Treaties on Clockwork Silence

Why I Support Ron Paul...

2008-02-05T09:07:00.000-07:00

I know, I don't write at all. I'm a very bad blogger. Facebook takes up too much of my time, I'll freely admit that. ;) But this is extremely important. Probably the biggest change since my last post is I now teach swing dancing. Which has sort of become my life (exampled by my weekend -- I'm teach Thursday, maybe Friday and Sunday, and going dancing Thursday-Sunday nights). I'm so glad there isn't such a thing as too much dancing. ::grins::

No other presidential candidate can claim the following record:
Dr. Paul...
has never voted to raise taxes.has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
has never voted to raise congressional pay.
has never taken a government-paid junket.
has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
voted against the Patriot Act.voted against regulating the Internet.
voted against the Iraq war.
does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
supported Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford in 1976.

Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

I'm going to be a little confrontational here. So unless you want to debate me on this, I would suggest not commenting or specifically saying that you don't care to discuss this any further than your comment. Because I will challenge your position, and ask for you to provide evidence for it.

You can't possibly tell me you're a true Reagan consverative and vote for a liberal like McCain, Romney or Huckabee. It's a complete non-sequitor. I've said it in many places, I'll say it again -- I will vote for Obama before I ever vote for McCain or Romney (or even Huckabee anymore).

And just so you know, I'm by no means anti-military (I only say this because it's the very first argument I hear every single time). I'm anti-unconstituional wars. I'm anti-unconstitutional ANYTHING. I would say over 2/3rds of my friends and family are currently in or have served in the military. I love the military more than anyone else I know. I've spent years working to get better things for them from our government. So you can't say I'm anywhere near anti-military. Isn't it curious to know that Ron Paul has received the most military support? And not just the wackos who think their time in Iraq was a death sentence or something like that. I mean honest to goodness real American patriots who serve in our armed forces and will continue to no matter what, but they would like to see the Constitution followed always, not just in declarations of war.

A good place to look (and I'll grant you, it does have a very strong Dr. Paul bent---but this doesn't come close to negating the truth of it) is here: http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/. Perhaps the most telling thing I've ever seen is this: http://www.ntu.org/images/2008pres_total.png. I wonder if, by some miracle (that miracle being that the American people stop being blinded by the political rhetoric and lies of other candidates), and Paul were to get the nomination, if Fred Thompson would come back as VP... now that would be a happy ticket. :D

I believe in the power of prayer. All my Ron Paul supporting friends -- you NEED to be praying today. Pray that God's will be done, and do all you can today to get out the vote for the Ron Paul revolution. I can't expect great things, but I can hope for them. Change like this will be resisted until the end, if not by our fellow citizens, then by our government. I don't expect even one "victory" tonight in the caucuses and primaries around the country, but any vote for freedom and restoring the Constitution is a victory in it's own right.

-- Sarah

::catches breath::

2007-10-20T09:41:00.000-06:00

Life has been INSANE. My work as the Executive Director for the Hearth Fund is really picking up. I'm the office manager for two state Representatives come January (working two days a week in Denver... and probably more at home) and working as the assistant to the best campaign manager in Colorado. :D God is very good to me. When I'm not working on politics, I'm a regular ol' dancing fool. I've been dancing several hours a week, I can now do aerials! I'm also trying out (and most likely not making) for a competitive swing dance team at the Air Force Academy (they have spots for six civilian girls). I feel like I'm always doing something (and when I'm not, I'm wasting time on the internet...), but it's not a stressfully busy feeling. Which is good.

Annnnnnnnd. I've been tagged. Here are seven things you shouldn't know about me already:

1) I'm terrified of public speaking. Go ahead and laugh. Yes, I still do it, and I enjoy it sometimes, but the build up to it almost makes me sick...

2) I can tell where someone in Britain is from by their accent down to the county in most cases. Not every time, but a lot of the time.

3) I've written my own actual Constitution that I think, with a few minor adjustments, could actually work in the real world.

4) I am so afraid of spiders that I've actually cried at the sight of them.

5) I'm not a big fan of chocolate (I rarely can eat it), but I love really sugary candies (like Bottlecaps, Sweettarts, Skittles, et al.).

6) I have an IQ of 129 according to a test on facebook...

7) My (new) favourite songs to dance to are Song for You by Michael Buble (for blues) and Zoot Suit Riot by Big Bad Voodoo Daddy (for general swing).

Yesterday and Update

2007-08-31T11:58:00.000-06:00

I have a post (rather lengthy) on Predestination, but life happened, and it keeps getting put off. ::sigh:: As soon as it's ready, I'm going to post it. Promise.

You ought to read this. My mom posted it. I don't feel like recounting it all right now, and she did it justice. http://amusedmomma.blogspot.com/2007/08/compassion.html

I will add that I never do things like that. I think about doing it, I regret deeply not doing it afterwards, but I never actually do it. Until yesterday.

I don't know what happened, but I can honestly say I didn't even realize what had happened until it was all over.

I'll never forget the look in that man's eyes. It makes me want to cry even now. The desperation and despondency of this world has hit me really hard since then. It always hits home for me. Too close to home. And it hurts.

The Sacrament of the Altar

2007-05-24T10:53:00.000-06:00

Although this began in a discussion here, I thought I'd bring this over and post it here as well. And just for the record, I haven't forgotten about my theologically charged post due on my xanga, but seeing as I only got two responses, I didn't think most were very interested so I'm taking my time with it. In the interim, read this. It's really well done. For more about Spirituality of the Cross, which EVERY CHRISTIAN should read, you can read here. Also, if you want to look at the Small Catechism, as the post suggests, you can use the link he provides, google "Luther's Small Catechism" or try here, which is my personal favourite translation of it and I want very badly in book form, but I have to settle with the 1946 translation for now. So without further adeiu, the post.

