Look! It's Baby Brother!

Vexation #17: Are You in God's Will?
This is more an evangelical tragedy than a minor frustration, but I am constantly bombarded by questions from people who are seeking the will of God that I am become vexed for their sake. Rachel reminded me of my frustration a couple days ago, not by living the myth herself, but by simply expressing her own frustration (since the "finding God's will" way of life affects not just the people who hunt for it, but those of us with whom such people interact).

Let's talk about the will of God.

God will can be expressed as sovereign. That is, ultimately, he controls everything. All that comes to pass is according to His sovereign guidance and will. This is sometimes known as His secret will because it cannot be known until after the fact (and then, only in part).

Some Evidence for God's Sovereign Will:
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)

Man's steps are ordained by the LORD. (Proverbs 20:25)

The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Proverbs 16:4)

God's will can also be described as moral. That is, God desires righteousness from His creatures; He desires that they would walk in a moral manner worthy of Him—for He is holy. This will is revealed throughout Scripture as the life of righteousness is fleshed out. God's moral will revolves around he wants us to acts, think, and be.

Some Evidence for God's Moral Will:
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7)

Every command to righteousness found in Scripture is a revelation of this moral will.

These are the two traditional views of the will of God. Within the recent century, a third will has made itself known throughout the common Christian experience: the individual or perfect will of God. This is that to which people refer when they say things like: "I didn't take the job because I didn't feel it was God's will for my life"; or "I have really sought the Lord in this and I honestly believe that Sheila is the girl He intends me to marry"; or "I don't know exactly if I should go to Africa or India for missionary service. I'm waiting for that 'still small voice'"; or "God really spoke to me and I think I need to drop out of school and just trust Him."

These kinds of phrases should sound very familiar to modern believers for in such dialogues consist the economy of contemporary decision-making. About five years ago, Johnny T and I had the idea for a book called Christian Mythology in which we would introduce a number of pet beliefs of the evangelical church that have grown out of assumption and superstition rather than an honest understanding of Scripture. The individual will of God was going to be one of those pet myths that we would endeavor slay: because really, there is nothing better than a Christian who is freed from the shackles of legend and superstitiona dn made able to relate to God, himself, and reality on a solid foundation (that being Scripture).

The fact is, as believers, we are to approach belief and doctrine neither from our experience nor what we wish were true, but from that which we know to be authoritative. There is one authority to which we hold: the revealed word of God. That's it. That alone. For spiritual matters, the beginning and end of what we can say about God is what God Himself has chosen to reveal to us in the canon of Scripture.

So then, as there is NO evidence in Scripture that God has a particular best plan for each person's life beyond what He reveals as His moral will in Scripture, don'tcha think it best we abandon such a notion? No really. There is no evidence that given two righteous choices that God would prefer you go to UCLA instead of UCI. There is no evidence to suggest that marrying all-around good Christian girl Sally is wrong because He meant for you to marry all-around good Christian girl Bethany. There is no evidence that suggests that God intended you to go do missionary work in Thailand instead of Laos.

None. None at all. Go on. I challenge you. Find even the hint in Scripture that God intends the believer to wait for peace of heart or an inward nudge before making decisions. It's not there. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if you've been living like this, you've been living a lie. But fortunately, I'm not bearing you bad news. I'm the harbinger of good tidings that may relieve you of years of torment.

Think about it. If God truly does have an individual will for every decision in your life, think about what that entails. You not only must worry the big decisions (marriage, school, career, location, missionary endeavors, et cetera), but you likewise must consult God and wait for His voice in hundreds of decisions everyday. Clothes to wear? Way to go to work? Length of shower? Pencil or pen? Which pen out of the box? Which can of soda from the fridge? Salami of Bologna? Garden or Caesar? 87 octane or 89? All of these are decisions which God could have a best for you. If God's individual will exists, then every believer who admits it exists is a hypocrit if he doesn't prayerfully consider each and everyone one of these potentially life-changing decisions and listen until hearing God's voice.

