About Me
Mark: 8:31-39
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
I was thinking about the text, and specifically 'he must deny himself and take up his cross'. I've been reading the AA Big Book, and lo and behold AA has a lot to say about this 'denial'. AA is strong on the diagosis of sin - ie that our problems 'arise out of ourselves' - that we're selfish and self-seeking, etc. . . We're given a 'daily reprive contingent upon the maintance of our spiritual condition' - and 'our very lives as ex-problem drinkers depend upon our constant thought of others and how we may help meet their needs.' The denial of self boils down to service - that we've been given a second chance on life to help others - not to win a bunch of cash and prizes or to have this 'glorious life' - but to help those who still suffer. It's about serving others; not ourselves - though by servicing others we too are served - another paradox!
It's all a big Chrisitan microchosim - we're saved by grace to serve others by proclaiming the good news (in aa speak - to proclaim that there is a solution to the alcoholic who still suffers...) I think the denial is that which pushes us out and away from our own natural an innate wiring that seeks to serve ourselves. (to be self-justifying/our own Gods as it were) Our default mode as drunks (sinners) is to do for ourselves at the expense of everyone else. For the alcoholic this is life threating,b/c the more it becomes about self again - the closer he is to another drink - and to drink is to die. Drunks get to see the mortal consequences of sin up close and personal. Intense.
So much of the AA solution is about admitting a 'lack of power' (Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves.p.45) It's amazing that the solution to the drink is focused on service. Doing the inventory to look at resetnements/fear/past sex conduct - is all about revealing where the drunk is wrong; where he is self-propelled - and pushes him to make 'amends' - to clear wreckage so we can serve others. Pretty cool.
Anyway, I'm rambling a bit, but I guess the crux of what I'm getting at is I think the 'deny himself' is much much deeper than the denial of worldly or physical comforts, but really hits us where it hurts - the denial of our intrisic selfish/self-seeking comforts-the deinal of our own self-diefication or self justification. I see it a lot in marriage - 'love your wife as Christ loved the church' - self sacrifical love - service that hurts - esp. when I WANT to be right/justified.
Some selected excerpts from the "Big Book"
The AA Eleventh Step Prayer a.k.a. St. Francis Prayer
Lord, make me a channel of thy peace
That where there is hatred I may bring love
That where there is wrong I may bring the spirit of forgiveness
That where there is discord, I may bring harmony
That where there is error, I may bring truth
That where there is doubt, I may bring faith
That where there is despair, I may bring hope
That where there are shadows, I may bring light
That where there is sadness, I may bring joy.
Lord, grant that I may seek rather
to comfort than to be comforted
to understand than to be undersdood
to love than to be loved.
For it is by self-forgetting that one finds. It is by forgiving that one is forgiven. It is by dying that one awakens to eternal life.
Amen. (AA 12 & 12 p.99)
Our very lives, as ex-problem drinkers, depend upon our constant thought of others and how we may help meet their needs. p.20
Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God and the people about us. p.77
-------------------------------------------
Selfishness, self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows and they retaliate. Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably
find that at some time in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt.
So our troubles, we think, are basically of our own
making. They arise out of ourselves, (ie SIN - my emphasis TB) and the alcoholic is an extreme example of self-will run riot, though he usually doesn't think so. Above everything, we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kill us! God makes that possible. And there often seems no way of entirely getting rid of self without His aid. Many of us had moral and philosophical convictions galore, but we could not live up to them even though we would have liked to. Neither could we reduce our self-centeredness much by wishing or trying on our own power. We had to have God's help.
This is the how and the why of it. First of all, we had to quit playing God. It didn't work. Next, we decided that hereafter in this drama of life, God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal; we are His agents. He is the Father, and we are His children. Most Good ideas are simple, and this concept was the keystone of the new and triumphant arch through which we passed to freedom. p.62
----------------------------------------------
Simple, but not easy; a price had to be paid. It meant destruction of self-centeredness. I must turn in all things to the Father of Light who presides over us all.