From Augsburg with love
John H Sunday 6th May, AD 2007

Josh’s comments on evangelical converts to Roman Catholicism (as quoted in my previous post) have provoked discussion in a number of places, ranging from Kevin Johnson’s highly critical response at Reformed Catholicism, and Michael Spencer’s surprisingly positive comments (”Get out the cameras. I think Pirate’s insight on this entire subject is, frankly, brilliant…”).

Chris Atwood picks up on some of Michael’s other comments to revive a question he has asked before: namely, why are the doctrines characteristic of “Augsburg evangelical” theology only found within those churches that derive from the German and Scandinavian Reformations. In other words, Can you be [Augsburg] Evangelical without being Lutheran?”

There is then a third question, one which Josh posed in the comments thread to Kevin Johnson’s post: why are many Reformed Christians far more scandalised by the Lutheran practice of closed communion than by the equivalent practice in the Roman Catholic Church? My own attitude before joining the Lutheran church could have been summarised as follows: “The Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is blasphemous nonsense, and it is scandalous that they won’t let me participate”. I suspect I was far from unique in this.

All these questions find at least part of their answer in the following: the difficulty many Reformed Christians seem to have in comprehending how different the Lutheran teaching on the Lord’s Supper is from their own, and how this difference then colours all aspects of Lutheran theology and spirituality.

The Lutheran Supper: it’s more different than you think

Reformed Christians who take a “high”, Calvinistic view of the sacraments are undoubtedly far closer to the Lutheran position than the outright Zwinglians sat in the pew alongside them, and so it is Reformed Christians of this sort that I principally have in view here (specifically: me, circa 2001). Such Christians tend to say to Lutherans, “We agree that we receive Christ and the benefits of his saving death in the Supper, so why should we divide over what precise explanation we give for this?”

So for example, Mike Shea at the BHT highlights the third question from the Small Catechism’s section on the sacrament of the altar. Since Calvinists and Lutherans can agree that “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words“, then “to what degree [does] faith in this promise require believing anything about the bread and cup themselves?”, he asks.

However, this argument misses (or attempts to sidestep, perhaps) the Catechism’s first question:

What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

Note what we are saying here: the Lord’s Supper IS the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This goes far deeper than simply disagreeing over what happens within the Lord’s Supper. It is not simply that Lutherans say, “At the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ”, while Calvinists say, “At the Lord’s Supper, we feed on the body and blood of Christ as we receive the bread and wine”. If that were the case, the Calvinist argument that the difference between us is one of methodology would carry considerable weight.

Rather, it is a case of saying: if you have bread and wine that are not actually the body and blood of Christ, then what you have isn’t the Lord’s Supper. Full stop. End of story. We’re not disagreeing over mechanisms here: it is a case of saying, “You Reformed Christians say that the bread and wine in your Supper are not the body and blood of Christ. Fine. We will take you at your word. But in that case, what you have is not the Lord’s Supper. So any comparison between what it means and how it works compared with the Lord’s Supper in our churches is meaningless, because we are not talking about the same thing.”

So at the heart of Reformed incomprehension over the strength of Lutheran feelings on this issue is this basic difference: Reformed Christians think the discussion is about what happens at the Lord’s Supper, while Lutherans think the discussion is about what the Lord’s Supper is in the first place.

Mis-underestimating the difference

This “mis-underestimation” of the difference between us regarding the sacrament of the altar then goes some way to explaining the phenomenon that Josh described, of evangelicals going to Rome to find truths that would be far more readily available to them in Wittenberg.

To put it simply, Reformed Christians don’t really think there is that much difference between Lutherans and themselves (the slightly odd Lutheran teachings on the sacraments clearly just being the result of Luther not rethinking his medieval presuppositions with sufficient thoroughness, and his followers being reluctant to contradict him). That is why they are outraged when we reply, “Actually, we think there is, and we think the differences are sufficiently fundamental to necessitate a breaking of altar fellowship”.

But that is also a key reason why Reformed Christians looking for “something different” are going to end up in Rome (or possibly Constantinople): because they don’t see Lutheranism as “something different”. Lutheranism is seen as a synonym for “German Reformed”, and we’ve already had enough of the Swiss/Westminster versions of Reformed theology, thanks. (My own, slightly hazy, view of Lutheranism five years ago was that it was basically middle-of-the-road Anglicanism with longer hymns.)

Is non-Lutheran Augsburg evangelicalism possible?

I think there is another, related, reason why Reformed Christians looking for “something else” tend to overlook Lutheranism in favour of Rome for inspiration, even if they remain in the Reformed churches. Chris Atwood summarises the essence of “Augsburg evangelicalism” as follows:

Justification by faith alone;
baptismal regeneration;
the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in Holy Communion;
the relative indifference of polity as defining the being of the church; and
Scripture as the only binding norm of faith and practice.

Now, this seems to be exactly the sort of agenda that a “Reformed Catholicism” should be pursuing: a return to the mainstream of historical church teaching on the sacraments, while retaining the insights of the Reformation as regards justification and the role of Scripture, and regarding bishops as some considerable way down the list of priorities.

However, as Chris goes on to point out, these five distinctives are, in practice, only found in conjunction with “the whole kit and kaboodle of the Lutheran tradition, from the Book of Concord to Law and Gospel sermons to Waltherian congregationalism to Reformation Sundays to Concordia Press to beer”.

So the invitation to consider the tenets of Augsburg evangelicalism is inevitably heard as an invitation to become Lutherans, in the sense of buying into the whole package. And I can well understand that a Reformed Christian would be reluctant to do this: after all, the LCMS is a very imperfect organisation, and (in the UK) the ELCE, while perfectly formed, is undoubtedly very, very small. In human terms, to become a Lutheran looks very much like edging into an obscure niche, rather than finding the purest expression of the catholic and apostolic faith.

The effect of this understandable reluctance to become Lutheran is that people overlook the insights of Augsburg evangelicalism, in favour of a “Reformed or Rome” dichotomy. When that is the choice presented to us, it’s inevitable that many people will choose Rome, especially when their local Roman Catholic church is five minutes walk away, and their nearest church confessing the Augsburg evangelical faith is an hour’s drive.

