Not So Famous…

I say that with sarcasm, of course.  The Lord is faithful.  When He promises that He will continue to perfect His perfect work in me, I shouldn’t be surprised when He does, of course.  lol

Recently, I have been convicted of some long-standing sins in my life.  I’m not going into all of that here, but I will say that I’ve been trying to do what I can to eradicate that sin in my life lately.  I’ve felt so much better lately as a direct result of that.  I’m not talking about my health…I’m saying that my perspective on matters has been altered quite a bit of late.  People have asked me questions, and the answers I’ve been giving are directly from the Word.  A great deal of what I’ve read in the past has been brought to bear on these answers, with the result that I’ve understood far more of late about God and His Word than I ever have in the past.  I’ve grown in leaps and bounds in even the last 4 or 5 days since I started an assault on the strongholds of sin in my life in the effort to destroy it. It’s been difficult…when I’ve been sitting at home or driving to work, thoughts have appeared unbidden in my mind, and I’ve really had to pray a great deal. But with regards to my spiritual life, it’s been awesome.

Specifically, today (a few minutes ago, actually), someone asked me a question they thought was difficult.  They said that no one has been able to answer them at all.  They asked “Why do bad things happen, if God is God?” It’s a good question, especially if you’re unfamiliar with the Word of God.  Heck, even if you’re familiar with the Word of God, it can be difficult, if you don’t have a good understanding of man’s depravity, and the fact the there are no innocents…none at all.

Anyway, in answering this question, I was able to witness to this person pretty darn completely.  There were a lot of if’s.  IF you believe in God.  IF you believe that what the Bible says is true, etc.  A lot of Christianity is dependent upon those if’s.  However, I’ve found that this can be a very nice way to relate the Truth to many Americans.  Most people say they believe that the Bible is true, or that God exists, but they really don’t know what the Bible teaches, or they don’t really know what God is like. As a result, if you can agree that the Bible is true, you can explain to them exactly what the Bible teaches, and if they really do believe the Bible is true, it can be a wake-up call to them.

Anyway, I don’t know whether what I said really struck a chord in this person or not, but I may have planted a seed, etc.  Please pray that the Lord would work on their heart that they might be convinced of the truth of the Word of God.  :)

I ask the question for a more practical reason than I often do.  Sometimes, I want to know theory behind the why’s of human behavior.  Recently, however, I have come under fire by some people whom I care about deeply for attempting to eradicate inconsistent and erroneous beliefs about the Word of God and the right worship of the Most Holy God. I’m not angry with my loved ones, but I AM angry.

First off, let me say that I believe it’s ridiculous to offer the argument that, “we could be wrong about many doctrines in which we believe” to counter that a doctrine is wrong.  When I point out a wrong doctrine, I do not believe that the people that subscribe to the incorrect doctrine are necessarily not Christian. What I am saying is that I believe that something they believe is wrong, and I can support that with Scripture, or logical inference of Scripture.  Allow me to explain.

Recently, I was pointing out that the belief that whatever is not prohibited is permitted is completely flawed…and I had Scripture to back me up.  The people with whom I was discussing this then attacked the Scripture, and I defended that as well.  Ultimately, I rendered these people without any argument, and their final argument was that, “You know, Chris…we could be in error about doctrines in which we believe.”  I ask, does that really matter??  I mean, if I have proven that a doctrine which I once believed was faulty, and that I have eradicated that doctrine in my own life, of what possible value can this argument hold for me? I have already shown that I am willing to say that I was wrong.  I have shown that I examine my own belief set for inconsistencies when I am made aware of them.  My answer to this person is that yes, our doctrinal beliefs can be wrong…but that is the point of this discussion isn’t it?

Maybe this person didn’t know that I had once held this belief.  Of course, they have been completely ignorant over the last 7 or so years, if that is the case, but maybe they think that I’m more interested in proving everyone else wrong than examining my own doctrines.  If their willful ignorance of the reality of my changed doctrinal position over the years is the cause of this argument, then no problem!  :)  All I need to do is let them know that I speak about this from experience.  That I once believed that anything not expressly prohibited by the Word was permitted.  I no longer believe that.