And think of the weight that would place upon the believer? In the simple decision of marriage, look at all the ways one could screw up or miss God's will for his life?

1. In all the world, there is either one or no woman that God intends a particular man to marry.
2. If God wants the man to remain single and he marries anyone, he is out of God's will 'til death do they part.
3. If God has a particular woman in mind and he choose another, he is in the same boat.
4. If the woman God has chosen for him marries someone else, the man can never be in God's will no matter what he does.

That is a heavy weight to put on a person. And that's just one decision. We make hundreds everyday. "My yoke is heavy and my burden will SMACK YOU DOWN!"

Again. I will recant all of this if it can be demonstrated that we should make decisions in this manner, praying for a voice or feeling or open door or some small sign. Scripture does not encourage us to "put out a fleece" nor does it encourage us to listen for a "still small voice" (which incidentally was an audible voice). On the rare occasions that God does speak directly to an individual, he does it through obvious means: a blindly light, a burning bush, and angel's appearance, a heavenly vision, an audible voice, a talking donkey. If we take these to be normative, we should expect animals to speak forth revelation. Last I checked, I had yet to run into a believe who expected the donkey at the local petting zoo to act as oracle of the things of heaven.

Rather, we see the apostles making decisions because the were wise and they felt like it. Really, it's true.

Therefore when we could endure {it} no longer, we thought it best to be left behind at Athens alone. (1 Thessalonians 3:1)

And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Corinthians 16:3-4)

Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." (Acts 6:2)

The Scriptures are chock full of "We thought it best," "I thought it necessary," It is not desirable," "It seemed good," and "I have decided." These are references to personal decisions—decisions wherein the maker of the decision bore responsibility for his choice. There was no blaming God. It was simply a matter of, "You know what? I'm gonna kick it in Anthens for awhile since the Jews are driving me out of everywhere else."

So then. Marry who you want because you like 'em and they're a good Christian match for you and your character and flaws. Take the job you want because it pays your bills, fits your talents, seems desirable, and the receptionist is cute. Go to the school you want because you can afford it, trust the educational staff, like its reputation for your field of study, and think the bushes in front of the easternmost dorm look cool. Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and He will lead you, guide you, draw you along the path of righteousness.

And don't put up with mumbo jumbo.

For further study on this matter, I highly recommend Gary Friesen's Decision Making & the Will of God (from which I learned a lot and culled some of these details).

Again. Let me reiterate: search Scripture for yourself, asking if the things you think are saying that God works in this way are really saying what you think they're saying.

Because of recently recommending some comics to people, I thought I'd get inspired and update my graphic novels rating list:

Bone (9 volumes)	4
Breakfast After Noon	4
Hellboy: The Chained Coffin	4
Hellboy: The Right Hand of Doom	4
Hellboy:Conqueror Worm	4
Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth	4
Marvels	4
Maus	4
Mister Blank	4
Nausicäa of the Valley of the Wind (4 volumes)	4
Palestine	4
Powers: Who Killed Retro Girl	4
Sparks	4
Usagi Yojimbo (series)	4
Alias (series)	3.5
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns	3.5
Batman: The Long Halloween	3.5
Castle Waiting: The Lucky Road, vol. 1	3.5
Clan Apis	3.5
Daredevil: Man without Fear	3.5
Domu: A Child's Dream	3.5
Eagle: The Making of an Asian American President (5 volumes)	3.5
Goldfish	3.5
Hellboy: Wake the Devil	3.5
MISS: Better Living through Crime	3.5
Murder Me Dead	3.5
Powers: Roleplay	3.5
Safe Area: Gorazde	3.5
Sin City	3.5
Slow News Day	3.5
Stangers in Paradise, vol. III.1	3.5
Starman (series)	3.5
Superman: For All Seasons	3.5
The Birthday Riots	3.5
The Dark Knight Returns	3.5
The Inhumans (by Jenkins)	3.5
Torso	3.5
Ultimate Spider-Man (series)	3.5
Akira (6 volumes)	3
Astro City: Life in the Big City	3
Batman: The Dark Victory	3
Blade of the Immortal (series)	3
Fire	3
Fortune and Glory	3
Hellboy: Seed of Destruction	3
Kingdom Come	3
Lost Girl	3
Midnight Nation	3
Origin: The True Story of Wolverine	3
Pounded	3
Powers: Little Deaths	3
Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlow: The Little Sister	3
Rising Stars, vol. 1	3
Sin City: That Yellow Bastard	3
Stangers in Paradise, vol. I	3
Stangers in Paradise, vol. II	3
Stray Bullets (series)	3
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen	3
The Legend of Mother Sarah: Tunnel Town	3
The Waiting Place (3 volumes)	3
Y: The Last Man (series)	3
300	2.5
Crisis on Infinite Earths	2.5
Inu-Yasha, vol. 1	2.5
Daredevil: Yellow	2.5
Jinx	2.5
Ronin	2.5
Sin City: A Dame to Kill for	2.5
Sin City: The Big Fat Kill	2.5
Watchmen	2.5
Whiteout: Melt	2.5
Sin City: Booze, Broads, and Bullets	2
Sin City: Family Values	2
100 Bullets, vol. 1	1.5
Billy 99	1.5
Sandman, vol. 1	*