The challenge to Augsburg (and other) evangelicals

The intention of this post is not to bash Reformed Christians over the head and say, “You idiots! Haven’t you ever read the Small Catechism?” Rather, the challenge is to Lutherans, to ask how we can engage more effectively in commending the basic principles of Augsburg evangelicalism to Christians from other traditions - not with the aim that they necessarily end up members of Lutheran congregations, but so that these teachings can be a blessing and a help to other Christians even as they remain in their own traditions.

I came within the Lutheran orbit initially through receiving Lutheran insights while still being a Reformed evangelical Anglican. The proper distinction of law and gospel and the doctrine of vocation, for example, are teachings that can be tremendously liberating and helpful for Christians of any tradition. The Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper can attract more opposition, but stands witness to the fact that moving beyond a Zwinglian or even “high Calvinistic” view of the Supper needn’t involve embracing the erroneous teachings of transubstantiation or the “sacrifice of the mass”.

This isn’t about “winning the argument”, let alone winning “converts”. If we really believe these teachings to be true, then we believe them to represent a blessing to all Christians, even if we don’t see any increase in “our” numbers. The spirit we should display is perfectly summarised by Gene Veith in the first chapter of his brilliant introduction to Lutheran teachings, The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals, as he disclaims any intention to engage in “sheep-stealing”:

I think any Christian could draw on the spiritual insights of the Lutheran tradition that will be described here, though of course there will be points of disagreement.

For Reformed (and other) Christians reading this, I would say this: do read the Small Catechism. I’m sure you will find much of it a blessing to you (it’s been described as the only Reformation catechism that can be prayed). It will also help you understand our points of difference more clearly, particularly as regards the sacraments - but even there, I hope you will find a perspective that enriches and challenges your own views of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and makes each of those more of a blessing to you in your own experience. And do read Veith’s book as well: it is superb, and written in a gracious and eirenic spirit.

But equally, it is only fair for me to continue as Veith continues in the paragraph quoted above:

The full dose of Lutheran spirituality can only, of course, be found within the day-to-day life of a Lutheran church … Spirituality, after all, must be lived, not merely intellectualized, and its locus is the mysteries taking place in an ordinary local church.

We Have Forgotten

2007-05-07T17:12:00.000-06:00

It seems like I'm overdue for a new post. And I feel the need for a good political rant, so here it goes.

I just recently watched the World Trade Center movie. Extremely well done, I applaude the director and script-writer. And EVERY American needs to see this movie. And they need to see it now.

I have to admit, I didn't actually want to watch it at first. I didn't want to remember, to open up again the freshest wound our country now bares (at least in my opinion). But my mom made me. And I have to say, now I'm ashamed of my thoughts beforehand. It's exactly what's wrong with this nation -- we don't want to remember, we just want to move on. I can understand that, but it absolutely destroys us.

As soon as I finished watching the movie, I was so angry. I wanted to fly to New York right away and hold a rally. I wanted to yell at Congress. "Don't you see? THIS IS WHY WE'RE IN IRAQ! This is why we're in Afghanistan! How is it that you've forgotten so soon? What about the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field? Why can you not remember? Why will you not remember?"

I can't begin to understand why people have forgotten. Yes, I didn't want to have such a visual reminder myself, but I definately haven't forgotten. Not by a long shot. However, I do believe Congress has forgotten.

We need to pray for a change of heart. If we leave Iraq, we hand the terrorists the victory. We might as well just surrender. There is no way to win a war like this when we retreat! It's a war of ideologies. You cannot surrender to that. You simply cannot. I just... I can't believe that America, the victor, the amazing nation we are, will give up so easily. How can Congress be so blind? My stars, what is wrong with left-wing Congresspeople?

Where's Martin Luther when you need him? We need people who will stand for their convictions, not just bloviate. We need a reformation, a revolution in thought. As the next generation, we need to act now. The unpleasant realities of our world demand this of us. Clog D.C.'s switchboard. Flood their post offices with letters to Congressidiots. Spread the word. Pray. Communication is our most powerful weapon in this. And I'd like to challenge anyone who reads this to use their voice to make the line in the sand: "Here I stand, I can do no other."

Resurrection Day

2007-04-07T11:58:00.000-06:00

Just a short post. First and foremost, I want to wish anyone who reads this a blessed and glorious Resurrection Day!

I wanted to take a brief moment and discuss what seems like almost a symantics issue until you really look at it. The use of the term "Easter" versus "Resurrection Day". Here are my reasons for not using Easter:

1) Easter comes from the Ancient British name for the goddess of the dawn (Eastre). It's also where we get the word east from. To me, this makes it much too common. And it's strictly pagan in it's roots

2) Resurrection Day is much more precise and accurate. It's not a celebration of the dawn, or spring (as Eastre actually translates from Old English to mean Spring).

So basically, in using "Easter", we short-change the absolute awe of that day... that someone, the Son of God who was completely sinless and blameless, would die for the world, and then was raised on the third day, on Resurrection Sunday. We equate it with a pagan festival, a pagan goddess, when it is something so much more wonderful and amazing.

May God richly bless you this Resurrection Day and always!

Most Hated Song

2007-04-05T12:23:00.000-06:00

I know I've been horrid about posting regularly on here. I'm hoping to change that soon...

Those who know me (even semi-well) know that I hate hate hate hate with a passion contemporary Christian music or praise music. Here's a great explanation why. And please make sure to read all the comments (just skimming through them would probably suffice). While I don't quite agree about Awesome God, I have to say two of my most hated, me-centered CCM/praise "songs" are definately Shine Jesus Shine and Heart of Worship. One more I would add to that list would be Lord I Lift Your Name on High.

I hate to say it, but most of modern Christiandom is watered down and pathetic, at least as music goes. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I believe it to be the absolute truth. If a song has no direct link to the Bible (every hymn in my church's hymnal cites the verse(s) it comes from), and if the action of the verb is driven by YOU not GOD, then it is me-centered and at the very least, doctrinally unsound (if not completely false). The push for semi-Palegianism (the thought that you can have something to do with saving yourself) is prevelent in CCM/praise "songs", and I think that is very sad.

