Subordinate Authority

My church recently had the joy of receiving new members. During the service, there were vows taken before God which I witnessed. Also witnessing these vows was a friend of mine who was only visiting the church this particular Sabbath. He later asked me some questions which got me thinking about the issue of authority. Here's what he asked:

How do you rectify proclaiming that the Bible is the source of truth and that you must submit to the authority of the church? I noticed that [the new member's] vows are book-ended by these two statements. The first is about the Bible being the only source of truth, the last is affirming submission to the authority of the church. Maybe I misunderstood the statements, but I know they were both mentioned. ... It just seems to contradict if you claim sole authority in the Bible and yet you submit to the authority of the church as well.

The vows that my friend took notice of are as follows (also found in the Constitution of the Church):

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life?
4. Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America? Do you recognize your responsibility to work with others in the church and do you promise to support and encourage them in their service to the Lord? In case you should need correction in doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline of the church?

The questions my friend was asking led to a discussion on the topic of authority, particularly subordinate authority. I have an example which I believe demonstrates what I mean. My wife is the nanny for 3 young boys (you can read about her adventures here). My wife was hired for this job by the 3 boys' parents. These parents have authority over their children. When my wife watches them, the only authority she has is the authority that the parents give her. In a sense, she is under their authority as pertains to how she treats their children. If they commanded the kids to not eat dirt and my wife said it were OK to eat dirt (or fed them nothing but candy, or had them watch violent movies, or instructed them to bite one another, etc. (which she doesn't do!) ), she would be removed from her post and replaced by another. Her authority is a subordinate authority. If the church fails to exercise it's authority in accord with what God prescribes in the bible, He may choose to cut off that branch of believers and grow a new shoot elsewhere (just as He did with unbelieving Israel).

I believe that the bible is God's way to tell His church what He wants them to know. But then the question comes up, what are the key things which the bible teaches? How are we to interpret it? This is one reason why the church to which I belong is a confessional church. The WMCF, Testimony, WMLC, WMSC are standards which are subordinate to God's word in the bible. They summarize what the church believes the bible says. If any error is found in these standards, these errors are to be removed so to align them with the scriptures. I submit to them only because I believe that they accurately summarize what the bible teaches. I submit to the authority of the church because I believe it is being true to the Word made flesh.

The issue of authority is very important... especially for people who consider Jesus their Lord. The church each of us attends has an impact on what we believe and how it plays out in our life. This is a good thing provided the church teaches truth. But if a church's teachings are marginal, eventually the belief of its members become marginal as well. Whether explicitly or implicitly, members of a church submit themselves to the doctrines (and dry theology) they receive there. This makes the issue of choosing and committing to a church important.

Questions I'm challenging myself with:

Have I read all of the confessional standards of my church? Do I challenge them against the scriptures (rather than challenging scriptures against them)? Am I submitting to the church I belong to as a subordinate authority?

Credo for Today?

While on a date at our local bookshop, my wife and I settled into comfy chairs and did some reading. Always interested in what God is doing in other branches of Christianity, I picked up "Credo for Today ~ What Christians Believe". I am a Christian, so I generally like books which talk about what I and my fellow Christians believe. This book was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI of the Roman Catholic Church. It seemed to be an exposition on the Creeds of the Roman Catholic Church.

The first thing I turned to was the index. I skimmed down to something which I would find interesting. I flipped to Chapter 3, which is titled "Creation: Belief in Creation and the Theory of Evolution". I was expecting to discover a contrast made between the belief that Christians hold and the theory of evolution. For those of you familiar with my blog, you'll remember that I hold that God literally created the world and believe in a young earth model. I am a Creationist. I was shocked to discover that Cardinal Ratzinger was not affirming the biblical account of creation, but was seeking to reconcile it with a man-made theory. In the short read I had of the chapter, I learned that he dismissed the importance of how God created the world. His emphasis, instead, was that God created the world. He believed (and asserted that all Christians believed) that it doesn't matter if God created the world in the way He said He did, it only matters that He created it. I think this has a profound significance on one's view of God and how that God reveals Himself. If God reveals Himself in falsehood, is he a good God? So, from the first chapter I read, I disagreed with the pope. This was not looking good.

I read on. I was looking for something with which I could agree. I turned back to the index. I saw that there was a chapter entitled "Jesus: The Only Begotten Son of God". At last! A chapter I thought I could agree with. Five pages devoted to our savior. Then I noticed the next chapter, which is entitled: "Incarnate of the Virgin Mary: 'You Are Full of Grace'". This particular chapter was 19 pages. Five pages for the savior, 19 pages for his mom. I decided to put down this book. I'd need to look somewhere else to find something on the topic of "What Christians Believe".

Just AND Justifier

"I'm just saying..." "I was just about to..." "Just to the left of that..."

The word "just" is used commonly. The word "justifier" is not. Both of these words are used in Romans 3:26, and understanding both terms is crucial to understanding Paul's argument.

26 It was to show his [God's] righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let me present two definitions:

Just - Rightly judging something and assigning the appropriate punishment or reward.

Justifier - A person who declares someone to be righteous.

