Laura Curtis

My husband and I had an odd conversation on the way to church this morning.  I said I sometimes wish we could be killed in a car accident rather than carry on living.  Thankfully, we’ve been married long enough, and he knows me well enough, not to take a statement like that as a personal indictment.  I’m one of the most blessed people you may ever know.  I have everything I need, and quite a lot of what I want.  I have a fantastic husband, a wonderful daughter and son in law, a home I enjoy, a church family I love dearly and satisfying work to do.  And pretty decent health, to boot.  I’m hardly suicidal.  And I knew that he wasn’t either, though he did agree with me that he sometimes feels the same way.  We’re just weary of our own sin.

Many people think I’m a nice person.  (Fools!  I know what’s in my heart.  Nice?  Hardly.)  Some people think we’re generous with our time and money.  (We know how much better we could be doing as stewards of what God has entrusted to us.)  I’m thankful for the fact that access to heaven is unrelated to my performance.  I know too well how far I fall short.  But the older I get, the more I’m looking forward to the rest of heaven.  Not rest from labor, but rest from myself.   Rest from my sinful nature.  Finally being able to put myself aside and really focus on God’s glory.  I’ve had a few samples of that here, usually during worship but sometimes in prayer, and I can’t help but anticipate the day when that’s the new normal.

I’ve got renovations on the brain, because we’re in the process of selecting a contractor to add a mother-in-law suite to our house.  At the same time, God’s renovations on me continue apace.

The home renovations are, I suspect, about to become a full time job for me.  I’ve mentioned before that we have a little house – about 1100 square feet.  We’ll convert a carport and patio to living space.  Before we can even start on that, we need to replace the fence we lost in Hurricane Katrina, so that any supplies and equipment we keep in the backyard are less likely to be stolen.  And we’ll need to build a shed to store the stuff currently in the carport. So there’s a lot of work to be done before we can really even get started.

The prep work for the renovations on me have included reading Paul Miller’s A Praying Life.  It’s been excellent. 

It’s not deep theology – while I heartily admire Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, for example, it’s not exactly daily fare for me.  That’s attending a fascinating lecture, enjoyable, but also kind of hard work. A Praying Life is more like coffee and a chat with a friend. It brought to light a problem I didn’t even know I had – a lack of faith to pray for big things, for fear that if they don’t happen or I don’t get what I want, my belief in God would be diminished. I’m not sure how or when I drifted into that thought pattern, but it was a really appalling revelation. My mind knows that God is not a Cosmic Vending Machine, and that sometimes God says No, or Wait. That’s not a matter of a prayer not being answered. It’s a matter of me not getting the answer I want. But even knowing, acknowledging that fact, I still drifted into that thought pattern and my prayer life changed accordingly.

So now I’m starting to get back into the habit of praying for big things, and preparing myself to thank and worship God regardless of the answer. I’ll praise him if his answer is Yes, and I’ll praise him if it’s No, or Wait. I’ll trust him to work all things for my good, and trust him to lead me according to his purpose. If you care to join me – there’s a situation that seems hopeless to me, and I’ve hardly had the courage to pray about it. S. is trapped in an abusive situation. J. is the abuser. (And yes, S. has other places to go… but it’s complicated and not really bloggable.) I’ve seldom prayed about this, and when I did, I prayed that the law would catch up with J. so S. would be safe. That’s a reasonable, rational prayer… one that stands a chance of being answered, right? Nothing miraculous in that scenario. Not much, really, that even requires God’s intervention. Now… I’m not just praying for a resolution that ensures S’s safety. I’m also praying for J.’s salvation.

My life is in such upheaval right now – this song just seems really appropriate at the moment.

And after viewing it, I saw this video posted on Facebook – the author of Reason For God, Tim Keller, talks about the main emphasis of the Bible. A paradigm shift for many, and a helpful reminder for all.