However, I think it infinitely more likely that this is indicative of the mainstream evangelical church’s unwillingness and increasing inability to be definite about anything regarding the Word of God.  The broad evangelical movement is characterized by a profound lack of knowledge of the Word of God as it pertains to its authority, as well as a lack of understanding of what the great Protestant Reformers believe.  Many of the things mainstream evangelicals believe are either heresy, or else they border heresy quite closely.  At the very least, the Reformers would have completely disagreed with them and disabused them of their favorite notion that the Scripture is of a private interpretation.

Do you belong to the broad evangelical church?  Are you offended by what you have just read?  Do you feel as though I am attacking you?  I am not, gentle reader.  I have merely stated that your beliefs are wrong.  Get used to that, my friends. The world will hate you because of Whom you represent to them, so they are continually going to be calling your beliefs wrong.  They are continually going to tell you that you believe a lie.  You had better be able to defend yourself.  I am not attacking you, personally.  I am telling you that what you believe is wrong.  You cannot play fast and loose with the Scripture.  You cannot make the Scripture mean other than what it means.  If I had to choose a position here, I think I would rather just take the Scripture and believe what it says concerning the doctrine of election (predestination.) I think I would rather play it safe and say that whatsoever the Lord commands me to do in worship, that will I do.  I will not add to or take away from it.  (That’s a verse in Deuteronomy…paraphrased, but that’s what it says!)  Why be so cautious?

1. The Lord is a jealous God, and He has commanded us to worship is very clear ways.  He commands that we should neither add to or take away from the ways in which He has commanded us to worship!  When 2 of Aaron’s sons offered a different type of incense before the Lord, He killed them!  They died because they offered an incense other than the incense that God commanded them to offer.  Think and meditate on that, gentle reader.

2. When we try and do things our way, things get ugly.  Think of the man who put out a hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant.  He died too.  He thought the Ark would fall, and that was abhorrent to him.  However, the Lord killed him because he was not supposed to have touched the Ark.  THAT is how serious God is. I think the guy had good intentions.  That doesn’t go far with God.  Bad methods can never produce good results, no matter what your intentions.

This is serious stuff, people.  We are to honor the Lord, and we cannot do so if we play fast and loose with His scripture.

Ultimately, yes…I think it’s important to continually examine our belief systems.  We need to make sure that what we believe is what the Bible teaches.  Ignore your beliefs about God unless they are taught in the Bible.  For example, yes, the Lord God is loving.  That is clearly taught.  However, the Bible also clearly teaches that the Lord has chosen His elect out of the world.  That’s taught all over the place in Romans.  People say, “I don’t see how that fits with my concept of a loving God.”  Well let me ask you this.  Which is more likely to be wrong?  What the Bible teaches, or your concept of a loving God?  If I had to bet, I know which one is the safer bet.  Think about that.

Ok, ok…I’ll tell you what is up with Spadge.  A friend of mine was talking to me about someone who changed their name at around age 50.  We weren’t exactly sure why, but I said, (in typical Chris fashion), I’m going to change my name.  They asked me what I’d change it to.  I said, “Spadge.”  My wife refused to call me Spadge, so it’s stuck for now.  :)

Now you know…and knowing is half the battle.

You may be wondering who Spadge the Great is.  Well…he is me.  In fact, many of you who have known me for many years don’t even know this tremendous fact.  I am Spadge the Great.

Or at least….I have been Spadge the Great for the last 3 and a half hours…but Spadge cannot be contained in this linear measurement we call time.  Nay…

If you’re wondering what I’m talking about…join the club…so is everyone else.

Last night at Bible Study, we moved onto a new section of the Westminster Confession of Faith. We have moved from the authority of the Word of God and into the contents of the Word of God. The Confession lists the 66 books of the Bible and declares that the writings known as the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired, and are not to be included in the canon of Scripture.