The word "just" is, perhaps, easier to understand by examples of what it is not. Consider a judge in a courtroom. A thief is on trial who stole $10,000 from a poor elderly lady. After hearing the extensive evidence which proves the thief committed the crime, the judge prepares to pronounce the verdict. The defendant, lawyers, witnesses, and clerks wait with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant not guilty, he is innocent; a free man". (!) Imagine the thoughts going through peoples heads if such a thing happened. "Was the judge paid off?" "Did he hear all the evidence?". The prosecuting attourney gains approval to approach the bench and upon arriving asks, "Your honor, this man is guilty, why did you pronounce him not guilty?" The judge responds, "Oh, I know he's guilty. I just wanted to be merciful, so I pronounced him not guilty."

In the above example, the judge is certainly merciful to the thief... but is in no way just. He is an unjust judge. In the example above, this same judge is the justifier in that he does declare someone (the guilty thief) righteous. This is an example of someone who is unjust and justifier. In the next example, I'd like to demonstrate the inverse...

We'll start with a similar scenario... a judge in a courtroom... A thief is on trial. He stole $10,000. After hearing conclusive evidence, the judge prepares to issue his verdict. The courtroom waits with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant guilty of all charges. He must repay the $10,000 and any other penalties the law requires". This time no one is surprised. I doubt anyone reading this would be surprised. This is because the judge's ruling was just. A just judge issues the correct ruling according to the law. Notice also that in this scenario that the judge's ruling was that the defendant was guilty. This judge is just but is not a justifier.

I think these two scenarios prepare us for reading Romans 3:26. Putting it in context shows that Paul has just underscored that no one is righteous. In verses 9-19, Paul declares that all people have sinned. We are all like the thief in the above scenarios... only worse. The thief's crime was theft, and his penalty was relatively small. Our crime is punishable by death. Our crime deserves death. So the question of whether our judge is just and whether our judge is justifier is terribly important.

Romans 3:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We see in this passage:

• All have sinned.
• God is a just judge.

If these were the whole of the story we would have to conclude that God justly condemns all because all sinned. If these were all the facts, the judge would already be able to give His sentence, and He would not be a justifier. Indeed, this is the way God could have left it... there is nothing which forces God to be merciful... and yet He has been merciful. God is a justifier. He has declared those who have faith in Jesus to be just. The crucial point:

• The righteousness of God has been manifested in Christ Jesus to be received by faith.

God declares faithful men to be righteous (he justifies them) because through faith they are 'clothed in Christ's righteousness'. God is not like the judge in the first scenario... he doesn't simply render a verdict which is false. God retains His justice. He also justifies men - through Christ. He justifies sinful men... even someone as sinful as I am. I know I am guilty of the charges against me. Even so, God has, through Christ, paid the penalty for my sins and accounted me righteous.

I recall a professor in college had a sign posted on his office door which read something like "Justice is eye for an eye. Anything less than justice is mercy." (I'll note that while I never had a class with this professor I knew from others that he was not known for his mercy.) I think the statement definitely made me think. I think it is definitely true that where there is no definition of justice that there is no possibility of mercy. I don't think, though, that mercy always has to come at the expense of justice. As I've discussed above, God is just. He has shown His people mercy in the purest sense of the word. This is a marvelous thing. For this, I praise Him.

The gospel of ... linux?

My wife and I recently purchased a new laptop. It came with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic. I had decided a while back that I would stop purchasing software from Microsoft when other better (or, more importantly, free) alternatives were available. So, I decided to try linux. I planned to install it in parallel with Vista to allow use of either operating system. Long story short, the install was easy and painless and Ubuntu (the version of Linux I chose) has been pretty easy to use so far.

Once Ubuntu was installed, I wanted to take my nerdiness to the next level. I started looking at the Ubuntu forums. I downloaded a Ubuntu pocket guide and reference by Keir Thomas. It's a fun read, really, but one thing I noticed in the first few paragraphs irked me a bit:

The fact you’re reading this book might mean you already know about Ubuntu, but one or two readers might have bought the Print Edition of this book (or downloaded the PDF) on a whim to see what the fuss is all about. These people might lack specifics, and remain unconvinced of the benefits of Ubuntu. So, I’m going to burn through some precious pages of this slim volume to evangelize and explain just a little.

The author wants "to evangelize" his readers. The root of the word evangelize is the greek word for gospel or good news. He wants to share the good news ... of Ubuntu linux? I realize that linux is good news to a lot of people. It is free. That is great news. It is constantly being made better, has a spirit of community in people that use it, works right "out of the box", is powerful for accomplishing lots of things, and did I mention it's free? This is not the gospel. This, in fact, is terrible news next to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The good news that Jesus has come to Earth and become human so that He would save His people from their sins is the best news ever. Literally. Ever.

Philippians 3:
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Next to the news that Christ has come, the news that there is a free operating system is like trash... pungent trash. I think this fits with what Jesus said:

Luke 14:

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

I don't think Jesus is negating the 4th commandment, as He elsewhere affirms:

Matthew 15:

4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’

I think that Jesus wants us to love our fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers and sisters. The important thing here is the degree of love. Compared to one's love for God, these other loves should so pale in comparison, that they appear hate. Jesus is showing the degree to which we should regard the first and greatest commandment above the second:

Mark 12:

28 And one of the scribes came up and ... asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

So, I ask myself as I write this... Is my love for the one God primary to my being? Do I love God with all my heart? Do I love God with all my soul? Do I love God with all my mind? Do I love God with all my strength? Do I love my neighbor as myself? Is my love for God so strong that the love for myself and others like hate in comparison? Do I hate my wife in comparison to the love I have for God?

