glory of the Atonement.
This book seems to be an answer to the ongoing controversy over penal substitutionary atonement. There are many in our age who find the idea that God punished His Son on our behalf repellant. They claim it makes God sound primitive and petty - that He would need to be placated, or that He would unjustly punish someone else in our place. While the Truth of The Cross definitely answers these charges, you need not be aware of the modern debate to enjoy it (I'm only tangentially aware of it, and yet I still enjoyed the book).
It also should be somewhat clear from the subject matter, that people who are more well-versed in theology will find this book mostly a review. That is not to imply that its not worth reading or that you won't find new insights, but if you've studied theology at length and don't know anything about the Cross.... well, "UR doin it wrong" (as the lolcats say). If, however, you or someone you know is new to Christianity or hasn't really studied the Cross in depth, then this would be a perfect introduction.
For me, it was mostly a review, but one very worth the time it took to read. There is truly nothing more important than the Cross, and we can never have studied it too in depth. It's also a great asset to have such a succinct summary of biblical categories for the Cross in my library. I'm sure this book will serve as a nice reminder if I want to review a specific aspect of redemption (to that end, I do wish he had included an appendix or something of Bible verses for future study on each topic).
However, one insight in chapter 7 (The Suffering Servant) really jumped out at me, and I don't think I had thought about it before. R.C. first talks about how we often get things wrong by focusing on the externals - man looks at a person's actions, but God looks at his heart. He notes the many incorrect assessments of the Cross by the people who were there as eyewitnesses - the soldiers view Him as another criminal, the Pharisees and the thief mock Him by saying that He saved others but can't save Himself, the people see Him as being punished by God, even the disciples see this as the crushing defeat of their Lord. Clearly, looking at the Cross from the outside, or from the simple historical details, doesn't lead to understanding its cosmic significance.
But then R.C. takes a close look at Isaiah 53, and specifically v. 4-5: "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." (emphasis mine) The interesting thing here is that the crowds that saw Christ as being punished by God actually got it right! He WAS being punished by God, and even for the sake of sin. What they missed was that Christ was not being punished for HIS sin - He was being punished for THEIR sin. This is precisely what Isaiah is teaching in this verse - a remarkable example of how the Old Testament taught the Atonement (including precise specifics) hundreds of years before Christ was even born.
Apart from the content of the book, the printing of the book is high quality which is encouraging since its the first book I've seen from Ligonier's new Reformation Trust imprint. It's a hardcover book, sort of like the old Soli Deo Gloria ones where it has no dust jacket, but the cover is printed with all of the nice artwork and such. I MUCH prefer hardcovers like this, as I always find dust jackets so easily lost/torn/etc and yet these hardcovers look nice (sometimes dust jacket hardcovers are so ugly and plain w/o the dust jacket). It's also a surprisingly small book - a little over 7" tall, which isn't clear from the photos online.
All in all, its a quality book and a good overview of the essentials surrounding the Atonement and the Cross. I recommend it - 4 out of 5 stars.
There is probably no other author who has had such a profound effect on my theology as R.C. Sproul (to be honest, this may present a more serious bias than getting the book for free). His Essential Truths of the Christian Faith was a formative book for me - my first real introduction to the world of theology. R.C. has a way of taking some of the more difficult theological concepts and explaining them so that anyone can not only understand, but see how exciting and wonderful it is to learn more about the amazing God we serve.
This latest book, as one would expect, is no exception to that. It is a very typical R.C. Sproul book - in a good way - in that its direct, concise, and easy to read. I finished off the entire book in about a week and a half, and that was with highlighting and note taking. The Truth of the Cross examines Christ's death on the cross from several different biblical angles - God's Justice, Christ as our Ransom, Christ as our Substitute, the exchange of Christ's blessedness for our cursedness, etc. In each he explains why the Cross is a necessary part of Christianity, and expounds the glory of the Atonement.
This book seems to be an answer to the ongoing controversy over penal substitutionary atonement. There are many in our age who find the idea that God punished His Son on our behalf repellant. They claim it makes God sound primitive and petty - that He would need to be placated, or that He would unjustly punish someone else in our place. While the Truth of The Cross definitely answers these charges, you need not be aware of the modern debate to enjoy it (I'm only tangentially aware of it, and yet I still enjoyed the book).
It also should be somewhat clear from the subject matter, that people who are more well-versed in theology will find this book mostly a review. That is not to imply that its not worth reading or that you won't find new insights, but if you've studied theology at length and don't know anything about the Cross.... well, "UR doin it wrong" (as the lolcats say). If, however, you or someone you know is new to Christianity or hasn't really studied the Cross in depth, then this would be a perfect introduction.
For me, it was mostly a review, but one very worth the time it took to read. There is truly nothing more important than the Cross, and we can never have studied it too in depth. It's also a great asset to have such a succinct summary of biblical categories for the Cross in my library. I'm sure this book will serve as a nice reminder if I want to review a specific aspect of redemption (to that end, I do wish he had included an appendix or something of Bible verses for future study on each topic).