So now, I'm curious. What are your most hated songs? If we're not talking about "Christian" music, I would say She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy by Kenny Chesney and My Heart Will Go On by Celine Dion and London Bridge by Fergie top my list of hated secular songs. *gags*

Most Meaningful Book of the Bible

2007-03-01T11:16:00.000-07:00

I am curious as to which book of the Bible you all find the most interesting or most meaningful to you. For me, it is, and always has been, the book of Romans.

Here are my biggest reasons why:

1) Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." This verse very succinctly and accurately sums up the entire Bible. No fluff, no happy-clappy ideals, just the pure Gospel truth. And I really like that.

2) Romans has been described as the book on Justification by Grace through Faith Alone. This was one of the battle cries of Martin Luther during the reformation. In this sense, I mean the Lutheran definition of Justification, which basically is that the only way to be saved is through grace by faith, that you have no choice in the matter and that you have no say in the matter, other than to believe in what God has said and done, and that Christ's substitutionary death was for all mankind.

3) Martin Luther said in his preface to the Epistle of Romans in his translation of the Bible, "This epistle is the very heart and center of the New Testament and the purest and clearest Gospel. It well deserves to be memorized word for word by every Christian man; and not only that: A man ought to live with it day by day, for it is the daily bread of souls. One cannot read it too often or too thoroughly or consider it too often or too well; and the more one deals with it, the dearer it becomes and the sweeter it grows upon the tongue..."

4) Martin Luther closed this preface with, "Thus we find in the epistle all that a Christian ought to know, and that in great abundance, namely, what the Law is, what the Gospel is, what sin and punishment are, what grace, faith, righteousness, Christ, God, good works, love, hope and the cross are, and what our attitude toward all men ought to be, toward saints and sinners, the strong and the weak, friend and foe, and toward ourselves. And all this excellently supported by Scripture and proved by examples, some of them Paul's own and some taken from the prophets, so that there is nothing left to be desired here. Wherefore it would seem that Paul intended this epistle to be a kind of summary of the whole Christian Gospel, and to open up for us the Old Testament. For there is no doubt that if a man has well learned this epistle by heart, he has the light and the power of the Old Testament for his own. Therefore every Christian should be familiar with this epistle and practice its teachings constantly. May God grant His grace to that end."

I'd love to hear your comments on Romans, and also your pick for the most meaningful book of the Bible to you, and your reasons why.

And yes, I will try to be more faithful in updating this blog. I have so many wonderful ideas floating around, and just never spend the time typing them out. I have a (take this with a grain of salt here) shorter paper for school on Justifications for the Southern Secession which I'm thinking I will post here as soon as I finish it.

Sarah

Happy New Year!

2007-01-02T12:00:00.000-07:00

I thought I would begin this post with a look back over 2006, a report about New Year's Eve and my resolutions for 2007. You can find pictures from my dance by clicking on the linked title of this post.

Ecclesiastes 3:1, 4: "[1]To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: [4] A time to weep, and a time to laigh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance."

REVIEW OF 2006

2006 was a very... interesting year. It was the hardest, and perhaps worst, year of my life, but in so many more ways, it was the best year, and 2007 is shaping up to be even better!
In 2006 I...

...gained three of the best friends I've ever had outside of my family.

...won the regional debate tournament and then couldn't go to Nationals.
...moved under the hardest of circumstances.

...learned what it means to truly live.

...danced the year away!

...grew in my faith, my friendships and my life.

...became less of a perfectionist (don't worry, it's still there *wink*).

...had the deepest conversations of my life.

...learned what it means to love and lose.

...had someone bring me so low I never thought I could get up again, and someone (or rather, someones) else bring me up higher than I ever was before.

...became even more quirky!

...fell in love with Mr. Darcy.

...read books I hadn't before (you MUST all read Paris in the Twentieth Century!).

...grew my hair to the longest it's ever been.

...fell and stumbled and tripped many times, but I always got back up.

2006 was a bit contradictory for me. So much bad seemed to happen, but it was all erased. Yes, it's still there, the memory of it lives on, but it's not what stands out in my mind. I am a perfectionist and a pessimist. This past year was far from perfect, and it left so many times for pessimism.

Why don't I remember that? What changed?

You can learn so much from talking to people (and *ah-hem* having them hit you over the head about some things... hard and multiple times... *mutters*). That is what changed. Things that I had been told for years suddenly made sense to me. And I'm so grateful for it.

NEW YEAR'S EVE

That was the best night of my life, quite honestly. It. Was. Perfect. Even though it didn't follow the schedule. Even though I about had two heart-attacks that day (one from finding out my fellow dance instructor and good friend wasn't coming! and the other from him showing up at the very last second!). Even though it snowed (which at any other time would have made me deleriously happy). Even though... well, it doesn't matter what the even though is because...

It. Was. Perfect.

I will never forget it. Thanks to everyone who came who made it so wonderful! I'm looking forward to dancing with you all again soon. New Year's Eve 2007, anyone? I'm thinking sooner would be even better. I'll keep you posted on the details.

2007's RESOLUTIONS

I have four resolutions, and one over all theme for 2007. They are:

1) To Live. I know this sounds obvious. Of course I live, but this year, I want to truly thrive. I've taken a significant step towards this already, laying the foundation in the second half of 2006, and I am excited to continue in that path!

2) To Grow. As a friend, as a Christian, as a daughter, as a sister, as a debater, as a politically minded teenager. I want to expand my horizons, and reach for the stars. Attainably, of course. *grin*

3) To Build. I want to expand my current friendships. Usually, I resolve to gain more friends. But I'm just not a "have ten million friends" person. I like my small, tight group of really close friends and my looser, less rigid group of good friends. It's not at all that I mind having many friends, but my personality procures a limited number of really close friends, and that's how I best operate. I want to expand those friendships, take them to the next level so to speak. It's a very different approach than I've ever taken, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the fruits of it.