Now, I’m not going to argue that fact, and it doesn’t matter what you believe. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that quite clearly, and if you don’t believe me, you can pick up a copy for yourselves. lol

However, we took a little bit of a break in the study to listen to a radio program from NPR called the Talk of the Nation or something of that nature. In this program, the commentator interviewed two professors about the controversial work “The Gospel of Judas.” In it, these two academics waxed idiotic about how the Gospel of Judas is a “new perspective” on the life of Jesus. In it, they NEVER claimed that this “gospel”, which isn’t a gospel at all, was anything other than a perspective. When asked about this work’s historicity, they said that it didn’t really matter whether it portrayed an actual Judas who was the Judas Iscariot of the Bible. They claimed that what was important was the teachings. (Never mind the fact that if it’s a book filed with lies, the teachings are likewise worthless.)

Essentially my problem with this gospel of Judas junk is that they freely admit that it was written in about 150AD (extremely late when you consider the canonical writings), and they freely admit that the document’s historicity is irrelevant. All they care about is that it’s an old work of fiction that disputes the canonical writings. As long as it attempts to destroy the Word of God, they’re happy campers. Their big push was that this new work sheds new light on the Word of God. They don’t care whether it’s accurate, or who wrote it, or what purpose it was originally written for. None of that matters. All that matters is that it’s an opinion that disagrees with the Word of God. They’ve been saying “The Bible doesn’t matter” for many years now, and it’s not shaken the foundations of the Christian church yet, so now they’re turning to attacking the Word of God from these “ancient documents”.

Another interesting thing is that they like to claim that the mainstream church has been supressing this document and others like it since the middle of the second century. Excuse me? How exactly was the church in a position to suppress anything?? They were trying hard not to be completely eradicated! They weren’t in the position to suppress anything. They examined documents, and if the documents didn’t meet certain standards (apostolic authorship, early authorship, etc), they rejected them as not canonical.

Finally, another thing that annoys me is the shoddy research these people do, sometimes resorting to absolute fabrications to “prove” their point, when all they do is prove themselves to be completely inept! For example, the woman professor from Princeton (Pagel, I think) claimed that “some Christian leader” in the mid-2nd century just decided there is only room for 4 gospels…from here on out, there’s only going to be 4 gospels. She never claimed a name…she merely asserted it as fact.

In point of fact this never happened, and anyone claiming that this happened is likely a Gnostic heretic trying to sell you a baseless point of view. Do some homework, people.

And for those of you who feel that every opinion is valid unless someone proves that it’s not…that is completely RETARDED! There’s something called the burden of proof, people. If someone claims that something is true, they must prove it…especially when it contradicts established fact. I don’t have to prove that such an event never happened. They have to prove that it DID happen! That’s called the burden of proof. It lies on them.

Finally, I’ve decided that anyone can write a document, and the Gnostics will accept it as Gospel whether or not it has any established facts in it…whether or not it says anything that even makes sense. To that end, I’m going to write my own gospel. You’ve seen the name in the title of my post. I feel names are important, and my gospel name was chosen very deliberately to indicate what someone might find in my gospel and others like it.

To these people, every opinion is valid, no matter how outlandish. Every person’s statement has value in and of itself. This is called having your mind so open that your freakin’ brain falls out.

Today, I was listening to the Bob and Tom show.  I normally like this show, as I think the humor on it is quick, and witty, if sometimes a bit puerile. However, today I heard something that angered me a bit.

Kristi Lee and Chick McGee are personalities on the show that are sometimes PROUD of the fact that they have each had 3 marriages.  Chick is still married to his third wife, while Kristi is now single. They often comment on comedians that announce first marriages on the show as being, “cute” or “precious”.  They often hint that such relationships are so cute because it soon will degrade into bickering, pettiness, and divorce.