I have no problem saying that linux sucks in comparison to God. Am I ready, though, to tell myself that I suck in comparison to the God of the universe?

on the label "Calvinist"

A Calvinist is someone who agrees with John Calvin. Often, when someone speaks of being a Calvinist, they are speaking of someone who agrees with the "5 points of Calvinism". These points aren't actually written by John Calvin himself but are a summary of his views on salvation and the sovereignty of God. In this article, I'll introduce these points. I rely heavily on the book "The 5 points of Calvinism documented, defined, defended".

I'll start with a point which is foundational to all of the five: God saves sinners.

Psalm 118:

14 The Lord is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.

Matthew 1:

21 ... and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

From this premise all the five points of Calvinism find their meaning. These five points are easily remembered using the acrostic: TULIP.

Five Points - like amazon.com ratings... only not.

Total Depravity - All humankind are fallen because Adam sinned and they are descendants of Adam. Mankind will not choose God of his own power. This point proves that sinners cannot save themselves.

Unconditional Election - Because it is God who saves sinners, the decision of who He will save is entirely His. He doesn't save anyone based on anything in the person (neither inherent in them nor forseen response to His grace).

Limited (or Definite) Atonement - God chose who He would save. He sent Jesus to die for those people. This is a note about the intended scope/efficaciousness of Jesus' death, not it's value. If God had chosen to save everyone in the world, Jesus' death would have been entirely sufficient.

Irresistible (or Efficacious) Grace - Because God is the one who saves sinners, he acts in a way that the sinner cannot resist. He changes the depraved will to a regenerated will. Because God is sovereign, when he wants to change a person's will, their will is changed.

Perseverance of the Saints - Those whom God has chosen to save He will save. God's plan cannot be thwarted by the schemes of the devil nor the old flesh of a sinner whom He has chosen.

What the 5 points do not mean:

Some men have read the 5 points and concluded "If God saves men, He can do it without my help. I don't need to evangelize... in fact I don't need to do anything. If God is going to save me, he'll save me." This line of thinking expresses the thoughts of those that are known as hyper-Calvinists. This is somewhat of a mis-nomer, however, as this line of thinking is not only non-Calvinist, it is non-Christian. Recall that a Christian has Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If a person believes that their responsibility to evangelize (or even have Jesus as Lord of their life) is nullified, that person is not a Christian.

Some people take Calvinism to mean that they are robots and that people aren't able to do what they want to. I've heard that the expression "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" was first said by someone who disagreed with Calvinists for this reason. A common scenario is theorized where someone might really want to please God, but because they are not part of God's elect they will be eternally condemned. I can understand that this would be a very bleak picture of God. God, though, has not left us without light on this particular theorized scenario.

Romans 3:

10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Fitting with the idea of Total Depravity, God tells us that no one seeks after Him. Apart from God regenerating a person's will to enable them to, "no one seeks after God." So, this hypothetical objection to Calvinism is proven to be invalid. I'll note that this may not match what we see. There are often many people who appear to want to please God, but for one reason or another, seem to fall away. I believe these people have these appearances but not true faith. Remember that men can see fruit and judge by appearances, but God judges the heart.

Unity in Mission in the Godhead

I am a Calvinist and I believe in the Trinity. I believe the 5 points demonstrate a unity among the 3 persons of God. Unconditional Election means that God the Father chose a people to love whom He would redeem unto Himself. Limited (or Definite) Atonement means that God the Son loved, lived for, and died for those same people. Efficacious Grace means that God the Holy Spirit draws these same ones to repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ. There is profound unity in the Trinity. God is indeed the God who saves.

Imagine the alternative: If God chose men based on what he foresaw, or worse, did not choose men at all, he basically set out a way for men to come to Him and waited for them to do so. He would only love men when they first love Him. This seems quite the inverse of 1 John 4:19.

1 John 4:
19 We love because he first loved us.

Furthermore, if Jesus' death is for everyone, then what truly decides if they are saved is not what He has done, but whether they accept it or not. Instead of "Jesus saving His people from their sins" it would best be described as "Jesus enabling people who chose Him to save themselves from their sins".

Perhaps worst of all, if the Holy Spirit's job is to draw men to God, and He equally distributes grace to all men toward repentance and faith, then He is a failure. If God is trying to save all men, then either all men will be saved or God is failing. Now, God does tell us His revealed will that we are to evangelize to all men:

1 Timothy 2:
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God's revealed will is that all men should be saved. This is the goal that we as men should shoot for because we don't know whom He has chosen. His secret will is to save those whom He has chosen.

Applying the Label

I am a five-point Calvinist. As a summary of reasons why and how predestination makes sense, and how to understand that God saves sinners, I think the five points are incredibly helpful. At the very core, Calvinism lets God be God. It elevates God in His supremacy. It also puts man in his place. It reminds me that I am ever a debtor to God and His grace shown to me. If I was once a child of wrath but now am a son of God, then I cannot point to myself and say, "look what a great person I am." God is the one who has made me who I am, and if he saved a wretch like me, then I can and will proclaim the gospel boldly to all men regardless of how clean or wretched they look on the outside. It will be for them what it has been for me: the grace of God alone that saves men from their sins.