4) To Love. This is for both my neighbor and myself. I am not a very nice person. I don't try to be, and I should be. I would like to learn to disagree and/or not like someone without always speaking ill of them (mostly to myself, but sometimes, regrettably, to others). And myself. I am a perfectionist. I know every flaw, every weakness, every defect of myself. But I am a child of God. I was created in His image. I am beautiful, both inside and outside. I want to completely accept that, to embrace that and to know it with every bit of my mind and soul. Again, I've already taken steps towards that in the latter part of 2006, and I really want to continue it.

My overall goal for 2007 is to make this The Year of the Dance. I want to live, to grow, to build and to love. For me, dancing is the ultimate release. While dancing, I honestly am in heaven. I don't know how else to describe it. It's like... the highest high. I want this year to feel like that. This year, I will dance. This year, I want to keep in mind the verse I posted at the beginning. Ecclesiastes 3:1, 4: "[1]To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: [4] A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance."

I pray God's blessing on all of you this year and always!

Religion and Worldview

2006-12-28T17:31:00.001-07:00

I've decided it's time to reprint a post I wrote almost a year ago, with some slight updates and revisions. In addition to this reprint, I'm going to add in a little about worldview.

---------------------------------------

When looking at anything, be it music, media, movies, books or anything in this world, you will see a worldview behind it. I recently read an article (click on the title of this post to read it yourself) which articulated a few ideas I'm putting below.

Worldview Test

A test that any worldview must pass to be a viable worldview.

- Must be rational

- Not contradictory
- Consistent with what we observe
- Explains reality satisfactorily
- Provides the basis for living

Worldview Components
The building blocks for a viable worldview.
- Something exists
- Everyone have absolutes
- Two contradictory statements cannot both be right
- All people exercise faith

Worldview Questions
Questions you can ask to determine a worldview.
- Why is there something rather than nothing?
- How do you explain human nature?
- What happens to a person at death?
- How do you determine what is right and wrong?
- How do you know that you know?
- What is the meaning of history?

Influential Worldviews, Past and Present
- Christian Theism
- Deism
- Naturalism
- Nihilism
- Existentialism
- Eastern Pantheism
- New Age
- Postmodernism

---------------------------------------

It’s tough in this day and age to be Lutheran. You are shunned by many people for not being Christians. I’ve been told that I will go to hell for being a Lutheran. I’ve been told I’m a cannibal for believing in real presence (explained below). I’ve been told I’ve never been saved because I was baptized at the age of 14 days old and I never “accepted” Jesus.

As a Lutheran, I’m an anomaly in three ways. First off, in main-stream Christianity. Second off, I’m homeschooled. This presents two problems. One, I’m not a Lutheran who goes to a public/private/Lutheran school, therefore most people in our church body don’t think I’m “normal” or getting a good education. Granted, there are other Lutheran homeschoolers out there, but they are few and far between. Two, I’m homeschooled but I’m not a happy clappy, touchy-feely, whatever seems good at the moment type of “modern” Christian, so I’m shunned there too.

However, I’m proud to be Lutheran. I do indeed dare to be Lutheran. Why? Well, let’s look at the difference between “mainstream” Christianity and Lutheranism, and see why. Before I get into all of that, I recommend that ALL of you, Lutheran and non-Lutheran alike, read The Spirituality of the Cross by Dr. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. It’s a great book on why he became a Lutheran, and what being a Lutheran means as far as our beliefs.

Now, to get the formalities out of the way. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible verses are from the King James Version. Quotes from Luther's Small Catechism are from the 1943 edition. For more information, you can access Dr. Veith's blog at: http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/. I would highly recommend it, not just for its religious content, but it's political posts. He also writes for World Magazine part-time, and his articles are highly interesting if you want to read more. He's a new Dean at Patrick Henry College.

Now, let me explain a little of the background for this book. Dr. Veith began as a "church shopper" (a term not exactly accurate but fits for what I'm trying to say). He went to different denominations in his town, and yet, he was never satisfied. He, like many of us, had come to the realization that there is no perfect church. There are some, perhaps, that are more correct than others, but how can we really say that?

I’ll be taking a look at a few main divisive issues between Lutherans and other Christians and why I feel the Lutherans are right on those issues. Don’t get the impression that we disagree with everything. If there’s one I don’t address, please feel free to ask me about it in the comments section.

Spirituality

There are three types of spiritual aspirations:

"Moralism, in which the will seeks to achieve perfection of conduct"
"Speculation, in which the mind seeks to achieve perfection of understanding"
"Mysticism, in which the soul seeks to achieve perfection by becoming one with God"

(note: these are from Adolf Koeberle's book The Quest for Holiness as quoted in Spirituality of the Cross)

While these all are good to a degree, and have measures of wisdom in them, Lutheran spirituality is "totally different" (Spirituality of the Cross) than any other form of spirituality out there. For example, "Most philosophies and theologies focus on what human beings must do to be saved; Lutherans insist that there is nothing we can do, but that God does literally everything. Human sin and God's grace are two poles of Lutheran spirituality. To be sure, these are intrinsic to all of Christianity, but in Lutheranism they are both heightened. They are resolved in the principle by which, it is said, the church stands or falls: justification by grace through faith." (Spirituality of the Cross, emphasis added)

Each of the three types of spirituality mentioned before can be considered "Paths to God" (as can Lutheran spirituality, but we'll get to that in a moment). Let's look at each one in a little more detail and relevance to the current day and age. Moralism demands a strict adherence to the law. No questions asked. That is the only path to go. I see this as a "works righteousness" mentality. You must keep the law perfectly to save yourself. That is the problem I see in many Christian churches today.