These were revolutionary and drastic proposals, but the moment I fully accepted them, the effect was electric. There was a sense of victory, followed by such a peace and serenity as I had never know. There was utter confidence. I felt lifted up, as though the great clean wind of a
mountain top blew through and through. God comes to most men gradually, but His impact on me was sudden and profound.p.14
________________________
My friend had emphasized the absolute necessity of demonstrating these principles in all my affairs. Particularly was it imperative to work with others as he had worked with me. Faith without works was dead, he said. And how appallingly true for the alcoholic! For if an alcoholic failed to perfect and enlarge hisspiritual life through work and self-sacrifice for others, he could not survive the certain trials and low spots ahead. If
he did not work, he would surely drink again, and if he drank, he would surely die. Then faith would be dead indeed. With us it is just like that. pp 14-15
_____________________________
Despite all we can say, many who are real alcoholics are not going to believe they are in that class. By every form of self-deception and experimentation, they will try to prove themselves exceptions to the rule, therefore nonalcoholic.p.31
_________________________
I saw that will power and self-knowledge would not help in those strange mental blank spots.p.42
But the actual or potential alcoholic, with hardly any exception, will be absolutely unable to stop drinking on the basis of self-knowledge .p.39
When we became alcoholics, crushed by a self-imposed crises we could not postpone or evade, we had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing.p.53
The first requirement is that we be convinced that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success. On that basis we are almost always in collision with something or somebody, even though our motives are good. Most people try to live by self-propulsion. Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show; is forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and the rest of the players in his own way. If his arrangements would only stay put, if only people would do as he wished, the show would be great. Everybody,including himself, would be pleased. Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But, as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits.
What usually happens? The show doesn't come off very well. He begins to think life doesn't treat him right.He decides to exert himself more. He becomes, on the next occasion, still more demanding or gracious, as the case may be. Still the play does not suit him. Admitting he may be somewhat at fault, he is sure that other people are more to blame. He becomes angry, indignant, self-pitying. What is his basic trouble? Is he not really a
self-seeker even when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only manages well? Is it not evident to all the rest of the players that these are the things he wants? And do not his actions make each
of them wish to retaliate, snatching all they can get out of the show? Is he not, even in his best moments, a producer of confusion rather than harmony?
Our actor is self-centered -- ego-centric, as people like to call it nowadays. He is like the retired business man who lolls in the Florida sunshine in the winter complaining of the sad state of the nation; the minister who sighs over the sins of the twentieth century; politicians and reformers who are sure all would be Utopia if the rest of the world would only behave; the outlaw safe cracker who thinks society has wronged him; and the alcoholic who has lost all and is locked up. Whatever our protestations, are not most of us concerned with ourselves, our resentments, or our self-pity? pp 61-62
Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows and they retaliate. p62
Before we begin (our day), we ask God to direct our thinking, especially asking that it be divorced from self-pity, dishonest or self-seeking motives. p86
It is easy to let up on the spiritual program of action and rest on our laurels. We are headed for trouble if we do, for alcohol is a subtle foe. We are not cured of alcoholism. What we really have is a daily reprieve contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition.Every day is a day when we must carry the vision of God's will into all of our activities. "How can I best serve Thee, Thy will (not mine) be done." These are thoughts which must go with us constantly. We can exercise our will power along this line all we wish. It is the proper use of the will. p.85
BMW is finally releasing a new line of more 'afforable' mid range 800cc bikes. Their new 1200 twins are bikes I'm just in love with, but at almost 17K out the door, I don't predict there will be any new 1200 twins in my life in the near future (unless I some how score a new gig that is willing to pay me ridiculous amounts of cash).
These new 800 twins, however are another story. At less than 9K, the value proposition becomes a little more 'attainable'. My old R1100S was my dream bike (never should've sold that bike!), and it looks like this new 800S is like it's little brother. I'm excited to take one for a spin when they hit the dealers later this summer!
Click for Article
If you haven't listened to this show, I couldn't recommend it more highly. It is by far the most consistent and engaging theological resource I've used. They now have FREE PODCASTS for all you iTunes users. Check it. . .
The White Horse Inn
2 Great Posts from incarnatus est on Lutheran vs. Catholic Theological Differences
0 comments Posted by Mr. T at 3:58 PMBelow are 2 great positings I read on incarnatus est.
Enjoy (if anyone is reading),
Tom
Its crucial : At the same time saint and sinner
From Diane Hampson, Christian Contradictions, p. 24-25.The formula "simul iustus et peccator" encapsulates the structure of Lutheran thought. As we have seen, the Christian lives by Christ's righteousness, a righteousness which is extrinsic to him. Thus he is, at one and the same time, both a sinner (in himself) but also righteous (in that he lives by God's righteousness). Heiko Oberman expresses this in a helpful manner. Righteousness is not one's property; but one's possession.
For example, the book that I have out of the library is in my possession but not my property… Thus the extra nos shows that justification is not based on a claim of man, on a debitum iustitiae. Another way of putting this is simply to say that God accepts the human just as he is for Christ's sake and that which man is -at least in relation to God - is a sinner.
This for Luther is the message of the gospel, overturning our presupposition that we have first to be good before we can be accepted by God.