Today, they played a bit from comedian Nich Griffon where he comments that divorce is so common, it’s now the people who stay together for 25 years that are considered weird.  Because of my weird memory for conversations, I remember the bit nearly word for word, and will transcribe it here for your edification:

“Yeah, I’m divorced.  But you know, I think divorce is so common in this country that it’s the couples who stay together for 25 years who are weird.  You hear about those people who have lasted, and it’s like, ‘Yeah, we’ve been together for 25 years.’…’Really??  What went WRONG???  I mean, you know you can get out of that?  There’s no reason to suffer needlessly.’”

Meanwhile Bob, Tom and especially Kristi and Chick are laughing their butts off. Hilarious, really.  Actually, I don’t think it’s funny at all. It’s sickening and revolting, and this is from someone who actually loves his wife, and would rather be married than not.

I’ll say this: Marriage isn’t for everyone…some people should remain alone for their entire lives, I guess. I wouldn’t presume to be in that group, and I think someone should really consider hard before putting themselves in that group.  Most people have the need to be with someone, but I’ve heard that this is a narrow minded view of people.  Whatever.

I will say that the attitude of people towards their spouses is really sad these days.  I look around, and I see people who dread when their husbands or wives call.  Rather than “I love you”, I’ve been told by one woman, it’s more like “Would you go away so I can get back to work??”  She laughed at the difference between me talking to my wife on the phone and her talking to her husband.  She laughed, but I don’t think she felt like laughing at all.  I know I wouldn’t.

Without Kim, I would be less than half the person I am now.  Without Kim my life wouldn’t be worth living, I don’t think. I think perhaps we’ve lost that in our relationships.  Why don’t we love coming home anymore?  I’m sure there’s no quick answer to that question, and I could talk about this for hours.  But the fact remains, we don’t love our spouses anymore.

It’s sad…not funny.  I feel bad for Nick Griffin.  He doesn’t know it, but he’s missing out on one of the only things that can bring true happiness on this earth. Moreover, he’s joking about his tragic lack of maturity, or the ability to “make it work”.  Maybe he made a bad choice to begin with.  In that case, he’s laughing about his lack of maturity with respect to his ability to think and plan.  He loves to joke about his lack of forethought.  Seems a strange topic for humor.  I didn’t find it funny at all.

Did this article resonate with something inside you?  Did it piss you off?  Do you agree?  Feel free to comment.  I’d love to know what you think. I’m not sorry if this article convicted you…I’m not making fun of anything that’s happened in your life.  Rather, I lament with you.  Who you might want to direct your anger at is the person who wants to make light of your experience.  Were you happy when your husband left you?  No?  Then why be happy when someone makes fun of it?  Were you happen when your wife cheated on you?  No?  Then why is it funny when a comedian who wants to cover for his own depression pokes fun at such things? If you like, go ahead and be angry at me.  But before writing your scathing response, think hard about what provoked the emotion.  Look back at your relationship and remember why you married them.  Never forget that!  It can be used as a means to help you remember your mistakes, whatever they may be.  Don’t forget.

I felt that Eragon left a lot to be desired in many ways. I liked the story, and I called it a grand first attempt. I still feel that Eragon lacked in some areas. However, I feel Eldest easily makes up for most of Eragon’s lacks! I’ll review the book here like I reviewed Eragon, so that you can easily see where I feel the book surpasses its prequel.

Characters: Given the fact that Eldest is book 2 of the Inheritance Trilogy, I feel that Paolini pretty much nailed it again. The characters deepen quite a bit, and you learn quite a bit more about many of the characters…especially our main protagonist! Even characters who you thought you knew most everything about get a little bit of the “AHA!” treatment here.

Writing: I said about Eragon that I felt that Paolini was trying to impress me with his vocabulary…trying to prove he knows more words than anyone else putting pen to paper these days. I no longer feel this way. While I think it’s possible I’ve just gotten used to his style of writing, I think it’s very possible that he’s come into his own. After seeing how well Eragon has done, I think Paolini has determined that he no longer needs to weave such a complex tapestry of language that he loses many of his readers. He still has an excellent vocabulary, and I found myself greeting some obscure words as old friends, exclaiming about how long it’s been since I’ve seen them and asking what they’ve been up to. But I don’t see these words as focal points…and I don’t see the story they represent as sort of a contrived method to using as many oft-neglected words as possible. I hoped that Paolini would come into his own in this area, and I feel he has. It’s a great accomplishment when the writing no longer detracts from the story. My old band director used to tell us that only after we’d technically learned the notes and the instrument could we then progress to making real music. Only then could we really REHEARSE! Until then, it’s all just practice. Paolini has done a stellar job at allowing his story to shine.