*Sandman still remains unread because I just cannot find it interesting enough to finish. Apologies.

Writing in comment on another site to recommend some intelligent comic books that while aimed at something other than hormone-driven teenage boys aren't necessarily filled with lurid eroticism or gratuitous ultra-violence, I found that a couple of the books I wanted to recommend do indeed contain a fleeting or subdued nudity. The fact that I didn't consider these to be "mature" books (in that inane sense in which the term is colloquially used) interested me. One of them, Sparks, even contains a brief and tragic sexual encounter. But none of them seem dirty or bad to me—not content for the youthful or silly perhaps, but not dirty or pornographic either. This also made me think about the typical family Bible from the 1800s. These were filled with illustrations in which women were portrayed as topless. And yet, still not dirty or obscene.

It's probably been said nausiatingly often, but I think the sensitivity to the naked human form handed down by fundementalist generations went to far and has done some damage to our ability to distinguish dirty from chaste. I hope she doesn't mind, but the Olive's abhorrence of personal nudity exmplefies this strange heritage.

The particular books that I would recommend portray women (and occasionally men) in a manner that is not remotely tantalizing or necessarily sexual, but simply portrays the characters as they are in order to further the character and/or the story. So far as I'm aware, nudity should only be considered wrong if it awakens illicit desires in ones heart. And despite the programming which society has built upon itself, I have a hard time believing that something like Sparks or Schindler's List or Venus de Milo or Michaelangelo's David is wrong or "mature."

I dunno. Just thoughts.

Vexation #16: God's Fault?
One of the things that just kills me—absolutely kills me—everytime is when people blame God positively for their works. I get this all the time at work. If it's not users emailing to tell us how they know it was God who built their website because they know they don't have the talent for it, it's a co-worker or someone describing a now obsolete site that he struggled over crafting back in the day. "I really didn't know what I was doing! God really worked and He got the site up! He gets all the glory!"

Don't get me wrong. Humility is great and God does get glory from everything. But when someone makes God culpable for a site that makes a Blogspot template look like the height of design prowess, I have to shake my head in frustration. God would not create the malfunctioning piece of digital detritus that so many people have created "by His power." God is also a God of order and would not craft the technotard jumble of baaaaaaad code on these sites we are shown (and sometimes have to troubleshoot).

I perfectly understand that not everyone are designers or code-gurus (heck, my skilz and code are far from without flaw) and I don't mind this. Just, no matter how good your intentions are, don't blame God for your very, very imperfect work.

I think "Super Bowl" originally referred to the haircuts I would get as a child.

Does life ever seem to you a pale imitation of itself, with colours washed out and its focus desaturated? It does to me.

In related news, the definition of "turtlehead" is still undisputed and embraced by all the English-speaking world.