Belief in the Invisible God

God is invisible. I suppose I should say that God chooses not to show himself. If God wanted to show himself, he surely could. When we say that God is invisible, it is in no way a slight against His power... in fact, it underscores it.

Exodus 33:
18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”

God is so utterly different from mankind, so much more powerful, so much more intense, so much more... well, just more... that man would die if God were to fully reveal Himself to him. God also does not give us images to see Him. In fact, he commands that we not create images with which to worship Him.

Exodus 20:
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands [2] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Leviticus 19:
4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord your God.

When my wife and I go to see a movie based on a book we've read, I usually enjoy it. My wife, however, gets annoyed. "That's not how it happened in the book." This has always been the case. The movie is never the same as the book. There are good reasons for this... sometimes the words of the book leave room for ambiguity, to leave room for the reader to ponder, yet in a movie it is hard to leave ambiguity. Most often, the book has so much detail that a verbatim movie would be so long audiences would lose interest. This illustrates the negative side of images used in worship. God is so much more than than we can comprehend, that any image created by us would be an epic failure at portraying God.

There is a positive side of images used in worship (I do not mean positive as in "good", I only mean it like "added"). Once my wife and I have seen a book turned movie a few times, we both find that the movie heavily influences the way we read the book. For instance, when I read the 6th Harry Potter book, The Half Blood Prince, I see in my mind Ron as Rupert Gint and Harry as Daniel Radcliffe. Even the character Dudley, who in the books is a blonde, is burned into my mind as being the dark haired Harry Melling. When my wife reads to me on long car trips, the voice she reads for Hagrid matches the actor, Robbie Coltrane's (my wife does a great impression, I might add). This illustrates the point that images in worship sometimes introduce or "add" notions that aren't there. They might cause someone to be "blinded" by what they see or have seen.

Spiritual blindness is truly the matter at hand. To be blind of something is to not see it. This is, perhaps, the antithesis of faith. Faith is knowing of things which cannot be seen with natural senses. It is agreement that these things exist. It is also trusting, or a steadfast assurance in those things.

Hebrews 11:
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

I think this gets to a very fundamental theological point. Although God could reveal himself in a way that is undeniable, He has chosen to reveal Himself in ways which are subtle. God hasn't recently caused the sun to stand still in the sky, or to flood the entirety of the earth. Instead, He relates to His people through revelation and faith. Consider this: Jesus performed miracles before large crowds. There were some who saw them and believed, while there were some who saw them and did not. Some responded in faith and saw Jesus for who He really was.

Colossians 1:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

God's revelation of himself is like this. Two people might read the bible and one respond in faith and the other not. Faith is crucial to having a relationship with the invisible God. When I say that God is invisible, I do not mean that He does or has not revealed Himself or conveyed truths through things which are visible. The bible is one example. The sacraments are another: God conveys spiritual truths through the sacraments. Baptism visibly represents the washing away of sin (something which is invisible). Circumcision visibly represented for Israel the cutting away of their hardness of heart. The Lord's Supper, or Eucharist, is something that can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelled, but it points to Jesus's sacrificial death on the cross which is not physically seen, touched, tasted, nor smelled today.

Incidentally, I agree with scripture that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Some have made statues and paintings of Jesus. Such actions should give God-fearing people serious pause. God the son chose to take on a human body and become flesh. This was God's act of self-revelation. It would seem a great error to take the Mona Lisa to a Kinko's, print off a black and white 8 1/2" x 11", and hang it on my wall. Doing so is no service to Mona, and shows no respect to Leonardo Da Vinci. We should guard against idolatry. Indeed, it seems that some have elevated bread and wine to the position of Jesus Himself. I won't get into all the arguments for why they would believe this, but I will state firmly that if the bread and wine are not God, but are worshipped as if they were, those worshiping and teaching the error will one day answer to the invisible God on charges of idolatry.

1 John 3:
2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

I charge those reading this, as I do myself, to rely on the invisible God by faith. I've heard of someone saying, "I've had lots of friends that have died. I don't hear any of them coming back to tell me how great heaven is." I'm saddened by this person's loss, but moreso for their lack of faith. Someone has come back from the dead: Jesus Christ. He has told us in the bible and through the preaching of the word what we must believe to go to heaven. Do we believe Him? Do we serve Him? Do we have hope in the invisible God? If not, the best hope we could have is that He does not exist.

on the label "Trinitarian"

Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). They are done so because they are baptized into the name of God. One might ask, then, why they are not baptized into the "names" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This observation leads to the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because it is revealed in the bible. Some have noted, however, that the word "Trinity" doesn't occur in the bible. Neither does the word "Sacrament". Words like these are used to describe an idea (indeed, all words follow this pattern). Rather than saying "the things instituted by Christ which are appealing to the 5 senses (taste, touch, sight,...) and communicate spiritual truths" we say the word "Sacrament". Indeed, we could say "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" instead of "Trinity"... but why use the definition when the word is more convenient?

The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. These are three persons. These are one God. They are the same in substance (whatever the God part is in each is the same in the other two), equal in power and glory.

What does the doctrine of the Trinity do for us? A pessimistic person would say "it confuses us". It is true that this is a doctrine that is hard to fully understand. In the end, though we should expect doctrines of God to be beyond our full comprehension. After all, God is unlike us and also has attributes like omniscience and omnipresence. The doctrine of the Trinity helps believers to understand some things about God which would otherwise make no sense.