Plot: This is where I felt Paolini suffered the most in Eragon, and this is where I feel he’s made the greatest strides in his skills!

When Paolini began Eragon, he was 15, and I think that really showed through in his writing. I felt the story lacked a certain amount of depth. Eldest does not lack that depth. Christopher Paolini wove a story that sucked me in until I hit the last page. When I finished Eragon, I didn’t sigh with regret, as I do with so many of my favorite books. When I finish Harry Potter books, and I know I have to wait more than a year until the next installment, there is a feeling of sadness. Almost a going-away sort of feeling. You know you’ll see your familiar friends in the story again, but you know it’s going to be a long time. I definitely was sad to see Eldest come to an end.

Part of this was much like Rowling in that she knows how to give some closure with each of her novels while still leaving you wanting more! In Eragon, Paolini closed things up, and sure, I wanted more. But with Eldest, I desperately want more. My wife said, “A great deal happens right at the end of Eldest”, and she was right. There’s a virtual roller-coaster of events that lead up to the last page of the book, and you don’t want it to end.

Another aspect of the story that I found compelling was his ability to give me a sense of foreboding. I knew something was coming. I knew that everything was about to change. This sense was so strong that I made predictions about what was going to happen. I made some guesses, and I was close enough to what actually happened to make me proud, but not close enough to surprise the heck out of me. Some stories are fairly predictable, and while I knew something would happen, and I knew a bit of the nature of what would happen, the actual unfolding of events left me saying, “What the heck???” Nice job, Mr. Paolini.
He inserts a little letter to his readers at the end in the form of Acknowledgements. In this section, he lets you know that he’s now 21. I had no idea it had been so long since Eragon was started, but after reading the book, I can see the emotional maturity. He’s still writing infatuation as opposed to love, but I think it’ll deepen for the characters, as they come into their own. In Eldest, the flaws in the characters in their love, or in their views of the world seem more intentional than they did in Eragon. In Eragon, I got the impression that Eragon was emotionally shallow because Paolini lacked the ability to write with depth. Whether or not that is true, it doesn’t seem to me an impression you want to give your readers. Eldest is worlds better in this area. He says in the acknowledgements that the story of Eragon is really his own story, and I can see his maturation in emotional depth as well as in his writing.

On a final note, I think his ability to jump between converging plotlines is an excellent skill for him to possess. Roran’s story is one that could have gone either way, and I very much anticipated how Roran’s evolving emotions, and changing role in life would play out. With some authors, I am annoyed when the author takes me back to some other plotline when I wasn’t done with the initial! Not so with Paolini! When I switched from Eragon’s training as a Rider to Roran’s fights with the Ra’zac and his subsequent flight from Carvahall, I looked forward to knowing what would happen on each thread…and for far different reasons. With Roran, I wanted to see what aspects of his personality Paolini would develop now. Would he kill again and again until he came to like and enjoy it? Would revulsion at what he was becoming drive him to madness? Would he actually join the Varden, or would he change his mind due to his accusations of Eragon in Garrow’s death? So much could have gone either way. While I won’t reveal what all happened, I will say that I am very satisfied on a great many levels as to how things turned out.

With Eragon’s storyline, I anticipated what new skills he would learn with the elves. Would he ever approach the female of his dreams about his feelings for her? Would he screw up badly enough so that his back injury would actually kill him? Would the elves be able to heal him? How would Eragon continue to mature under his master? I looked forward to it for far different reasons, and yet, no less of an anticipation. Very well done, indeed.