However, one insight in chapter 7 (The Suffering Servant) really jumped out at me, and I don't think I had thought about it before. R.C. first talks about how we often get things wrong by focusing on the externals - man looks at a person's actions, but God looks at his heart. He notes the many incorrect assessments of the Cross by the people who were there as eyewitnesses - the soldiers view Him as another criminal, the Pharisees and the thief mock Him by saying that He saved others but can't save Himself, the people see Him as being punished by God, even the disciples see this as the crushing defeat of their Lord. Clearly, looking at the Cross from the outside, or from the simple historical details, doesn't lead to understanding its cosmic significance.
But then R.C. takes a close look at Isaiah 53, and specifically v. 4-5: "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." (emphasis mine) The interesting thing here is that the crowds that saw Christ as being punished by God actually got it right! He WAS being punished by God, and even for the sake of sin. What they missed was that Christ was not being punished for HIS sin - He was being punished for THEIR sin. This is precisely what Isaiah is teaching in this verse - a remarkable example of how the Old Testament taught the Atonement (including precise specifics) hundreds of years before Christ was even born.
Apart from the content of the book, the printing of the book is high quality which is encouraging since its the first book I've seen from Ligonier's new Reformation Trust imprint. It's a hardcover book, sort of like the old Soli Deo Gloria ones where it has no dust jacket, but the cover is printed with all of the nice artwork and such. I MUCH prefer hardcovers like this, as I always find dust jackets so easily lost/torn/etc and yet these hardcovers look nice (sometimes dust jacket hardcovers are so ugly and plain w/o the dust jacket). It's also a surprisingly small book - a little over 7" tall, which isn't clear from the photos online.
All in all, its a quality book and a good overview of the essentials surrounding the Atonement and the Cross. I recommend it - 4 out of 5 stars.
Posted at 07:53 AM | Read More | | |
Sun - March 23, 2008
A new Easter Tradition (aka Dutch Baby Recipe)
As I was reading Mere-O (you've added it to your
RSS feeds by now, yes? good) this morning, I came across this post on
Feasting and Fasting. Tex makes reference to "the simple yet
monumental achievement of a Dutch baby browning in the oven." Which caused me
to ask - what the heck is a Dutch baby? and is it the delectable looking thing
he has pictured in the post?
Armed with the vast wealth of wiki/google/etc, I soon discovered that a Dutch Baby (also known as a German Pancake) is a yorkshire pudding-like confection that is sort of like a sweetened pancake/souffle that falls down in the middle. They traditionally come covered with a bit of lemon juice and dusted in powdered sugar, but the deflated middle also plays a nice host to fruits or other stuff.
Needless to say, I was very intrigued to try one of these things. So I went out and found a couple of good recipes and decided to throw my own together. As I began thinking about this, with Tex's observations on fasting and feasting rattling around in my head, it dawned on me that this might be a perfect Easter Sunday tradition. I have been looking for something to make Easter truly special for my kids - something that they will remember fondly the way we all remember Christmas.
Easter doesn't get the kind of fondness it deserves - it truly is the greatest thing we can possibly celebrate. Not only has Christ come to Earth and took on our flesh (which is what make Christmas so great), but He did so that He might die for our sins. And not only that, He rose from the dead on the third day to proclaim that even death, the very power of sin, had been utterly destroyed. Easter is the day we celebrate that nothing, NOTHING, will be able to restrain the grace of our God in redeeming us for all eternity. Shouldn't Easter get better traditions than anything else then?
Dutch Baby's are fun for kids to watch because they puff up all big before falling down, and they sound unrestrainedly sweet. I'm hoping this can be one of many traditions we can start with our kids to remind them of the wonderful joy of Easter and to help them look forward to a time when we will truly feast in a way befitting the joy of Easter.
Dutch Baby Recipe (w/ Marinated Berries)
Consider this a sort of mashup between Orangette's recipe and the Food Network recipe. I took a little bit from each to make this (though the berry sauce is taken as-is from Food Network. First things first, start by making the marinated berries:
Marinated Berries
2 tablespoons sugar
1 vanilla bean, split lengthwise, and seeds scraped out with a knife and reserved
Grated zest of 1/2 lemon
Grated zest of 1/2 orange
1 cup water
2 tablespoons freshly squeezed orange juice
1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
1/2 pint raspberries
1/2 pint blueberries, rinsed
1/2 pint strawberries, rinsed, tops trimmed, halved or quartered, if large
In a small saucepan, combine the sugar, vanilla bean and seeds, citrus zests, and water. Bring to a boil and then reduce the heat to low. Simmer very gently until syrupy, about 25 minutes. (Note: now would be a good time to pull out the ingredients for the Dutch Baby, to allow them to get to room temp.) Remove from the heat and add the citrus juices. Combine the berries in a bowl. Strain the warm syrup over the berries and marinate at room temperature for 30 minutes.
While that is marinating, you can throw the Dutch baby in the oven. First off, preheat the oven to 425º.