First, since God has always existed in three persons, it sheds some light on why God would have created the world. Some have presumed that God made the world and mankind because he was lonely. The doctrine of the Trinity helps us to see the error of this. God was not lonely, in fact, He has always been in communion: each of the three persons with each other. God the Father has always loved God the Son. The son is eternally begotten of the father and was from eternity past before the face of the Father. The Spirit has always bonded them in their love. Mankind was created to glorify God, yet this was not to give God a glory he was in some way lacking.

John 17:
17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, ... 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Second, it tells us something of God's character. God exists in relationship within himself. When we think of relationship, like that of a husband to a spouse or a father to a son, we naturally have an emotional imprint of what that relationship means. Consider, though, that our human relationships are but a picture of what a true relationship is. When man was created in God's image, I wonder if it included the way man would have relationship with others of mankind. Perhaps human relationships are a part of being created in the image of God.

Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man [8] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Third, it tells us something of the unity which is desired among believers. Jesus himself prays for this unity. He does not compare it with a unity among any created thing... but instead he draws attention to the unity which exists within God. Jesus calls this unity as being "perfectly one". As the Father and Son are one, so should Christians seek to be unified. Jesus also prays a reason why such unity is sought. "That they so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me". Unity among Christians is a powerful witness for the gospel. This unity should be most clearly seen in the local body of believers. As a person sees a congregation (as a visitor or as a long time member), they should see the love of God in God's people.

John 17:
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. ...
20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

My Theology is Trinitarian. It is no small matter that God refers to Himself in the first person plural ("let us make man in our image"). If God so refers to Himself, we should take note. As this is the God whom I serve, it makes a difference in how I see and relate to other Christians. I believe that God the Father chose a people for himself. I believe that Jesus is God who became man to die for men and women whom the Father chose and gave to Him. I believe the Holy Spirit effectually calls men to Jesus as their savior and lord. If these believers are called by the same God I serve, and were made children of God through the same gospel, then I look upon them as brothers. I love God because of the amazing love that He has had within Himself. I marvel at the fact that He has shared this love with mere men, even me. This is the theology that drives me to love my church, which is but a part of Christ's Church universal through time and space.

Theology vs. Religion ... FIGHT!

I recently picked up a copy of What is Reformed Theology? by R. C. Sproul. I've not yet made it through the introduction and an apt question has been raised. What is the difference between theology and religion? As applies to what you are reading, why does the top of the page read "Dry Theology" and not "Dry Religion"? Which should consume us? Either? Both?

First, let's define our terms, then we'll contrast them.

Theology is the study of God. Literally, it means "science of God".

Religion is the study of what man does in light of God.

At the outset, we see that theology is focused on God... or at least it has its base in God. I've heard of theology used in different contexts which on face value lose sight of this (i.e. "a study on the theology of sex"). Indeed, in common usage, theology often has little to do with God. It has drifted toward the meaning of religion. Religion is a study of men. It is focused on man... it concerns itself with rites and practices... and to some degree, beliefs. The study of religion is a study mainly of what we can see, sense, and/or measure.

I assert that Theology is primary and Religion is secondary. It is knowledge of the true God that leads one to worship Him. The visible worship of a false god compared to the worship of the living God could be difficult to differentiate for human eyes. In the same way, secretarial work for the government of Canada might look incredibly similar to a secretary's job for the 1940 Nazi Germany. Thus, it is imperative that we get to know the God we serve. Right theology will lead to right religion. A religion is right to the extent that the god it serves is the one and only God of the universe. Theology is the center because God is the center. Theology is supreme because God is supreme. As God is above man, so we should consider theology above religion.

A Word of Warning

In my Sabbath morning study through the book of James (and the commentary, 24/7 Christian, by Anthony Selvaggio), we covered James 3:1-12. There are words of warning... and as I've recently started this blog, I especially feel their significance.

James 3:

3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, [1] and set on fire by hell. [2]

First, James charges that those who teach will be judged with a more strict judgment. Wow. It is not lightly that I started this blog, yet the magnitude of this is hitting home hard. These are words of warning to me. It is no small thing that God holds those who speak accountable. Consider Jesus' words:

Matthew 12:
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

As I write blog posts (especially considering anyone in the world can read them) I need to be sure that I am speaking the truth. Concerning my readers, if I have any, do you consider my words in light of James 3:1-6? Do I steer the ship or control the horse? Both of these are positive in that they bring a large body under control. The last words are those that I want my readers to take as a warning: I may be the one who sets a forest ablaze.

How do I know if what I am saying is true? How would someone who reads my words know the same? I consider Jesus again:

John 5:

30 I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. 31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true. 32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. ... 36 .... For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. ... 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

Jesus himself recognizes that his words aren't to be taken on only his own authority. He draws his audience to consider three witnesses: His Works, His Father, and The Scriptures. These three witnesses are connected. His works are those his Father has given Him to do. His Father has borne witness, and has sent the prophets and revealed in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah. The last line is a serious charge to Jesus' audience, the Pharisees: "If you do not believe Moses' writings, how will you believe my words?". We should take seriously that if we do not believe the scriptures, we cannot believe Jesus. If we do not believe Jesus, we should have no hope of eternal life.