Unacknowledged Sources: Aside from some placenames, and some standard fantasy story elements, I still don’t feel that Paolini draws too heavily on other sources, though I’ve not read Anne McCaffrey. It must be noted that she gives praise of Paolini’s works rather than criticism. That should tell us something, should it not?

Conclusion: This work was infinitely better than Eragon, I feel. He’s really hooked me on his epic, and I think that I’ll definitely feel some sadness when this work comes to a close. He has said that he wants to write more, and I look forward to see what else this excellent author will churn out. I said in my Eragon review that I think he’ll come into his own and mature as a writer, but to be honest, I didn’t think that it would happen while he was writing this novel. Even at 21, I feel that Paolini possesses great skill where I would have expected his writing to still only be tolerable. The gems in Eragon are found in spades in Eldest, and I am very much looking forward to the conclusion of this excellent series.

Overall Recommendation:

I’ve discussed my creativity or lack thereof before.  I love to write…I don’t know why…I just do.  However, I don’t like when I write sentiment.  It annoys me to read what I’ve written when I’m trying to be creative or profound.  If any profundity does escape my cranium, it’s completely on accident.  :)

I won’t give examples, but I’ll say there’s some stuff on my blog that I can’t stand reading over.  I apologize for putting you guys through it.  :)

No matter how long I am a Christian, the number of temptations that continue to parade in front of my eyes never ceases to amaze me. And they crop up in the most random places.  At any rate, the Lord is faithful.  He always provides a way for me to stand up underneath them. Today, I was able to resist a major temptation with His strength.  Man, that was hard.  One of those times where I can’t just run out of the room, etc.  Praise God.

In other news, I’m looking at this guy right now that has the most AMAZING mustache.  I envy this dude’s lip hair, man.  He’s got it all waxed and curled upwards and whatnot.  Just amazing.  Lol.

It’s Friday, peoples.  The company picnic is this weekend, and I’m of two minds about it.  On one hand,  the people I work with are a lot of fun, and enjoy life, if you know what I mean.  On the other hand, they can be a little rough if you’re not used to them.  Kimmy’s not really sheltered or anything, but we’ll see how she reacts to them.  :)  Should be an interesting afternoon.

Maybe on the way home, we’ll swing by Beekman’s honey and taste some of their varietal honeys.  Picking up some mead would be nice too.  All in all, nothing major planned for this weekend. Aside from the picnic, we’ll probably relax around the house.  Maybe mow the lawn.  Hope your weekends are relaxing!

And yet, I don’t know what I want to talk about.

Tonight at Bible Study, we discussed a topic about which most Christians do not want to consider: Heresy.  In fact, most Christians want to deny that this even exists or has existed in the church.  Much of this stems from the fact that many Christians have no basis with which they can reject any system of beliefs, because they don’t even know their own epistemology.  They don’t even know how they can know what they profess to know, so they have no way to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong.

The world would paint this as a rosy place to be.  They would claim that no one can tell anyone else that their belief system is faulty…until they are ready to tell someone else that their belief system is faulty.  But the world by wisdom knew not God.  Paul tells us this.  So how can they tell us anything about the Lord of the Bible?

The biggest reason, actually, that I see Christians shying away from the topic of heresy, and by extension the whole concept that someone’s beliefs can be pronounced wrong, or anti-Biblical, is that in at least one case, the mainstream evangelical church believes something that the historical Christian church, and all the Protestant Reformers, understood to be a heresy.  Several hundred years ago, the church met to proclaim this particular system of belief to be Scripturally unsound, and proclaimed it to be heresy.  Those who believed this dangerous belief set were called heretics, and were called upon to repudiate their beliefs or be cast from the church.

Yet mainstream evangelicalism has embraced this system of beliefs.  The great reformers such as Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli would have considered the modern evangelical church to be in error, and would have called upon them to repudiate these beliefs.  This is why the modern church doesn’t like the concept of heresy…yet the fathers of the Reformation obviously thought differently.  If the fathers of the Reformation believed as the mainstream church believes, they would never have protested in the first place.  There are obviously beliefs that are dangerous…scary that so many people would see no problem with them.