Dutch Baby
1 stick unsalted butter
4 eggs
1/2 cup cream
1/2 cup All-purpose flour
3 Tablespoons sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla
Put the stick of butter into a cast iron skillet (10") and melt over low heat. Mix up all the rest of the ingredients in a blender (I add the cream eggs and vanilla first, then add the sugar and then the flour - but not everyone is as OCD as me. I'm sure you could probably throw it all in there and go). Brush the butter up the sides of the cast iron skillet, then pour in the batter from the blender. Throw it into the over and cook it at 425º for 25 minutes. But watch it - mine started getting a bit black around the edges at 25 min (Next year I may try Food Network's cooking instruction - drop to 350º after 10 minutes).
Remove from the oven, dust with a ton of powdered sugar, add the marinated berries, then praise God for food. Seriously, that last step will make it taste much better when you realize that life could be sustained by the runny goo they had in the Matrix - but to you, God has given the wonderful enjoyment of food. And sweeter still, He has given us Easter - the resurrected Son proclaiming forgiveness; our sin is no more, death has no power, He is risen indeed!
Armed with the vast wealth of wiki/google/etc, I soon discovered that a Dutch Baby (also known as a German Pancake) is a yorkshire pudding-like confection that is sort of like a sweetened pancake/souffle that falls down in the middle. They traditionally come covered with a bit of lemon juice and dusted in powdered sugar, but the deflated middle also plays a nice host to fruits or other stuff.
Needless to say, I was very intrigued to try one of these things. So I went out and found a couple of good recipes and decided to throw my own together. As I began thinking about this, with Tex's observations on fasting and feasting rattling around in my head, it dawned on me that this might be a perfect Easter Sunday tradition. I have been looking for something to make Easter truly special for my kids - something that they will remember fondly the way we all remember Christmas.
Easter doesn't get the kind of fondness it deserves - it truly is the greatest thing we can possibly celebrate. Not only has Christ come to Earth and took on our flesh (which is what make Christmas so great), but He did so that He might die for our sins. And not only that, He rose from the dead on the third day to proclaim that even death, the very power of sin, had been utterly destroyed. Easter is the day we celebrate that nothing, NOTHING, will be able to restrain the grace of our God in redeeming us for all eternity. Shouldn't Easter get better traditions than anything else then?
Dutch Baby's are fun for kids to watch because they puff up all big before falling down, and they sound unrestrainedly sweet. I'm hoping this can be one of many traditions we can start with our kids to remind them of the wonderful joy of Easter and to help them look forward to a time when we will truly feast in a way befitting the joy of Easter.
Dutch Baby Recipe (w/ Marinated Berries)
Consider this a sort of mashup between Orangette's recipe and the Food Network recipe. I took a little bit from each to make this (though the berry sauce is taken as-is from Food Network. First things first, start by making the marinated berries:
Marinated Berries
2 tablespoons sugar
1 vanilla bean, split lengthwise, and seeds scraped out with a knife and reserved
Grated zest of 1/2 lemon
Grated zest of 1/2 orange
1 cup water
2 tablespoons freshly squeezed orange juice
1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
1/2 pint raspberries
1/2 pint blueberries, rinsed
1/2 pint strawberries, rinsed, tops trimmed, halved or quartered, if large
In a small saucepan, combine the sugar, vanilla bean and seeds, citrus zests, and water. Bring to a boil and then reduce the heat to low. Simmer very gently until syrupy, about 25 minutes. (Note: now would be a good time to pull out the ingredients for the Dutch Baby, to allow them to get to room temp.) Remove from the heat and add the citrus juices. Combine the berries in a bowl. Strain the warm syrup over the berries and marinate at room temperature for 30 minutes.
While that is marinating, you can throw the Dutch baby in the oven. First off, preheat the oven to 425º.
Dutch Baby
1 stick unsalted butter
4 eggs
1/2 cup cream
1/2 cup All-purpose flour
3 Tablespoons sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla
Put the stick of butter into a cast iron skillet (10") and melt over low heat. Mix up all the rest of the ingredients in a blender (I add the cream eggs and vanilla first, then add the sugar and then the flour - but not everyone is as OCD as me. I'm sure you could probably throw it all in there and go). Brush the butter up the sides of the cast iron skillet, then pour in the batter from the blender. Throw it into the over and cook it at 425º for 25 minutes. But watch it - mine started getting a bit black around the edges at 25 min (Next year I may try Food Network's cooking instruction - drop to 350º after 10 minutes).
Remove from the oven, dust with a ton of powdered sugar, add the marinated berries, then praise God for food. Seriously, that last step will make it taste much better when you realize that life could be sustained by the runny goo they had in the Matrix - but to you, God has given the wonderful enjoyment of food. And sweeter still, He has given us Easter - the resurrected Son proclaiming forgiveness; our sin is no more, death has no power, He is risen indeed!
Posted at 07:10 AM | Read More | | |
Thu - March 13, 2008
Thu - March 6, 2008
Joe Carter's book project
Friend and blogger Joe Carter is planning on writing a book, but he
has a novel idea on how to actually fund the project (Samuel
- not sure if this may or may not work for your novel, but its worth some
thought). It is based on the 1000 true fans idea - that artists or content
creators need no longer hope for the longshot big win deal, but instead can use
the power of the long tail to make a living by creating for their True Fans.