The Black Informant has an interesting post about supporting Black businesses.   I haven’t got anything to add to what Duane wrote, but it did get me thinking about how we tend to support our own “tribes” – whatever group we align ourselves with – and the ramifications of that.  No, I don’t shop racially.  I shop as seldom as possible, and my first choice is online because I hate shopping.  Shipping fees are an easy price to pay in exchange for avoiding parking lots, unhelpful sales clerks, and obnoxious fellow shoppers.  But I do support Christian-owned businesses when I can, for the express reason that I’m supporting “one of my own.”  I especially support the businesses owned by fellow church members whenever I can.  For Christians, the perceived benefits of patronizing a Christian-owned business usually include the fact that the money gets tithed on again, and the perception of being dealt with even more honestly and fairly than at a secular business.  The downside – if things go wrong, you can’t sue.

That is to say, if events occur under which you’d normally sue, but you and the business owner are both Christians, the bible says you must not sue, but rather, resolve the situation through a mediator or resign yourself to taking the loss.

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
(1 Corinthians 6:1-7 ESV)

The Christian Legal Fellowship has some thoughtful guidelines to consider.   Other religions actually have their own courts – Muslims have sharia courts in England and are pushing to have them here.  (Jews have Beth Din courts – though unlike the sharia courts, they lack legal standing in England.)  There is no Christian equivalent to either.  At most, you could ask the pastor to talk to the other person and mediate between you.  So Christians conducting business within our own “tribe” require an additional level of trust that I’m not sure is required of secular consumers.   Even so, I think it’s worth it.

Like the Episcopalian church, the Lutheran church is splitting over the decision to permit noncelibate gay clergy.

A lesbian pastor says, “At my church there is a sense of great celebration, of people being very happy that our work to make the ELCA a more inclusive place has come to fruition.”

A biblically orthodox pastor says, “The issue is departure from the word of God.”

It’s one thing to treat people with civility, mercy and grace.  It’s quite another to simply vote something out of the “sin” category.  The bible does not give us that authority.  Although this split is going to be very painful, I really do view it as a positive development – weeding the biblically unorthodox out of the ranks of nominal believers.  People are going to have to compare their personal views with what the bible says, and where there is a difference, acknowledge that and choose one or the other.

Joseph Farah has his panties in a knot because Ann Coulter is going to talk to teh gheys.  In public.  For money, even.  At which point, she’ll get teh ghey cooties, and earn Farah’s everlasting disapproval.  Ace had some rather biting commentary on this phenomenon, and it really does sum up what I’ve been attempting to say for years, but am evidently not a good enough writer to get across.  (RTWT, etc.)

3. I can’t help but notice that homosexuality is elevated to rather higher position on the food-pyramid of sins than seems necessary. I note that in my every day life, I wrestle with all sorts of sins: Sloth, probably at the top, then Lust, then Envy, then Wrath…. actually, all four of those are separated only by the slightest titches; it’s nearly a four-way tie. Pride and Gluttony aren’t far behind, either.

And other sins too. Premarital sex? Sex only for lustful purposes and not procreation? Yeah, I’m all about that.

I presume Joseph Farah is as well — on that last point. I am not prepared to believe that he only engages in sex for purposes of creating children. I do not believe that is true of nearly anyone.

I’ll tell you one sin I never have to wrestle with: the sin of homosexual fornication. Why? Because I’m straight. It never even occurs to me that gee, maybe if I’m not scoring with the ladies lately I should change up my game and try for a dude.

Never. Not once has it even crossed my mind.

And I submit that this is true for 99.9% of straight men, which in turn means it’s true of 97.7% of men, period.

So Farah is essentially elevating to the position of Worst Sin the one sin he has absolutely zero chance of committing, zero chance of even being tempted by.

I find this breathtakingly convenient. According to Farah’s priorities, hell, I’m a pretty moral guy — never had gay sex, never wanted to have gay sex, never even thought about gay sex. So I’m pretty pure, right?