This is where I stake my authority: I have none in myself. The only authority I have is the degree to which what I say agrees with scripture. Hold me accountable. Search the scriptures, for these have eternal life as they bear witness to Jesus Christ.

on the label "Creationist"

The label, "creationist", is usually used to denote opposition to another label, "evolutionist". The first believes that God created the world and sustains it. The latter believes that the world came to exist through millions of years of random chance occurances. There are also numerous hybrid views (i.e. that God started the world millions of years ago and has guided random chance). What I will describe in this post is a very conservative view of a "creationist" (as I happen to be).

The book of Genesis gives the bible's account for how the world came to be in its first few chapters. It says clearly that God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:
1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

If God created it, then the question comes, did it take millions of years? The bible talks about it taking God 6 days to create the world and all that is in it, and that he rested on the 7th.

[G 1:5b]...And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[G 1:8b]...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
[G 1:13]And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
[G 1:19]And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
[G 1:23]And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[G 1:31b]...And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
[G 2:2]And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.

Some take these days to be figurative... that they refer to longer periods of time than 1 day (like thousands or millions of years each). They might even cite the bible for this claim, using 2 Peter:

2 Peter 3:
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

My objection to such a claim is a logical argument as follows. I'll demonstrate by having a conversation between a young earth model creationist (YEM, who believes that God created the world about about 6000 years ago) and an old earth model creationist (OEM, who agrees that God created the world, yet believes the world is millions of years old).

YEM: Hey, how's it goin'?
OEM: Great!
YEM: So, what are the wages of sin?
OEM: That's an odd question to jump right into...
YEM: Well, I'm trying to prove a point for a blog post.
OEM: So this is a made up conversation? Why don't you just get to the point?
YEM: OK, answer my question, what are the wages of sin?
OEM: The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord - Romans 6:23.
YEM: So, death is a result of sin, correct?
OEM: Yes. That would make sense with the command of God to Adam in Eden. He commanded Adam to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because "in the day that you [Adam] eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17.
YEM: So, what was the first sin committed?
OEM: The very thing God commanded Adam not to do: he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He disobeyed God.
YEM: So, if the first sin committed was committed by Adam, and death is a result of sin, how could there be millions of years of organisms living, dying, and reproducing, if Adam had not yet sinned?
OEM: hmmm...

My objection to millions of years of evolution (even if guided by God) is that it assumes millions of years of organisms evolving into higher life forms. A basic premise of evolution is survival of the fittest... the weak/old organisms die off. If death was in the world before Adam sinned, then we have to really consider the justice of God. How could he kill millions of organisms if nothing had yet been done wrong in the world? After all, God looked at all that he had created and said that it was very good (Genesis 1:31).

I know that this biblical view of creation doesn't quite fit with all the claims of scientists. They point to the fossil record. I see the fossil record and point to a universal flood in which God saved Noah and his family and 2 of every species which would repopulate the earth. I'd much rather believe what God has written (even if it sounds crazy) than to follow the whim of smart guys in lab coats. In the end, I cling to:

1 Corinthians 1:
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Applying the Label
I am a Creationist. I believe that God created the world as he tells us. I believe that God didn't have to use death to create life.

If I just dogmatically believed this, it would be a dry theology.

It means something because it tells me that God created Earth without death. I can look forward to heaven without death because death is not the natural way of things, it is a consequence of sin. I believe that God has done things the way He says He has done them because it gives me assurance that He will do things which are to come in the way that He tells us.

on the label "Evangelical"

Evangelical refers to the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, which means "good message" or "gospel". Basically, Evangelicals are Christians who believe and proclaim the gospel. Jesus Himself proclaimed the gospel during His life:

Mark 1:14-15
14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

So, what is the gospel? As Jesus directed above, it is clear that the gospel is something to be believed. As context for why people should believe the gospel (and repent, or "turn away from their sin") is that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. These words would sound like, "You're out of time, Judgement awaits!". Belief in the gospel is associated to salvation from such a judgement as Paul notes in Romans:

Justified by Faith
Romans 1:16-17
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

Here Paul identifies the key of the salvation is faith. Faith is basically knowledge of a thing, assent that it is true, and trust/assurance that it is true for one's self. So, what is the thing which we must have knowledge of? What is the object of faith? What is it that Christians have faith in?

Faith in God
John 17:
17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Jesus, as he prays to God the Father, reveals that eternal life is through knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. Do you "know" Jesus Christ? The question implies relationship. I have already asserted that Christians know Jesus to be their Savior and Lord. Through knowing Jesus, they come to know God as their father, too. (See Matthew 11:27). But how can this happen? How can a sinful person come to be a child of God, who is just?

The Great Exchange
2 Corinthians 5:
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

In this sentence the key of the gospel is expressed. Jesus was not a sinner (he knew no sin). God the father made him to be sin (imputed the sins of believers on him) so that we might become the righteousness of God (Christ's own righteousness imputed to those who believe). Through faith, all our sins are paid for by Jesus's death. Through faith, God sees us as if we were as righteous as Christ himself. Thus God is perfectly just to accept us, because in His sight, we are His son, thus he accepts us as adopted sons. When we are judged after death, we will be judged righteous and given eternal life through faith.