The idea is that every artist has a set of True Fans. They are the people who buy every release, get everything signed, show up for every show, etc. Back in my band days, we always had a few of those people. You could count on them to be at nearly every show, and they were the bedrock of your support. The 1000 True Fans idea is that if you can get 1000 of these type of fans, you can make a living by releasing things just for them. They are happy, because their favorite artist is still making music/writing/etc. You are happy because you can actually make a living and devote real time to the thing you're passionate about.
This is an idea I had been thinking about in the back of my mind ever since PodShow had launched the PodSafe Music Network. Most artists are really not hoping to score the triple platinum, major label, millionaire success. They'd take it, of course, but thats not why they make music. Most of them would really just be happy not having to slog through their day job, tired from being up all night playing music. The 1000 True Fans idea does just that - you may not strike it rich, but at least you might quit your day job.
Anyway, all of this is the background to Joe's idea for funding his book. He is going to attempt to raise $5,350 on Fundable as a sort of advance for the book. In return for people donating, he is offering some perks - $15 or more gets you a signed copy of the finished book, $100 or more gets your name and URL on the dedication page, etc. It's a really great idea and I hope he can pull it off.
My advice to Joe - expand his blog series On Conservatism into a full length book. Lay out precisely what conservatism is, what our main values should be, and how to rebuild a movement that seems to be a bit lost of late.
The idea is that every artist has a set of True Fans. They are the people who buy every release, get everything signed, show up for every show, etc. Back in my band days, we always had a few of those people. You could count on them to be at nearly every show, and they were the bedrock of your support. The 1000 True Fans idea is that if you can get 1000 of these type of fans, you can make a living by releasing things just for them. They are happy, because their favorite artist is still making music/writing/etc. You are happy because you can actually make a living and devote real time to the thing you're passionate about.
This is an idea I had been thinking about in the back of my mind ever since PodShow had launched the PodSafe Music Network. Most artists are really not hoping to score the triple platinum, major label, millionaire success. They'd take it, of course, but thats not why they make music. Most of them would really just be happy not having to slog through their day job, tired from being up all night playing music. The 1000 True Fans idea does just that - you may not strike it rich, but at least you might quit your day job.
Anyway, all of this is the background to Joe's idea for funding his book. He is going to attempt to raise $5,350 on Fundable as a sort of advance for the book. In return for people donating, he is offering some perks - $15 or more gets you a signed copy of the finished book, $100 or more gets your name and URL on the dedication page, etc. It's a really great idea and I hope he can pull it off.
My advice to Joe - expand his blog series On Conservatism into a full length book. Lay out precisely what conservatism is, what our main values should be, and how to rebuild a movement that seems to be a bit lost of late.
Posted at 10:25 AM | Read More | | |
Wed - February 20, 2008
Happy International Pipe Smoking Day
Well, I am a bit ashamed to be the last out of
Nathaniel and Van to post on this (I used to be a real
blogger, but now my two self-styled "fake blogger" friends beat me to it), but I
have to say Happy International Pipe Smoking Day to all fellow pipe smokers out
there. And though he is not technically a pipe smoker yet, because he is a pipe
owner as of Tuesday night (when I gave him a spare cob of mine) a shout out goes
to Eric as well. We'll have to introduce you to
the art of actually smoking a pipe here sometime in the near
future.
It is unfortunate that pipe smoking is somehow inexplicably thrown in with cigarettes in the culture's hatred of all things tobacco. I can honestly say I'm a better man for smoking a pipe, and were I to do so more often, I would be a better man. Pipe smoking is something I do while reading and pondering a good book, or having a good discussion with friends. People don't sit down to smoke a pipe while mindlessly watching too much TV or fire up a briar at a Britney Spears concert. It is a contemplative and reflective activity, which is a great thing indeed in a culture bent on perpetual distraction.
So whether you pack it in the traditional 3-layer method, or the new fangled Frank method, whether you're a Zippo, butane or just plain old match guy, whether you like your tobac sweet and aromatic or chock full of Latakia, whether its briar, meerschaum or corn cob - let's all fire up a pipe and meditate on what a wonderful gift God gave us in the form of pipes.
It is unfortunate that pipe smoking is somehow inexplicably thrown in with cigarettes in the culture's hatred of all things tobacco. I can honestly say I'm a better man for smoking a pipe, and were I to do so more often, I would be a better man. Pipe smoking is something I do while reading and pondering a good book, or having a good discussion with friends. People don't sit down to smoke a pipe while mindlessly watching too much TV or fire up a briar at a Britney Spears concert. It is a contemplative and reflective activity, which is a great thing indeed in a culture bent on perpetual distraction.
So whether you pack it in the traditional 3-layer method, or the new fangled Frank method, whether you're a Zippo, butane or just plain old match guy, whether you like your tobac sweet and aromatic or chock full of Latakia, whether its briar, meerschaum or corn cob - let's all fire up a pipe and meditate on what a wonderful gift God gave us in the form of pipes.