What it is important to notice, particularly in view of the debate with Catholicism, is that iustus and peccator are relational terms and we are involved in a relational understanding of what it is to be justified, There is a sense in which neither term refers to the inward 'state' of the person. Certainly neither is to be understood as a quality which could be predicated of the human, understood as a substantial entity.
On the one hand God, for Christ's sake, holds the sinner to be just; he acquits us … Thus we may say that we are indeed to be considered fully just. On the other hand when the human is placed coram deo (before God), faced with God's goodness he must necessarily judge himself a sinner. But again it is not so much that the human is a sinner in himself. It is not that there is nothing good in the human. It is simply that when one considers the nature of God, the human cannot bring anything to God, on account of which God could accept him. In relation to God, he must count himself a sinner. The human thus has a double sense of himself; as both fully just and yet also as a sinner.
http://incarnatusest.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-crucial-at-same-time-saint-and.html
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Its Crucial #2
Are we righteous before God because we have been placed on "the way" by God and so eventually will arrive at righteousness or are we ( as Luther would have it) only by faith in a promise, not by supposing that someday God will help us by his grace actually be righteous.For Luther and Lutherans there is a contradiction and conflict at the heart of the Christian religion. The conflict is not one of purity (I must be pure, I must attain righteousness with God's help), it is the conflict of faith. God says that I am righteous and yet I can, see, know and feel I am not. The conflict is one over the Word and promise of God versus my sense of sinful self, not over my inner state which by work or acetic practice or the sacramental system of the church God purifies so He can then accept me. No, for Luther, God says, Sinner, I accept you. Thus the conflict.
Again, Hampson in Christian Contradictions(p. 25):
We can express the Lutheran simul in another way; which is present in the quotation which we have just given. The Christian has a double sense of time. He lives 'from' the future, in that his sense of himself now is derived from his sense of Christ. The future is not placed at the end of a via, a path, which consists in his own transformation. Rather -to repeat myself -the Christian lives 'from' that future, for his sense of himself is bound up with that future. It is in this sense that Luther is future orientated. The Christian bases himself on something which is not at his disposal, of which he knows through the promise. Thus the Christian lives by a kind of a dare, which is the nature of faith. He holds in faith to what is scarcely credible, that God accepts him fully and completely for Christ's sake.
In this sense he believes against reason and on the ground of the revelation alone. Faith is eschatalogical in that through belief in that other future it is actualised in the present. Yet, while the Christian knows himself as accepted and living from that future, he is struggling with his present condition in the world. The Lutheran simul iustus et peccator thus brings with it a double sense not only of self but of time … Clearly it is a quite different sense of time from the Catholic, in which the human is at one 'place' (to put it figuratively) on the via which leads from the present to the future.
http://incarnatusest.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-crucial-at-same-time-saint-and.html
Click Here - - woman has perfect memory
spiked-health | Article | The stigma of smoking:
Excerpt - -
"It is a sign of the times that there has been no storm of protest over the increasingly manipulative and moralistic character of anti-smoking propaganda. In the crusade to reduce mortality from smoking it is considered legitimate to exploit the deepest fears of parents and children. While the law seeks to prohibit smoking in public, the new anti-smoking advert seeks to proscribe it in the private sphere, fomenting domestic strife to achieve this objective. At a time when a wide range of civil liberties are under threat it is alarming that the strategy of using children to police their parents' behaviour - reminiscent of totalitarian regimes - provokes so little public disquiet."
The Happiest Wives - New York Times:
"From the 1960's through the 80's, wives cut back on housework as husbands did more. In the 1990's, though, the equalizing trend leveled off, leaving wives still doing nearly twice as much of the work at home.
That seems terribly unfair unless you look at how men and women behave when they're living by themselves: the women do twice as much housework as the men do. Single men do less cooking and cleaning, because those jobs don't seem as important to them. They can live with unmade beds and frozen dinners.
Similarly, there's a gender gap in enthusiasm for some outside jobs. Men are much more willing to take a job that pays a premium in exchange for long hours away from home or the risk of being killed. The extra money doesn't seem as important to women.
In a more egalitarian world, there would be more wives mining coal and driving trucks, and more husbands cooking dinners and taking children to doctor's appointments. But that wouldn't be a fairer world, as Nock and Wilcox found.
The happiest wives in their study were the ones who said that housework was divided fairly between them and their husbands. But those same happy wives also did more of the work at home while their husbands did more work outside home. Nock doesn't claim to have divined the feminine soul, but he does have one answer to Freud's question.
'A woman wants equity,' he says. 'That's not necessarily the same as equality.'"