Evangelicals are very sensitive about the gospel and for good reason. Not only is it the only way to God (Jesus said, no one comes to the Father except through me John 14:6), but great punishment awaits those who would preach a false gospel:

Galatians 1:9
9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Applying the Label
I am an evangelical. I love the gospel. I can have hope because of what Christ has done. This is the good news. There is hope. It reminds me of the bumper sticker. It has the phrase: "Know Jesus, Know Peace. No Jesus, No Peace." I think it would also apply to the idea of hope: "Know Jesus, Know Hope. No Jesus, No Hope." Jesus said firmly, "No one comes to the father except through me". It is not a mere dry theology to talk about the gospel. It is the only way to peace with God.

on the label "Christian"

"Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?"

It's a question that most people are familiar with. In some, it stirs up feelings of annoyance. In others, it stirs guilt or even anger. The question has been asked so much that it may have become cliché. Nevertheless, it is the most important question a person will ever answer. Christians are those who have personally accepted and ever seek to maintain Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Saved from what?
If every Christian believes that Jesus is their savior, then they must believe they were in danger of something from which they needed to be saved. What would be the purpose of a savior if there was nothing to be saved from? Christians are saved from their sins. Put simply, sins are bad things done or good things left undone. Ultimately, God defines what is sin and God hates sin. When Christians say that they are saved from their sins, they are usually referring to being saved from the punishment due their sins. Christians believe that sin is punishable by an everlasting sentence in hell. Literally. Christians believe they are saved from hell and saved to everlasting life. The way that Christians become saved is called the gospel. I'll cover this in detail when I talk about "Evangelical". For now, suffice it to say that a person is saved by Jesus. We see this clearly at the beginning of Matthew's account of the gospel: Matthew 1:21

...you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

What now, My Lord?
Christians have Jesus as Lord of their lives. This is not commonly used terminology today. When I was growing up, I recall hearing the phrase "what now, my Lord?" when I played "Lords of the Realm". In this video game, I would play the part of a ruler of several provinces. I would manage labor, raise armies, grow crops, and attack and conquer neighboring territories. (I was especially good at the conquering). I had control over my lands and the people that lived there. They did what I wanted them to (except when I didn't feed them and they rioted...). The point is, Jesus is Lord of the Christian's life. They do not make decisions for themselves without first seeking to know what Jesus would have them do. Consider this well known psalm:

23:1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3 He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.

Most people who know this psalm know of the soothing phrases "he leads me beside still waters" and "He restores my soul". It is important to see these in context, though. The Lord is the Christian's "Shepherd". The Christian is led by Him in paths of righteousness. This is for his name's sake, the Christian doesn't do things from selfish motives, but for Jesus' sake. This is affirmed in the Great Commission at the end of Matthew's account of the gospel: Matthew 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

But wait... there's more!

There are other things, too, that are true among Christians. Christians hold the bible to be the word of God. Christians believe in the true and living God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (called the Trinity). Christians worship God. Christians are baptized. Christians are members of a local Church. Christians love one another. I'll explain what I mean with these in later posts as I am able. For now, I'll suffice it to say that Christianity is about Christ, what He has done to bring man to God and what He calls men to do in light of this.

Applying the label.
I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that he has saved and will save his people from their sins. I believe that he has saved me from my sins through his perfect life on earth, death, and resurrection.

If the above were a mere assent and ended here, it would be nothing but a dead theology. A living theology leads to change in a person's life.

I hold Jesus to be the Lord of my life. I'm in no way a perfect servant, but I seek to do his will in my life daily.

Labels

Labels are everywhere. They can be exceptionally helpful. When I'm in a grocery store, particularly in the canned food aisle, I must rely on the labels. The label tells me which cans are corn and which are beets. They can contain pictures which help me to envision the meal which would include each. In the US, labels are required to indicate nutrition information such as protein, carboydrate, and sodium content. As I said, these labels are helpful.

I use labels in my e-mail inbox to help myself categorize threads. Items from or to my family get labeled "family". I've used this same system for a while and it is helpful when searching for a message with specific content. An interesting phenomenon, though, is that the meaning of the label changes over time. In college, I was a member of a certain club (I'll call it "The Club"), so all correspondance from people I met there received the label "The Club". After I graduated, some of the members still e-mail me and through force of habit, I still give them the same label. I've even met new people through these people and when the new people e-mail me I'll at first label their conversations as "The Club" even though they were never members of "The Club". Over time, the meaning of the label "The Club" changed from people I met with at a certain event, to people I still kept in touch with through a common event, to people who I met because I was part of a common event long ago. So, while labels are useful, they can change meaning over time.

Another drawback of labels is that they are usually only able to give aggregate and averaged data. Grocery labels will not tell you, "This is the best can of green beans in this entire state" or "this can of fruit cocktail came from the bottom of the batch so it's mostly those tasteless whitewashed grapes that you don't like". There's also the problem of labels being misinterpreted. A label saying "garbanzo beans" could be overlooked by the person looking for "chick peas".

I think it's important that the issues with labels are understood before they are used (or misused). Labels are useful to communicate generalized data, but they can change meaning over time, do not give the entire picture, and can be misinterpreted. In general, it is best to have the person applying the label give the definition. As such, I'd like to define some of the labels which I apply to myself in the next series of posts. I'll try to give the positive definition as well as point out limitations found in present-day usage.