Posted at 09:38 AM | Read More | | |
Mon - January 21, 2008
Presidential Primary run-down
This blog has been mostly politics free for a
little bit (well, its been post free, mostly) but I thought I would finally
weigh in on the presidential primaries. This is probably the most exciting
primary I've ever witnessed, as it is completely wide open on both sides. So
without further ado, here's my take on each of the major
candidates.
Democrats:
Obama: Like John Mark Reynolds, he is a Democrat that I want to want to vote for. He is a charismatic man with a compelling story who is obviously very bright. While I have major disagreements with him in policy (universal health care, likely larger taxes/government, and a withdrawal of our troops without finishing the job in Iraq), I wish I didn't so that I could vote for him. I think this makes him a rather formidable force in the general election, as the number of people who are going to object to these policy ideas is less than the number who will be excited about it. (Just to be clear, I think a large majority would object to larger government if anyone could articulate the ultimate consequences of that. On the Republican side, however, who can communicate that? Romney?). It is somehwat accurate to accuse Obama of being big on ideas and small on actual application, but - as Hillary is finding out - its hard to criticize someone who is so positive and charismatic. I also love rooting for Obama because I love nothing better than watching Hillary squirm.
Edwards: I love Edwards, but not for his policies or ideas, nor for his perfect hair. I love the entertainment he brings to the primaries. Edwards is like the kid in grade school who ran for student body president by promising he'd put Coke in all the drinking fountains. How comical is a the idea of a man who is so incomprehensibly rich running a campaign to help others with YOUR money? And how even more funny is it that no one calls him on it?
Clinton: Forget my strong objections to just about every one of her policies. Does anyone think that we need another 4 (or 8?!) years of the Clintons? My generation and those younger than me are already cynical enough - do we really need to have the Presidency controlled by only 2 families for close to 3 decades? I would say most of us are already convinced that we are ruled by an aristocracy of elites, protected by money and established media, such that we are only allowed to select from a few vetted candidates. But only 2 choices? Thats enough to dispirit a good chunk of young voters. This is particularly true sense her only road to victory lies in defeating a candidate that is overwhelmingly appealing to young voters.
Republicans:
Romney: Enough already with the idea that Romney is unappealing to Evangelicals because of his Mormon faith. Michael Medved pretty much put that rumor to rest with facts from the exit polls. I don't know what it is about Romney, but he just doesn't seem to close the deal. He's attractive, has good policy positions, is WELL funded, backed by almost every major pundit, debates well with a strong command of the facts, and yet even I am only half-heartedly thinking of voting for him (mostly by default). If I had to guess I think its due to two things. First, the fact that he has changed his positions since his 1994 run for Senate and, in some ways, since he was Governor. Second, there are some times in which he seems to define his message based on whats popular. For instance, he originally was running mostly as the Reagan conservative. Now, though thats still his main message, he's talking constantly about change now after the Obama/Huck victories. While I think people will grant its ok to alter strategy a bit here and there, Romney's strategy changes sometimes feel like they may indicate principle changes. Which, of course, only serves to raise eyebrows about the first problem I mentioned. Nonetheless, Romney right now is tentatively getting my vote because I think he is being honest in his positions, and he has extensive experience being a solid executive in both the private and public sector.
Huckabee: For a few weeks, Huckabee had overtaken Romney as my candidate. He is charming, has a sharp wit in the debates, and is solid on social conservative issues. The fact that he had the guts to actually make the Fair Tax a big part of his platform also was a big plus (I believe the Fair Tax to be by far the best system of taxation for a number of reasons). The problem is he has done a couple of things that I think are shifty in running for the nomination. For instance, his Clintonesque answers on past problems like the AIDS issue, and his "I think this ad is too negative to run.... but here, let me show it to all of you; there's no WAY it'll be all over TV for free." The other problem is that while he is a very sharp witted and capable debater, he has a real problem with gaffes and being caught without the facts. Part of it is understandable - he can't pay staffers to brief him on all the issues like major candidates can - but its still a major liability.
Ron Paul: Is it rather telling that in my first draft of this post I left Paul off the list? Ron Paul has a lot to like. Long before he was known on the national scene as a presidential candidate, he's been something of a celebrity to conservatives for his "Dr. No" votes against anything unconstitutional. When people see us signing treaties that aren't really treaties (and thus don't need ratification) in order to sort of end a war that isn't really a war (in order to escape a declaration of war), a man who's devotion to the constitution is never in question becomes appealing - to me as well. The problem with Paul, other than the obvious problems of his past racist remarks, is that he is so idealistic he loses grasp with reality. Would a gold standard be better than fiat money? Thats a decent academic debate, but if you think you'd ever get that passed, you're insane. It also seriously blinds him to the threat of islamofacism, which he seems to think will go away if we curl our military up into a North American fetal position and ask everyone to knock it off.
Thompson: To echo John Mark Reynolds, "Was there ever a candidate with more promise who did less than Fred Thompson?" Fred! was supposed to be the White Knight, riding in to save the party in our time of serious lack of candidates. Instead he sorta strode in late,. yawned, and said "sure, whatever... if you make me, I'll be president" The biggest disappointment to me was that he seemed to be someone who could communicate the ideas of Reaganism - being an actor like Reagan himself. But in the debates he hasn't mustered anything memorable and I think the only time I've seen him actually articulate something was when he was attacking Huck by reading off his cue cards. When will the ruling class of conservatives realize that Reaganism NEEDS to be communicated? You can't just argue who is most like Reagan, or who is not a "true" conservative - the younger generations need to be convinced that free market economics actually work and that smaller government is a good thing.