This guy is a marketing GENUIS, and he doesn't have an MBA - put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Live from the Steve Jobs Keynote -- "Fun new products" - Engadget
Click here to read the whole article
An excerpt:
"In the minds of at least some vocal members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, expressing such politically incorrect views is the academic equivalent of provoking Islamic extremists by depicting Prophet Mohammed in a political cartoon. Radical academics do not, of course, burn down buildings, at least not since the 1970s. Instead they introduce motions of no confidence and demand resignations of those who offend their sensibilities (while insisting on complete freedom of speech for those with whom they agree -- free speech for me but not for thee!)."
After nearly seven days of elevating the Cheney bird-hunting accident to the level of a national crisis, now comes this week's flap over managing the ports. To be sure, the matter of secure U.S. ports trumps the hunting of quail as an affaire d'état. But it was the strikingly low quality of the politicians' commentary and behavior that attracted notice.
A good piece on Larry Summers. Inmates running the asylum?
Townhall.com :: Columns :: R.I.P. Harvard President Lawrence Summers by Ben Shapiro - Feb 22, 2006
Wierd story - it's not too often you have CEOs lying about getting theological degrees. Harvard B-School or Wharton maybe, but Pacific Coast Baptist College? This guy must be one heck of a salesman.
USATODAY.com - RadioShack CEO lied on resume: "e CEO said he now believes he received a ThG diploma, which is awarded for completing a three-year degree in theology. Errors in Edmondson's resume were first reported earlier this week by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram."
An interesting op-ed from boston.com on the church burnings in Alabama.
The flames of hate in Alabama - The Boston Globe:
"Suppose that vandals last month had attacked 10 Detroit-area mosques and halal restaurants, leaving behind shattered windows, wrecked furniture, and walls defaced with graffiti. The violence would be national front-page news. On blogs and talk radio, the horrifying outbreak of anti-Muslim bigotry would be Topic No. 1. Bills would be introduced in Congress to increase the penalties for violent ''hate crimes' -- no one would hesitate to call them by that term -- and millions of Americans would rally in solidarity with Detroit's Islamic community."
A Review of Beth Moore's Believing God: "Basically she says, don’t let theology and doctrine confuse you when you can figure it out with God for yourself in a way that works for you. Unfortunately, people who use her materials can’t help but absorb some of that reasoning. Even more troubling is that they think they’re doing Bible study when they are really getting a heavy dose of mysticism, storytelling, psychology, and prosperity gospel. In the introduction to Believing God, Moore shows her true, but mistaken, agenda when she says, “I know I’m going to make it to heaven because I’ve trusted Christ as my Savior, but I want to make it to my Canaan on the way. I want to finish my race in the Promised Land, not in the wilderness. You too? Then we have to cash in our fear and complacency and spend all we have on the only ticket out: BELIEF.”"
A great article in the Washington Post - make me think of the old adage - 'self knowldege avails us nothing.' This writer has a low anthropology & I like it.
Here's an excerpt - -
"Of course, some good may come out of this story, even in this country. If nothing else, this controversy should bring an end to that naive, charming and sadly incorrect American theory of international relations that "the more we all learn about one another, the less we will fight." Gradually, the Islamic world is learning that we don't respect religion in the same manner they do. Slowly, we are learning that they feel differently about the printed word, and the printed picture, from us. And somehow, I've got a feeling that this new knowledge will be not the beginning of understanding but the inspiration for more violence"
Click to read the whole thing - A Cartoon's Portrait of America
I'll let this one speak for itself. Note the article on the bottom about the dwarf getting swallowed by a Hippo!
Naked Banker Fires Secretary :: Business News :: Here Is The City News :: The Latest Business & Financial Markets News And Views
Being mocked is Christ's work, not Muhammad's - Wretched of the Earth
I thought this was a great post from Gene Veith’s Cranch Blog today.
Questions for Cartoon Rioters
It's interesting to listen to Muslims explaining why they are rioting, burning, and demanding murder in response to the Danish cartoons. "You do not understand," they say, "how these pictures of the prophet offend Muslims." Yes, you are clearly VERY offended. But then it is surely a separate question to examine your behavior when you are offended. Why, when you are offended, are you rioting, burning, and murdering? As opposed to other reactions, such as just getting angry without hurting anyone, writing polemics against idolatry, praying for Allah's judgment, or vowing to separate from an infidel society? (Emphasis mine – TB)
Also, we now know that your religion forbids making images of the prophet. Muslims may not do this. But do you expect non-Muslims to follow Islamic teachings? The Q'uran forbids the eating of pork. So are the non-Muslims who do eat pork also insulting Islam?