Speculation is, in sharp contrast to moralism, a viewpoint that demands the seeker find knowledge, and that is the only path to God. This is the mentality of "The Enlightenment of the French Revolution [that] gave us the Reign of Terror and Napoleon. The liberal-sounding tenants of Marxism gave us gulags." (Spirituality of the Cross, brackets added)

Finally, Mysticism is in contrast to the previous two. This is the mentality of those who seek to become one with God (or the gods, depending on the religion). This is seen most often in the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc).

All three of these leave you feeling empty and unfulfilled in the end, or cause big problems. That's where Lutheran spirituality comes into contrast. These three ways are an act of will, an act by the human to gain spirituality.

Lutheran spirituality begins with the insight that all human effort to reach God is futile. The will, to use Luther's term, is in bondage---not only can we not fulfill the moral law perfectly, on the deepest level, we don't want to." (Spirituality of the Cross, emphasis original)

Moralism, or the perfect fulfillment of the law, is fulfilled by Jesus' perfect life. Speculation, or the seeking of knowledge, is fulfilled by the Word. Mysticism, or becoming one with God through an emotional experience, is fulfilled by focusing on "God's union with human beings in Christ and the phenomenon of faith." (Spirituality of the Cross)

Let's finish this with a look at Romans 3:12 (NIV): "There is no one who is righteous, not even one [so much for moralism!]; there is no one who understands [so much for speculation!]; no one who seeks God [so much for mysticism!]." (as quoted in Spirituality of the Cross, brackets and emphasis original)

Law and Gospel

Now that we have looked at that, let's take a brief look at the aspects of Law and Gospel. Basically, a quick definition of these terms, respectively, are the Old and New Testaments. In the Lutheran theology (or spirituality), we believe that Christ has fulfilled the Law, therefore there is no need for a moralistic spirituality.

This, in no way, does not mean that as Christians we should not try to obey the law, but we do not need to fulfill the law to earn our salvation. The Gospel is the preaching of the good news to the people. A Lutheran sermon (or really, any sermon) should always consist of convicting the parishioners (through the Law) of our sinful nature, and of the salvation and victory won by Christ (through the Gospel) so that we don't have to perfectly fulfill the Law (as if we could if we tried). Unfortunately, it seems that many sermons in many Christian churches preach only the Law (or, only the conviction of the sinners) or the Gospel (and it becomes a touchy-feely sermon only made to make sinners feel better).

Salvation and the Sacraments

"When a Lutheran is asked "When were you saved?" the answer is often something on the order of "about two thousand years ago when Jesus died on the cross and then rose from the dead."" (Spirituality of the Cross)

The problem that arises with the "pop-Christian" culture of today is the moralism spirituality mentality. Everything is dependent on YOU and how YOU can save yourself. For example, when asked the question, "When were you saved?" most pop-Christians will answer, "Oh, on such and such a date when I accepted Jesus into my heart." Notice the emphasis on "I" and where that word is in relationship to our Lord. Before. Who is driving the verb? The word "I" is. YOU CANNOT ACCEPT JESUS! He accepts you. End of discussion.

Nothing you can ever do would make Him want to accept you. We are filthy, disgusting, awful sinful beings. NOTHING you can ever do will change this. By saying that you have accepted Jesus, it is like putting yourself before God and making your efforts and your action more important than His. Remember the 1st commandment? "Thou shall have no other gods before Me." A better answer for everyone, not just Lutherans, would be on the order of the answer from the quote above. It’s the answer I have given for years. I would ask that you consider this response the next time you are asked when you were saved.

The Sacraments of the Lutheran church (and most Christian churches) are baptism and Holy Communion. The quickest way for me to summarize these beliefs is in this quotation: "The Word of God itself speaks of other tangible means of grace, which, by the power of that same Word, also convey Christ and create faith. … Lutheran spirituality is a sacramental spirituality, centered in the conviction that the Holy Spirit actually descends in the waters of Baptism, and that Christ is really present in the bread and wine of Holy Communion." (Spirituality of the Cross)

The Lutheran church practices infant baptism. You may ask, how can an infant make a choice to have faith? I will direct you to the previous explanation I gave for not making a choice to accept, not making a choice to believe. Even an infant can have faith. Does not the baby have faith that it’s parents will feed, clothe and provide for his/her well-being and health? Does not the Bible give examples of whole families being baptized?

Last year, a friend of mine and I had a discussion on this issue. It’s made me realize that infant baptism is less about the baptism itself and more about the salvation that is achieved through it. I would advise you to look at any of the following websites for more information as well as Bible verses that back up my beliefs on infant baptism. I have further articles (not with links) that I can provide if you'd like more historical or succinct examples.

Infant Baptism and Early Church History: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm
Baptism in the New Testement: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/das2.htm (note: this is 32 printed pages)
Biblical Infant Baptism: http://www.geocities.com/resourcesforlutherans/biblicalinfantbaptism.htm?200621
The Doctrine of Infant Baptism: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v2n3.htm
Baptism and Faith: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/shuta.htm
Luther's Sermon on Infant Baptism: http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/lutheranism/24080

The Lutheran church is different from any other denominations in their beliefs pertaining to Holy Communion. While the Catholics believe in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood of Christ) and the rest of Christendom (at least, as far as I know) believes in representation (a term I’ve coined to basically show that they believe that the bread and wine only REPRESENT the body and blood of Christ), the Lutherans believe in something called real presence or consubstantiation. The bread and wine do not become anything, nor do they represent anything. They just ARE what Jesus says they are (This is My body, this is My blood). It’s one of those mysteries of God that cannot be explained. It just is. It takes an act of faith to believe it. But then again, isn’t believing in God Himself an act of faith?

The Theology of the Cross vs. The Theology of Glory

Let’s start this by looking at the difference between "The Theology of the Cross" and "The Theology of Glory". A Theology of Glory is focused on man. It is a form of "to man be the glory". A Theology of the Cross is focused on the Cross, on what Christ did for us. It is a form of "to God be the glory". Many churches focus on what man can do (on the Theology of Glory). It is depressing to me. One of the many things I love about the Lutheran church is that they focus on the Theology of the Cross.