Further illustrating and evidencing my point that "Reformed" means nothing, Valerie's poll indicates the "Reformed" does indeed mean nothing. At this moment, 27% of voters believe that being "Reformed" being an issue of soteriology (this is impossible since though all Reformed people agree on soteriology so far as I know - I know pastors in Calvary Chapel who are not Reformed but hold to the same soteriology). 23% of voters believe sacramental view is the determinant (but that can't be, because I know that my scaramental views and Emeth's are different - and I'm pretty sure we're both known as Reformed). 21% of voters stand on a unique view of the covenants being the hallmark of "Reformed" (but Johnny and Russ disagree on the covenants and both are Reformed). 8% favour a distinction via church government, but even Johnny, who argues for this, doesn't know what to do with the Puritain congregationalists, Reformed Baptists, and Hungarian Reformed congregations (of which he was just made aware). Even "a penchant for intellectual pride, sophistry, backbiting, and neurosis over theological minutiae" - which at first blush seems the most accurate - is really more indicative of the church rather that just the Reformed church.

No it looks as if, simply by virtue of the fact that no one knows what is means, the "Reformed" truly is a useless term.

Just unearthed from the 1600s is strong evidence that evolution works in reverse in the world of art. Whereas in nature, we see monkeys evolving into men on pretty much a daily basis, in the realm of pen and brush monkeys routinely devolve into lower animals. Or so it now seems.

Recent discovery of an illustration by Flemish painter David Teniers (1610-1690) leads critics, scientists, and aesthetic naturalists to turn on the beliefs held popularly throughout the twentieth century that artistic evolution indeed follows its real-life cousin. "The amazing thing," says Art/Science Journal Monthly editor Liza Damadian, "is that Teniers's works have been known and loved for centuries and yet never have we noticed the incontrovertible evidence that now lies before us."

The evidence to which Damadian refers is the fact that the direct precursor to the ever-popular "Dogs at Poker" velvet paintings that often adorn garage and den galleries in our modern era was not "Rodents at Old Maid," "Moles at Tiddly-Winks," or even the intriguing take on single-celled culture, "Amoebas at Dice." Causing the academic community to rethink its long-held (and oft-cherished by clery) view of the world of art is the challenging work of a humble man from Belgium: "Monkeys at Backgammon." Changes are afoot and the world of art may never be the same.

I don’t think I’m Reformed.

I don’t know. I mean, how can I fall into the same doctrinal distinction as Emeth or Kristen or Sarah or Russ with whom I share so many theological disagreements. Maybe it’s that they’re not Reformed and I am. Or maybe it’s just that I have no idea what is essential to being Reformed anymore. The only distinctly Reformed thread between us is our reliance upon an honestly sovereign God. But otherwise, there are slight disagreements over everything else (or seem to be). I can’t call myself Reformed if I find myself in disagreement just as vehement with my Reformed brothers as I do with my Evangelical brothers.

I don’t know. My view of the covenants is different (so much so that Russ joked that I was dispensational—which I’m not, but I certainly don’t follow Murray’s view of the covenants either. My view of the covenant community is a lot less turgid than some. My view of Christianity and culture is far different from (and in fact, opposite of) those views held by Emeth and Gideon. I think Bahnsen is nutty, the Puritain are neonomians, and the Dougs are just plain goofy. I think praise choruses can be just as valid forms of Christian worship as hymns (or even psalms). And I don’t even think I support the threefold use of the law (having really only found the first use honestly valid).

I don’t know. Maybe I’m not Reformed. I do believe in honouring the Sabbath though. I also believe in infant baptism, the mystical presence of Christ in the Lord’s Table, the means of grace, that ethnic Israel is no different from ethnic Mongolia (excepting phenotypical differences in their peoples) as Christ is the culmination of Israel, the simplicity of worship, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, and I believe that extraordinary gifts and demonic activity have mostly ceased for today. So maybe I am Reformed.