McCain: My favorite comment on McCain is Hughitt's suggestion the John McCain needs a neuralyzer (that cool gadget in Men In Black that erases peoples memories). To conservatives, the list of McCain betrayals is plenty long enough to disqualify him from office - the Gand of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. To some degree, its too bad, because he is a true war hero who is rock solid on pro-life issues and has made criticisms of the war tactics without ever casting doubt on those who serve. He is also staunchly for the war, while being just as resolute in condemning torture - a surprisingly difficult to find attribute at times (certainly among conservative punditry). But his past "maverick" actions indicate a man a little too eager for acceptance in the MSM, and his attacks in the debates and elsewhere show he is not temperamentally suited for president. I have no problem with negative ads or attacking someone's positions/record, but McCain seems to offer very little charity in disagreeing with people, using the same sort of incendiary slander-rhetoric against his own party that bombthrowers of the left employ.
Rudy: Having been to New York City for the first time in my life just recently, I can see the appeal of Rudy. We've all heard tales of the previous dark side of NYC, but they seem almost hard to imagine if you're there now. He is the only executive to actually have dealt with an Islamicist attack - and handled it so well it is reason enough for a lot of people to vote for him. But as much as that is true, Rudy is the Boromir candidate. Like Boromir, he is great on the war and good on little else. Giving him, and his authoritarian tendencies, the powers of presidency in time of war is much like the temptation of the Ring. He would simply have too much power, and his good intentions and strong will to fight might very well be used to awful means. If Rudy wins the nomination, I will have to do some serious soul searching to vote for him - right now, I'd stay home.
Democrats:
Obama: Like John Mark Reynolds, he is a Democrat that I want to want to vote for. He is a charismatic man with a compelling story who is obviously very bright. While I have major disagreements with him in policy (universal health care, likely larger taxes/government, and a withdrawal of our troops without finishing the job in Iraq), I wish I didn't so that I could vote for him. I think this makes him a rather formidable force in the general election, as the number of people who are going to object to these policy ideas is less than the number who will be excited about it. (Just to be clear, I think a large majority would object to larger government if anyone could articulate the ultimate consequences of that. On the Republican side, however, who can communicate that? Romney?). It is somehwat accurate to accuse Obama of being big on ideas and small on actual application, but - as Hillary is finding out - its hard to criticize someone who is so positive and charismatic. I also love rooting for Obama because I love nothing better than watching Hillary squirm.
Edwards: I love Edwards, but not for his policies or ideas, nor for his perfect hair. I love the entertainment he brings to the primaries. Edwards is like the kid in grade school who ran for student body president by promising he'd put Coke in all the drinking fountains. How comical is a the idea of a man who is so incomprehensibly rich running a campaign to help others with YOUR money? And how even more funny is it that no one calls him on it?
Clinton: Forget my strong objections to just about every one of her policies. Does anyone think that we need another 4 (or 8?!) years of the Clintons? My generation and those younger than me are already cynical enough - do we really need to have the Presidency controlled by only 2 families for close to 3 decades? I would say most of us are already convinced that we are ruled by an aristocracy of elites, protected by money and established media, such that we are only allowed to select from a few vetted candidates. But only 2 choices? Thats enough to dispirit a good chunk of young voters. This is particularly true sense her only road to victory lies in defeating a candidate that is overwhelmingly appealing to young voters.
Republicans:
Romney: Enough already with the idea that Romney is unappealing to Evangelicals because of his Mormon faith. Michael Medved pretty much put that rumor to rest with facts from the exit polls. I don't know what it is about Romney, but he just doesn't seem to close the deal. He's attractive, has good policy positions, is WELL funded, backed by almost every major pundit, debates well with a strong command of the facts, and yet even I am only half-heartedly thinking of voting for him (mostly by default). If I had to guess I think its due to two things. First, the fact that he has changed his positions since his 1994 run for Senate and, in some ways, since he was Governor. Second, there are some times in which he seems to define his message based on whats popular. For instance, he originally was running mostly as the Reagan conservative. Now, though thats still his main message, he's talking constantly about change now after the Obama/Huck victories. While I think people will grant its ok to alter strategy a bit here and there, Romney's strategy changes sometimes feel like they may indicate principle changes. Which, of course, only serves to raise eyebrows about the first problem I mentioned. Nonetheless, Romney right now is tentatively getting my vote because I think he is being honest in his positions, and he has extensive experience being a solid executive in both the private and public sector.