The liturgy itself is a vivid testament of this. Look at the focus of many church services today: singing "praise songs". Now, I’m not anti-praise-song. I’m anti-singing-praise-songs-in-church. I feel that a vast majority of praise songs are not focused on what they should be (they praise man, not God) and they aren’t very worshipful.

"Legalistic religions, in which one saves oneself by one’s own efforts, are very specifically theologies of glory, optimistically assuming success and glorifying the powers of the successful, virtuous person. But when we realize just how lost we are, then we cling to the cross, trusting Christ to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. This is saving faith, the theology of the cross." (Spirituality of the Cross, emphasis original)

The focus of a Christian’s life should be on taking up the cross (Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27). Bearing this cross is not an easy task. It is a hard, lifelong job. "Saving faith involves giving up on our pretensions of being self-sufficient, strong and in control. Instead, we are to rest in utter dependence on Jesus Christ. "My grace is sufficient for you," the Lord told St. Paul, "for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9)." (Spirituality of the Cross)

This leads back to the Theology of the Cross and the Theology of Glory. The former would be what we give up (see italicized above). The latter is what we gain as a Christian (see bolded above).

"Bearing the cross often has to do more with the petty, ordinary obstacles and frustrations of everyday life and … with troubles in one’s vocation. Boredom, mild depression and bad moods can be crosses, no less than physical pain and emotional turmoil." (Spirituality of the Cross)

Conclusion

I think that covers the main issues. This is a long post anyway, so I won’t make it much longer. Please ask any questions you have. Be prepared to back your statements up with Bible verses, as will I when I answer questions. I just ask that you please keep this discussion civil. I’ve had too many bad experiences with this in the past that I hope won’t happen again.

Food for Thought

2006-12-17T22:37:00.000-07:00

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

-- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), “The Contest in America.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143, page 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862. Original article

Is Paris in the Twentieth Century... America in the Twenty-First Century?

2006-12-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

“Woman is Passion, Man is Action, and it is for this reason that man adores woman.” — Honoré de Balzac

Jules Verne's “Lost Novel”, Paris in the Twentieth Century, was the second book written by Jules Verne, but was considered too radical for the time. Quite honestly, it may very well be too radical for this time. Let me explain.

Written a hundred years before it's setting (1960-1963), it relates the tale of a mechanized society that completely regresses, rather than progresses. Sure, it had technology that we've just begun to match, but it lost every sense of human value. Life was no longer life, but a society so controlled by machines that music, plays, literature (really, any of the arts) and most importantly life have no value any more.

While this might make for great fiction, it's quite terrifying to think that it could be our future very soon. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, the family unit has lost it's value. Ever since abortion and euthanasia became prominent, we have devalued human life to an almost irreplaceable extent. Everything is becoming computerized. Human jobs are now able to be performed by robots or computers. While it increase after the Industrial Revolution, the current living standard has significantly diminished due to inflation that is through the roof. Jobs are disappearing, the wages are disgustingly high for some, and sickeningly low for a majority of the rest.

The degradation of humanity, if it continues at it's current alarming rate, will lead us to Verne's Paris of the Twentieth Century.

What's interesting to me is the fact that Jules Verne has a knack for saying things that sound prophetic or just plain unrealistic to us simply because we don't see what he saw. In this book, he “predicted” things such as magnetic lift transportation, elevators and fax machines. There are many other examples of this as well, but one of my favourites comes from his book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, he discusses Atlantis. To the “modern” mind, there is no explanation for Atlantis other than supernatural or mythological. To Verne's, and mine, it was simply a matter of history and truth. Jules Verne can uncover the hidden or forgotten truth in many things. And this book was a shining example of his ability to speak the plain and simple truth just as it should be—unhindered.

Beyond this exposé on a frightful, and frightfully close, future, this story is also about love and passion, which also seems lost in this day. It is about loving someone, not lusting for someone. It is about knowing when the time is right. It is about knowing what true love is. For example, Verne says “The young lady was a living poem; he sensed rather than saw her; she touched his heart before delighting his eyes.” Rather than presenting lust, he presents depth of emotion before physical attraction.

The story begins on August 13, 1960, with one Michel Dufrénoy, a sixteen year old poet winning a prize for Latin Verse at a large ceremony. It continues with his journey home, and his reflections. He knows his adopted family (his aunt and uncle, as he is an orphan) will be upset, and he is right. His uncle brings him the day after to work for him in his mercantile, but he grants him a day of freedom first. This Michel uses to visit the library, where he meets his Uncle Huguenin. His uncle works in the forgotten section of “old” literature. Michel promises to visit him when he has the chance.

The next day, Michel begins his job where he proves to be of little use on the cash registers, so he is sent to work with Quinsonnas on the ledger, which is still hand-written. The ledger itself is a feat of science—it is six metres high, and a mechanized platform allows you to move around so as to write on it. Michel soon learns that Quinsonnas is a musician, and he meets him one night with another friend (Jacques, who wants to be a soldier) where they discuss the woes of all their professions being lost.

Finally, Michel finds time to visit his Uncle. He learns that his former Professor, Richelot, and his granddaughter Lucy are to join them for dinner. Michel and his Uncle spend the afternoon discussing the classics that are forgotten by the modern society. Dinner roles around, and the other guests show up. Michel is stricken by Lucy, and she with him. They take a walk after dinner, where the bond is strengthened.

Michel goes back to work, where he can no longer focus. He and Quinsonnas get into a heated discussion on women, which ends in the ledger being ruined and both of them being fired. They go to Uncle Huguenin’s house, where they plan what to do next. Michel tries work for the Drama Department, which ends in his quitting. Quinsonnas goes away for some time, but returns to Paris eventually. Michel and Uncle Huguenin discuss the possibility of marriage between Michel and Lucy, and his Uncle says he must be able to support her first. He decides to write a book of poetry. During this time, Quinsonnas leaves for Germany with no intent to return, and he gives Michel 500 francs to live off of for the time being. Also, Lucy’s Grandfather, the Professor, loses his job, but Michel remains unaware of that.