See these blog entries on specific Labels:
Christian
Creationist
Evangelical
Trinitarian
Calvinism

Why Dry?

Recently I gave a presentation to a broad audience at work. On the invitation, several questions I had answered were displayed, to familiarize those invited with me as a person. One of the questions was "What is your favorite book genre?". My response was "dry and boring theology". I like, and even love, theology. Not everyone shares my sentiment. I did a google search of "dry theology" and found from the context shown for the results that most people hold "dry theology" in contempt. In general there were two assessments of "dry theology".

The first was that "dry theology" which was only in one's head and did not lead to action in one's hands is a useless theology. I agree wholeheartedly with rejection of such "dry theology". James writes in his epistle of 'faith which does not result in works' (James 2:14-26). He assesses that such a faith is a dead faith. In the same way, "dry theology" which is a mere assent to some theological deductions or dogmas and does not lead to a changed life and a reaffirmed love for God is not useful. It profits none. It is worthless. I do not intend for readers of this blog to read and have all that they've read remain only in their head. If what I say is true to what God has revealed, it should result in fruit in my life.

The second assessment of "dry theology" is that it is useless all together. Indeed, many people hold a distain for all theology because they find it all useless. I was reminded of "dry bones" from Ezekiel 37 (Ezekiel 37:1-14). In the valley, there were dead bones. These bones were dead, cold, and dry. Bones in this state are useless. Nevertheless, anyone who considers the state of these bones has underneath their skin and flesh bones of their own. Bones give structure. Bones give support. Bones are rigid. They do require flesh to keep them moist. They do require muscle to make them move. No person has distain for the bones within themselves. In the same way, I feel that we must not have distain for theology. It gives structure, support, and rigidity to the flesh of our lives.

In a blog, I do not expect that I can bring "dry theology" to be anything other than words on a screen. I do not have the power to bring dry bones to life. But God does. Faith comes from hearing (Romans 10:14-17). God has the ability to make my fallible words useful for those whom He has chosen for himself. I intend to write of what I know of the God I serve. I pray that God will use it to serve Himself well.

First, An Apology

There are multiple ways to arrive at this blog.

• One would be if you had been Googling something which I write about, like "theology"... but I can't imagine this blog would appear very high in search results.

• The other is if you typed in "drytheology.blogger.com" in your address bar. If this was your method of arrival, I welcome you and presume that you fall into 1 of 2 categories:
  

(1) people who know of this blog and want to read it or (2) people who are trying to find if the site is taken. If you fall into the latter I leave an apology. I'm sure you have very grand ideas for a "drytheology" blog. It is likely you are much better qualified than I am to talk about the things which I intend to capture in this blog. Ultimately, if this is the only post you find, please contact me and I'll give you this blog. I realize it's a FCFS (first come first served) service by google, and I got here first, but it would be a shame if this were the only post found at "drytheology.blogger.com" in 2015.

Blog Post 001

8/6/2009

"I'm going to start a blog."

These are the words I spoke to my wife. I expected a drumroll or a gasp of awe at the words... but not so much. Not that my wife doesn't support me, she does. She's been with me step by step since we said "I do"... or "I will" as it were. I love my wife. I love God. I love Jesus Christ, who is God, but also became man in order to save His people. These are but the beginning of the reasons I want to start a blog. I want to write my thoughts, keep a journal. If my thoughts could be helpful to others, I'd like them available. So, I logged into blogger.com and clicked "started a blog". I was directed to the following prompts:
Blog title:
Blog address
(URL):

Having just come back from Airdrie, Scotland on a mission trip, I tried:
covenanter
http://covenanter.blogspot.com/

I clicked "Check availability".

Sorry, this blog address is not available

What? Someone else has thought to use the same address? I had expected such trouble, so I opened a new tab and took a look at "covenanter.blogspot.com". I wanted to see the success of the person who had the address which I myself would have chosen. I felt a kinship with this person even before the page loaded. When it did, however, I saw one post, dated Wednesday, October 18, 2006. I read the post. This person was a fan of Reformed Theology. I am a fan of Reformed Theology. This person had started this blog but hadn't updated it since 2006. I felt a bit of resentment toward them. They were taking a space that someone else wanted... and weren't even using it! I quickly tried a few others.

http://reformed.blogspot.com/
1 post dated Tuesday, August 05, 2003

http://protestant.blogspot.com/
2 posts... most recent dated Saturday, January 25, 2003

http://psalmsinger.blogspot.com/
not a single post

This was irritating. I quickly tried a few others randomly...

http://blogthought.blogspot.com/
1 post dated Tuesday, March 08, 2005. This post reads: "Very late... thinking about what's next.... all alone here. found this blog site... let's see what happens.
"

http://devoted.blogspot.com/
1 post dated Monday, November 13, 2000. This post reads: "I'm not even sure why I even made or even signed up for this thing."

Why was this so difficult? Why was I so irritated? These people all had aspirations to become exceptional bloggers. I'm sure they pondered what name to give their mind's voicebox. They had clever titles. They had reserved the coveted URLs. Why hadn't they followed through? Would I do just the same? Would someone come to my blog someday and find irritation at only reading what they've just read. Is someone reading this right now irritated at me?

http://irritated.blogspot.com/
2 posts... most recent dated Thursday, January 23, 2003. This post reads: "ll"

Perhaps I won't start a blog today.