Huckabee: For a few weeks, Huckabee had overtaken Romney as my candidate. He is charming, has a sharp wit in the debates, and is solid on social conservative issues. The fact that he had the guts to actually make the Fair Tax a big part of his platform also was a big plus (I believe the Fair Tax to be by far the best system of taxation for a number of reasons). The problem is he has done a couple of things that I think are shifty in running for the nomination. For instance, his Clintonesque answers on past problems like the AIDS issue, and his "I think this ad is too negative to run.... but here, let me show it to all of you; there's no WAY it'll be all over TV for free." The other problem is that while he is a very sharp witted and capable debater, he has a real problem with gaffes and being caught without the facts. Part of it is understandable - he can't pay staffers to brief him on all the issues like major candidates can - but its still a major liability.
Ron Paul: Is it rather telling that in my first draft of this post I left Paul off the list? Ron Paul has a lot to like. Long before he was known on the national scene as a presidential candidate, he's been something of a celebrity to conservatives for his "Dr. No" votes against anything unconstitutional. When people see us signing treaties that aren't really treaties (and thus don't need ratification) in order to sort of end a war that isn't really a war (in order to escape a declaration of war), a man who's devotion to the constitution is never in question becomes appealing - to me as well. The problem with Paul, other than the obvious problems of his past racist remarks, is that he is so idealistic he loses grasp with reality. Would a gold standard be better than fiat money? Thats a decent academic debate, but if you think you'd ever get that passed, you're insane. It also seriously blinds him to the threat of islamofacism, which he seems to think will go away if we curl our military up into a North American fetal position and ask everyone to knock it off.
Thompson: To echo John Mark Reynolds, "Was there ever a candidate with more promise who did less than Fred Thompson?" Fred! was supposed to be the White Knight, riding in to save the party in our time of serious lack of candidates. Instead he sorta strode in late,. yawned, and said "sure, whatever... if you make me, I'll be president" The biggest disappointment to me was that he seemed to be someone who could communicate the ideas of Reaganism - being an actor like Reagan himself. But in the debates he hasn't mustered anything memorable and I think the only time I've seen him actually articulate something was when he was attacking Huck by reading off his cue cards. When will the ruling class of conservatives realize that Reaganism NEEDS to be communicated? You can't just argue who is most like Reagan, or who is not a "true" conservative - the younger generations need to be convinced that free market economics actually work and that smaller government is a good thing.
McCain: My favorite comment on McCain is Hughitt's suggestion the John McCain needs a neuralyzer (that cool gadget in Men In Black that erases peoples memories). To conservatives, the list of McCain betrayals is plenty long enough to disqualify him from office - the Gand of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc. To some degree, its too bad, because he is a true war hero who is rock solid on pro-life issues and has made criticisms of the war tactics without ever casting doubt on those who serve. He is also staunchly for the war, while being just as resolute in condemning torture - a surprisingly difficult to find attribute at times (certainly among conservative punditry). But his past "maverick" actions indicate a man a little too eager for acceptance in the MSM, and his attacks in the debates and elsewhere show he is not temperamentally suited for president. I have no problem with negative ads or attacking someone's positions/record, but McCain seems to offer very little charity in disagreeing with people, using the same sort of incendiary slander-rhetoric against his own party that bombthrowers of the left employ.
Rudy: Having been to New York City for the first time in my life just recently, I can see the appeal of Rudy. We've all heard tales of the previous dark side of NYC, but they seem almost hard to imagine if you're there now. He is the only executive to actually have dealt with an Islamicist attack - and handled it so well it is reason enough for a lot of people to vote for him. But as much as that is true, Rudy is the Boromir candidate. Like Boromir, he is great on the war and good on little else. Giving him, and his authoritarian tendencies, the powers of presidency in time of war is much like the temptation of the Ring. He would simply have too much power, and his good intentions and strong will to fight might very well be used to awful means. If Rudy wins the nomination, I will have to do some serious soul searching to vote for him - right now, I'd stay home.
Posted at 11:35 AM | Read More | | |
Thu - January 10, 2008
Sun - November 11, 2007
Our new blessing
Chloe Marie DeBow was born October 28th at 11:40PM - just in time for Reformation Sunday. She was 9 lbs., 9 ounces and 20 inches long. After a brief battle with jaundice, she is now doing very well. We are ecstatic to have her, and ask you to join us in thanking God for the blessing of children.
Posted at 06:54 PM | Read More | | |
Thu - September 27, 2007
Book Meme
Note: I found this post which I had written
almost entirely, but forgot to post back in July of 2006! I guess its a little
behind, but I'll post it now anyway because its hardly time sensitive, though
Eating Words has changed names at least twice and can now be found
here.
Eating Words (a good blog I hope all of you are reading) recently put up a book meme post, in which he answered a set of questions regarding books that he has read. If you're not familiar with blog memes, they are something of a friendly chain letter - where one blogger will respond to a series of questions and then forward the challenge to 5 others. This way they move throughout the blogosphere quickly and get a bunch of responses.