Of course I’m not. I’m just not guilty of that sin, but I’m not free of that sin due to devotion to God or exercise of willpower or the strengthening power of faith: I’m free of that sin for the same reason I’m free of the sin (were it a sin) of eating tarantulas. Because I don’t want to.

It strikes me as very convenient, self-serving position to take that the most important sin out there, the most destructive sin, the one, as Farah says, actually destroys whole societies, is the sin that those who are most concerned with it aren’t ever tempted to commit in their entire lives.

And that, on the other side of the coin, the 3% of the population that is gay is soaked in sin and offense to God.

I find it a little curious that Farah flames on about gays but doesn’t seem terribly bothered by non-procreative heterosexual sex, non-procreative heterosexual sodomy (which includes the old blow-jay), non-procreative lustful use of pornography.

Now some will probably say he does mention those. Yes, I would guess he does; but as far as I know he wouldn’t forbid Ann Coulter from appearing at a party I was hosting, and I’m an admitted (and unashamed) pornography user and non-procreative heterosexual sex fan.

Why the special elevation here? Again, I just find it damnably convenient for a proponent of morality to pound and pound on the one sin that he is almost incapable of engaging in, due to deep-seated revulsion to the act.

Spot on. And, oddly, it ties in with something someone said at my bible study last week, regarding how we see sin, compared to how God sees sin. I don’t remember exactly how she phrased it, but these charts I made express the concept pretty well:

I’m sure we’ve all wondered this: Will there be sci-fi super nerds in Heaven? And will we all get together and build the Enterprise?

There will, in fact, be sci-fi super nerds in heaven, because I’m one and I’m going. As for the second question, you’ll have to click through for that answer. And which Enterprise, anyway? If I get a vote, I want NCC 1701-D.

Added: As long as we’re talking Trek, how cool is Wil Wheaton?  This cool.

There is a church practice that I have encountered where, at the beginning of the sermon, the pastor asks the entire congregation to “stand up now for the reading of God’s word.” Then when the pastor says that, everyone stands up and listens while he reads a Bible passage. First of all, I don’t see what particular benefit anyone could derive from standing up. God created chairs for a reason. Some people might argue that standing is a show of respect, but I don’t really buy that line. If we seriously wanted to show respect, it seems like we would salute, or kneel to the ground, or something. The other argument that a proponent of the technique might offer is that standing up causes us to be more attentive. But since when is that the case? Do children stand up while they are learning mathematics in school, or do they sit at their desks? Standing up just makes you uncomfortable. I focus best on God when I am comfortable and not annoyed.

But of course, these prior arguments concern merely peripheral issues. The real question is, Why in the world is God’s word read only at the beginning of the service?? I think a sermon is not even a real sermon at all unless it contains at least ten Bible verses. And I’m being fairly lenient when I offer a number even that low. Moreover, it’s a pretty cheap way to beat the system if you just pick ten verses that are all in a row and then read them all at the beginning of the sermon. The correct method is to spread the verses out throughout the sermon.

Once the pastor makes sure he has the requisite number of verses and that they are properly spread out, then he can either explain what each one means (expositional preaching) or use the verses to buttress a broader biblical argument (topical preaching). Or of course, he can always do some of both. Personally I think the congregation is safest if the pastor just sticks mainly to expositional preaching – because with topical preaching the risk is greater that the preacher will yank verses out of context to support some ridiculous extrabiblical viewpoint — but topical preaching does come in handy for establishing coherent theology.

But aside from these legitimate strategies, there’s also the method I’ve been ranting about, where the pastor just picks half a dozen verses, and then he reads them all at the beginning, and then he rambles on for the rest of the sermon with his own opinions. To finally bring things back to the initial point of my post, if you think it is good to stand up for the reading of God’s word, then you should remain standing for the entire sermon! Otherwise, you are admitting that your preacher is not preaching God’s word.

If you have never been to a church that engaged in this practice and have absolutely no idea what I am talking about…well, just ignore this post and count your blessings.