And if your religion demands the idolaters be punished, then I can understand why you want to kill the cartoonists and the newspaper editors who published them. But why are you attacking Danes and even other Europeans who had no connection with the cartoons? The people working in the Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon did not draw or publish the cartoons. Nor did that priest in Turkey who was killed--he wasn't even Danish--nor did those German tourists who were kidnapped. You are not harming the guilty by harming the innocen
It's been a while since I've posted, so since things have been slow I'm picking it up again . .
Being confessional when it hurts:
I saw this today on Cranch and thought I'd post it.
T
------------
Cranach -- The blog of Gene Edward Veith
One of my daughter's teachers, in a Lutheran school, once spoke out in class against the death penalty. So at home we talked about the issue. We looked at Romans 13, which gives the lawful authorities the office of 'bearing the sword' against evildoers. We also looked at the Augsburg Confession and the Apology (XVI), which affirm capital punishment and which all Lutheran teachers are pledged to uphold.
When my daughter the next day brought these texts to school, the teacher saw what Scripture and the Confessions teach and so she CHANGED HER POSITION. Even though she personally disapproved of capital punishment, she recognized that the practice must be legitimate anyway because the Bible says that it is. She believed the Bible not because she liked what it said but even though she did not. She reasoned that if she disagrees with something the Bible and the Confessions teach, then SHE must be wrong.
How often do we see that? The usual approach when confronted with an authority that puts forward a position we don't like is to question the authority or try to interpret it away so that we can be left with our personal preferences anyway. But this teacher showed herself to be a true Bible-believing Christian and a genuinely confessional Lutheran."
More on the orgins of the Serenity Prayer - from Box 459 - offical AA newsletter. Click Here
The Serentity Prayer is probably one of the most widely circulated prayers around - @ least in secular spiritual circles. I ran across an old timer the other day who recited a 'traditional' longer version I'd never heard before and I was blown away. Take a look:
GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
Courage to change the things I can
Wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardship as a the pathway to peace.
Taking as He did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it.
Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to his will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with Him forever in the next.
Amen
Cool posting at What you Do Quickly about Christmas -
He says:
Walmart has replaced its normal "Merry Christmas" greeting with "Happy Holidays." I can't sleep!
Actually, I can and I do --like a baby.
What do I expect from Walmart? Low Prices --Always. That's their promise. That's all they promise. That's all I want.
Read the rest
I found this online today - you can download all 3 Christmas albums by Sufjan Stevens. You may need to try a couple of times b/c the server gets a lot of traffic, but if you're persistent you'll be rewarded.
Click Here
Gene Veith has a great snippet on his blog today regarding 'the new attack on justification'. Many conservative evangelicals are embracing NT Wright and his views on the New Perspective on Paul (NP). To me this hits at the heart of modern evangelicalisms semi-pelagian and in many cases pelagian tendencies and why I'm so dogmatic about the imporance of theology! Sola Fide - read on. . .
From Cranach -- The blog of Gene Edward Veith:
The new attack on justification
N. T. Wright is an Anglican bishop in England. Evangelicals and other theological conservatives like him because, among other things, he wrote a stirring scholarly defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. But he believed that Luther had it wrong with this justification by grace through faith stuff. This is because Luther misunderstood the writings of St. Paul, who, according to Wright, was just talking about freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law. Actually, according to Wright, we are saved by good works after all.
Though this is being called the 'new perspective on Paul,' this is not particularly new. This is basically the Roman Catholic take on what Paul says. Anglicans have never been particularly strong on justification. But what is remarkable to me is how so many evangelicals are seizing on this. Both liberal evangelicals and conservative evangelicals (including some otherwise hard-core Calvinists).
The Wall Street Journal has a column praising Wright from John Wilson, editor of 'Books and Culture.' (Click 'continue reading' for the article.) I think many evangelicals have been wanting to make salvation a function of good works for a long time, and this gives them a good excuse. Salvation comes from living like Jesus did. That usually gets translated into either conservative or liberal politics, or trivial lifestyle choices like not driving SUVs, recycling, affirming gays, or--on the complementary side--not drinking, smoking, or going to movies. I have yet to see the person who lives with the moral purity of Christ. But go ahead and try. And then when you fail, perhaps you will appreciate how Jesus really chose to live His life. By dying for you."
Continue reading "The new attack on justification
A friend turned me on to this book 2 years ago, so I thought I'd pass it along. Luther's Christmas book is a WONDERFUL book and I can't recommend it more highly to remind us all about the reason for the season.
T
New BMW R1200S - I had a 2001 R1100S for a couple of years before I got married, and this is the next generation. The coveting has begun. 
Awsome post from John Camp. A must read.
John Camp: Some thoughts on action/consequence.