I was honored that in an update to the post, he not only tagged me, but listed me as an "interesting person." My vanity properly puffed up, I have no choice but to respond. Here is my take on the meme:
1. One book that changed your life:
Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, R.C. Sproul
This book introduced me to theology, and really spurred me onto a deeper Christian faith. I don't know where I would be today without this book, but I doubt that I would have had the desire and courage to read some other weightier works of theology.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Freedom of the Christian, by Martin Luther
A classic work that has several distinctives of Lutheranism - most notably the complete and total forgiveness found in Christ and complete lack of any condemning or binding power of the law. It made my Presbyterian friends in the reading group a little queasy thinking about Christians being totally freed from the law.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
My Sherlock Holmes collection - there's something about these stories that just whisks you away to Victorian London. If you ever needed to forget you were on a desert island, you could easily seek comfort in Doyle's world.
4. One book that made you laugh:
Dilbert comics - the fount of geeky hilarity
5. One book that made you cry:
Just about any of the Chronicles of Narnia, but especially The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as well as The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I hate to admit it, but the great truths in these books, so eloquently hidden in a wonderful, magical story, can reduce me to a whimpering idiot. I'm also sure they've made me a better man.
6. One book that you wish had been written:
The complete guide to wise decisions for Brant's life, by God
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
I think I love books too much to wish a book unwritten. There are a ton of books that have had major negative influences, or books that I strongly disagree with, but there's a huge part of me that is glad books have that power - for good or evil. And yes, that is a cop out because I can't think of anything specific.
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton - though those of you savvy blog readers already know you can see the books I'm currently reading in the right sidebar of the homepage. (Note: obviously, this no longer applies, but you can still see what I'm reading now on the right).
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Anything by Forde. I've heard so many recommendations for Forde by Lutherans I respect greatly, that I really need to pick up at least one, if not several, of his books. I'm hoping to convince my reading group that a Forde book would be a good next step.
10. Now tag five people:
Nathaniel
Van
Josh
Nick
Steve
UPDATE: Mere-O Matt has also agreed to take up the challenge. Any other Mere-O friends may consider themselves so tagged if they wish - I'd be interested in hearing all of your thoughts on this.
Eating Words (a good blog I hope all of you are reading) recently put up a book meme post, in which he answered a set of questions regarding books that he has read. If you're not familiar with blog memes, they are something of a friendly chain letter - where one blogger will respond to a series of questions and then forward the challenge to 5 others. This way they move throughout the blogosphere quickly and get a bunch of responses.
I was honored that in an update to the post, he not only tagged me, but listed me as an "interesting person." My vanity properly puffed up, I have no choice but to respond. Here is my take on the meme:
1. One book that changed your life:
Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, R.C. Sproul
This book introduced me to theology, and really spurred me onto a deeper Christian faith. I don't know where I would be today without this book, but I doubt that I would have had the desire and courage to read some other weightier works of theology.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Freedom of the Christian, by Martin Luther
A classic work that has several distinctives of Lutheranism - most notably the complete and total forgiveness found in Christ and complete lack of any condemning or binding power of the law. It made my Presbyterian friends in the reading group a little queasy thinking about Christians being totally freed from the law.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
My Sherlock Holmes collection - there's something about these stories that just whisks you away to Victorian London. If you ever needed to forget you were on a desert island, you could easily seek comfort in Doyle's world.
4. One book that made you laugh:
Dilbert comics - the fount of geeky hilarity
5. One book that made you cry:
Just about any of the Chronicles of Narnia, but especially The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe as well as The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I hate to admit it, but the great truths in these books, so eloquently hidden in a wonderful, magical story, can reduce me to a whimpering idiot. I'm also sure they've made me a better man.
6. One book that you wish had been written:
The complete guide to wise decisions for Brant's life, by God
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
I think I love books too much to wish a book unwritten. There are a ton of books that have had major negative influences, or books that I strongly disagree with, but there's a huge part of me that is glad books have that power - for good or evil. And yes, that is a cop out because I can't think of anything specific.
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton - though those of you savvy blog readers already know you can see the books I'm currently reading in the right sidebar of the homepage. (Note: obviously, this no longer applies, but you can still see what I'm reading now on the right).
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Anything by Forde. I've heard so many recommendations for Forde by Lutherans I respect greatly, that I really need to pick up at least one, if not several, of his books. I'm hoping to convince my reading group that a Forde book would be a good next step.
10. Now tag five people:
Nathaniel
Van
Josh
Nick
Steve
UPDATE: Mere-O Matt has also agreed to take up the challenge. Any other Mere-O friends may consider themselves so tagged if they wish - I'd be interested in hearing all of your thoughts on this.
Posted at 02:05 AM | Read More | | |
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Highlighted posts
Search
The Tip Jar
Blogs of interest
The Moviegoer
Anesthetic Smoke
Scots Wha Hae!
Applied Semiotics
Odelay!
Maple Mountain Story Club
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
My Tobacco Cellar
Anesthetic Smoke
Scots Wha Hae!
Applied Semiotics
Odelay!
Maple Mountain Story Club
Eidos : Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Mere Orthodoxy
A Voice in the Wilderness
Jollyblogger
Squiblog
Beyond the Rim
ESV Bible blog
My Tobacco Cellar
Lutheran Blogroll
Currently Reading
Brought to you by
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Published On: Nov 16, 2009 08:40 PM
Published On: Nov 16, 2009 08:40 PM
The Church Directory
Comments Powered By
Counters provided by
Listed In