I don’t know. Maybe Reformed is a useless distinction now. Or maybe I just despise labels. I am definitely most comfortable in a fairly conservative Presbyterian congregation. But there are definitely Presbyterian congregations that would whither my spirit and the common vehemence over doctrine disturbs me—I was embarrassed by the way I saw grown men acting at a OPC Southern California Presbytery meeting a couple years back. I vowed to never go to one again. There are pros and cons in both the Reformed church and the Evangelical church. And even some shared faults—an honest joy in the Gospel is not readily evident in any congregation I’ve visited. Joy in the Spirit, sure. Joy in proper worship, absolutely. Joy in a pastor’s words, yup. But joy in the simple, sweet Gospel of our salvation? I’m sure it’s there, but it seems subdued—perhaps weighed down by the importance of all these other matters.

I don’t know. But for now, I’m happy to be a Christian, happy to be a believer in Christ, happy to be in the whole congregation of the saints, happy to be an overcomer into the way everlasting, happy to be an adopted child of God, happy to be more than a conqueror through Christ Jesus, happy to heir to righteousness, happy to be cleansed and clothed in holy apparel, happy to be loved, happy to be citizen of the kingdom eternal, happy to have come to the holy city of Zion and entered in with thanksgiving, and most certainly happy to be bride to the eschatological Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

I don’t know. Maybe I won’t take a label any longer. Damn the man. Freedom for truth.

Top 30 Search Results for Nowheresville:
Year 2002
Dec 2002
Nov 2002
Oct 2002
Sep 2002
Aug 2002

Can anyone offer a good Reformed demonology? One available online is preferable.

Went and saw The Two Towers again and was pretty disappointed by the couple screwing around in the back of the theater. The constant and semi-rhythmic squeeking of the rocker-seats got pretty annoying. They couldn't even save it for the loud action scenes at Helm's Deep, but insisted on going though scenes of dead silence (like during the discussion between Elrond and Galadriel and Aragorn's Arwenian flashbacks). In retrospect I think it woulda been funny to throw a large Coke on them and run :-) Like spraying dogs with a hose!

At this point, it may also be obvious, but I also think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski and the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were horrible things, unjust and wrong. I think the killing of civilians is a crime of war. Am I a stupid, bleeding heart for that? I don't know. Up until a year or so ago, I would have imagined those who called the use of the Bomb wrong to be revisionists (and they may have been). I have no doubt that America was justly angry about attacks on its own citizens and that such attacks may have spared a great number of potential casualties in the long run (esp. since Japan surrendered almost immediately after the Bomb), but it still doesn't strike me as right.

I have decided that as a Christian, I can no longer support a death penalty. I won't argue against it because such is the province of the government and not my concern, but neither will I promote it (as do so many self-righteous and blustery) and argue for a practice that ends life and therefore mercilessly ends the opportunity for repentance. It's not that I don't see value in permanently removing malefactors from society, but I would prefer a lifelong incarceration in order that these sinners might be evangelized (not released back into society to be sure, but given the Gospel without the Pavlovian interference a death sentence would bring to the process.

Now this is just one of the saddest dang things I ever did read.

Har. I just did a Google search for "by and large vs. by in large" to find out proper usage (it's "by and large" by the way - discovered via an M-Dub thesaurus search for synonyms of "generally") and discovered thirty some sites that use both on the same page *guffaw* (to be fair, half of them are bulletin board postings and so feature two separate authors - which doesn't, of course, excuse the others).

I dare anyone in the world to try to get past Level 8.

You can find the absolute most hippest stuff on eBay if you only know the right thing to search for: taxidermy. Example. Czech out this thrillingly cool 3 Porcupine Puffer Fish Taxidermy Lamp!!


Yes, and I KNOW you were all thinking right about now (well those of you on dial-up anyway), just how very much this site need ANOTHER image. *ahem* You're welcome.

Yup, snacker that I am, I nominated myself for a Bloggy for best non-blog content (I mean with all the pictures and reviews and drawings and pumpkins and whatever...). Before you think me entirely self-serving, I nominated a lot of you other cats for stuff. I mean on a Thursday night? What else was I gonna do? Wash the dishes?

All that and I was sick to boot :-)