That winter turns out to be one of the worst ever. Michel is down to his last franc, and instead of buying food, he buys Lucy a present for the first time. He goes to find her in the bitter cold only to learn of her Grandfather’s lack of employment, and them being kicked out of their home. He wanders the streets of Paris through the night, where he is starving to death. In the morning he finds himself in Paris’ most famous cemetery, where he walks past the graves of many great heroes of literature. There, at his end, he curses Paris and cries for his love.

Here is a detailed explanation of all of Jules Verne’s work. And here you can find 54 of Jules Verne’s novels in an online text.

Post-Modern Education

2006-11-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

To understand the inspiration for this post, please read the link above. It's nauseating to think that you are considered "educated" if you graduate from college with a 9th grade reading level and a 7th grade arithmetic level!

So I decided to show how far education has really fallen in a 99 years. We own a book called "The National Question Book: A Comprehensive Review of the Common and High School Studies" published in 1907 and written by Edward R. Shaw, Ph.D.

Here is an excerpt from the preface: "In all parts of our country there is a growing demand for more thorough work in our public schools and especially in the Common School Studies. Pupils are "pushed" through to High School unprepared for the work because they lack proficiency in the grades below. A practical Reference book so arragnged as to make it widely acceptable and by means of which the pupil can examine himself and test his proficiency has long been lacking. The National Question Book answers this purpose and furnishes this aid."

The basic purpose of this book is to have the student be able to answer all the questions contained within it by the time they graduate High School. So just for kicks... I will type up a randomly selected question from each of the sections below and you can have fun trying to answer them. I'll admit, I don't know the answers to many of these questions. The only thing I ask is that you use your knowledge, and yours solely, and not that of Google or some other such source. Also, keep in mind the publish date of 1907, as that will affect some of the answers to history/geography/astronomy questions. I'll wait about a week before posting the answers.

a. Arithmetic
59. Write a repetend, and define the term

b. Arithmetic Supplement
55. A man sold two-sevenths of his farm, and gave away three-fifths. He had 142 acres left. How many had he at first?

c. Geography
100. What is the number of United States Senators?

d. Geography Supplement
76. What great empire lies between the White and Black Seas?

e. History of the United States
122. What were the principle events of 1760?

f. History of the United States Supplement
31. What was the question of "State sovereignty"? What position did Webster take on this subject?

g. Grammar
159. Distinguish between the uses of O and oh.

h. Orthography and Orthoepy
5. State when w and y are vowels.

i. Physiology
181. Desctibe the corpuscles of the blood.

j. Bookkeeping
23. What is a trial-balance?

k. Civil Government
34. Between the adoption of the Declariation of Independence and the Articles of Confederation (1776-17871), how was the government of the colonies exercised?

l. Reading
15. What note represents the average pitch of the voice?

m. Rhetoric and Composition
52. Name four figures founded on comparision, and define each, giving an example.

n. English Literature
51. Name the author of each of the following: Essays of Elia; The Task; The Seasons; Elegy in the Country Churchyard; The Wealth of Nations; The Bridge of Sighs; Aurora Leigh.

o. Physics
93. What is the difference in colour resulting from the misture of the spectral colours yellow and blue, and the mixture of yellow and blue pigments?

p. Physical Geography
93. What are spring-tides? What are neap-tides?

q. Advances Studies: Algebra
14. Derive a formula for the sum of an arithmetical series, when the extremes and the number of terms are given.

r. Advanced Studies: Geometry
9. Show how to circumscribe a circle about a scalene triangle. Then state and deonstrate the proposition on which your solution depends.

s. Advanced Studies: Latin
11. Translate into Latin the following sentences: Little rills flow into great oceans. The Roman soldiers fought fiercely and conquered the enemy.

t. Advanced Studies: General History
6. State one important fact in the life of each of the following persons: Aristides, Miltiades, Leonidas, Themistocles, and Socrates.

u. Advanced Studies: Advanced Physics
6. If the barometric column stands at 30 inches, and the pressure of the atmosphere be 14.7 pounds to the square inch, what does a cubic foot of ercury weigh?

v. Advanced Studies: Chemistry
13. If a spark be applied to a mixture of 18 grains of O, and just dufficient H to unite chemically with all the O, (a) what will be the phenomena? (b) What compound will be formed? (c) How much of it?

w. Advanced Studies: Geology
20. What are the principal means of identifying rocks of the same statum, and of determining the relative age of the different strata? (no, this isn't necessarily evolutionary)

x. Advanced Studies: Botany
3. How are strawberry vines propagated?

y. Advanced Studies: Zoology
13. To what order of Mammals foes the rat belong, and what are the charictaristics of the order?

z. Advanced Studies: Astronomy
24. Explain the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.

aa. Theory and Practice of Teaching
90. Desctibe the Socratic method of teaching and explain its value.

Welcome!

2006-11-17T09:13:00.000-07:00

I've decided it's time to obtain a far more serious blog to use for school assignments, treaties on public policy, rants on the culture and ramblings on current events. I'm really excited about using this!

My other blogs are Misty Dreams, SophisticatedMari and Polemic Rants, just so you can get an idea of my debate and silly sides.

My goal for this blog is to comment on things I find important to me. This will probably be books, music, politics, current events, and the culture as a whole. I may from time to time post on theology (from my Missouri-Synod Lutheran point of view), but as a whole, I feel it is more impactful to discuss the things seperate from that (and I usually post that type of thing on Misty Dreams).

For my final observation at this point in time, I would like to explain this particular blog's name. "Clockwork silence" and "Splinters in the light" are both phrases from a Josh Groban song called "Now or Never". I particularly liked the mystic, yet awesome, nature of those phrases, and so chose to call my blog after them. Josh Groban has been a huge influence on my life in the past almost year, and I felt it only appropriate to call my blog after something that has impacted me that much.

Ciao!

Sarah