On the Road with Seth

Understanding Sacrifice: Insight from Ayn Rand

2010-01-29T18:07:00.000-08:00

I'll be the first to admit that I greatly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead . I'd long since heard whispers of their brilliance and read glowing reviews about their being "life-changing" works. I even had an initial attraction to the author just because "Ayn" is such a unique and cool name (though I still think it sounds more like a guy's name). But upon finding out that they were novels written by a female communist escapee, they lost most of their appeal. I generally don't like to read female authors and couldn't imagine an intelligent, philosophical novel, written by a man or woman. The idea that such a thing could be never even occurred to me. Novels were a thing to lose myself in – not learn from. And so the books remained in the back of my mind, but without a strong enough desire to buy them and read them. They existed in that state of mild curiosity for several years until, while perusing a respected friend's bookshelf, I came across The Fountainhead. He had gotten it free, read it, loved it, and was willing to let me borrow it. With these added commendations (free and recommended by someone I respected) I began my forage into Ayn Rand. I began that evening and was useless for the next two days as I plowed pretty much straight through it (even forgoing a powder day on the mountain to sit in bed all day to finish it), and immediately went to the library to check out Atlas Shrugged (which had a long hold-list but I did eventually get it and devoured it in much the same way). All of that to say that I am a fan. A fan of the books at least. Objectivism must be evaluated on a more objective standard than my personal enjoyment, but the books I'd recommend to pretty much any adult who can think critically.

To some degree there's no mystery to their appeal: they're well written, have the common theme of the triumph of "good" over "evil", have heroes one wants to be and villains that embody all one loves to hate, are open about sexuality (heterosexuality that is, I believe she hated homosexuality), view "love" as something great and present it all in the format of the aforementioned intelligent, philosophical novels. And for the starving minds in the world who exist above the level of automaton, they offer a spoon-fed all encompassing philosophy that's intelligent enough to give one the idea of being part of the intelligentsia, without actually having to think critically. I even felt it myself when telling someone that I was reading Atlas Shrugged, as if I had now entered into an elite group of avid readers and great thinkers simply by reading this one book. Granted, that could just be me and my propensity to think myself great no matter what (Though a friend who proofread this for me said that the clerk at Borders told her that she didn't look capable of reading Rand. Not sure if that was because my friend has some appearance of ignorance that I don't know about, is rather young, wears a head covering or some other physical appearance of elitist that my extremely intelligent friend must be lacking. Regardless, it seems that there is some aurora sounding Rand and her books.).

At least for now, I'll not go into a lengthy critique of objectivism, though suffice it to say that, like all forms of empiricism and/or rationalism, it can give no meaning or purpose to anything, has no concept of right and wrong and is pretty much useless for living (which is funny because Rand called it “a philosophy for living on earth”). That is why Rand, who claimed to be so logical, could not carry its premises out to their logical conclusions. Instead she invalidly concluded Christian values from many of her objectivist arguments: which is why parts of her books echo so much with Christianity. Christian values of course are a necessary consequence of Christian beliefs (by definition), but it is only by logical error that an objectivist such as Rand could come to those same conclusions (assuming her premises are contradictory to Christian premises, as Rand asserted).

Depending on your stance and knowledge of Rand, you may find it hard to believe that her objectivism and biblical Christianity could have anything in common, but her popularity among certain Christian circles is evidence for it. But even apart from that circumstantial evidence, the emphasis she placed on hard work and productivity is not called the Objectivist work ethic, but rather the Protestant (or Puritan) work ethic for good reason – it characterized the Christians who came out of the Reformation. Even the laissez faire capitalism and democracy she fled communist Russia to embrace in America, are, I believe, only logically consistent with Christianity (Robbins addresses this in Christ and Civilization). Admittedly, she was a vehement atheist, which makes it all the more ironic that she would embrace the one country most explicitly founded on Christian values and ideals (not that I would call America a "Christian nation", but merely that it is the country most explicitly founded on Christian values and ideals). Indeed, a study of Christianity and Objectivism's common and uncommon presuppositions and ideals would be interesting and certainly broader than I wish to address here, but Rand certainly thought them diametrically opposed. She railed against Christianity in her books, perhaps most pointedly in Atlas Shrugged when John Galt, in his climatic speech, bashes Christianity for the sacrificial life that Christians are called to live. Resolving that difference, and expounding the more clear understanding I now have of sacrifice is the purpose of this post. I believe you will see that it was Rand's ignorance of true Christianity and language in general that is the culprit rather than a failing or inconsistency of Christianity.

I will admit that Galt's argument, though useless (as in he has no means consistent with his empirical philosophy for saying one thing is more valuable than another thing), does seem to fit in with reality. Sacrifice, according to Galt, and therefore Rand, is the giving up of something of greater value for something of lesser value. This is stupid and morally wrong. Christianity calls for it's followers to sacrifice, therefore Christianity is stupid and morally wrong. The argument is valid, and if the premises are true, the conclusion (Christianity is stupid and morally wrong) is necessarily true as well. At face value, it seems like a valid and sound argument. In the midst of reading it, I remember thinking, “Okay, that makes sense. So why isn't Christianity stupid and wrong?” Just taking a trite example, most would agree that sacrificing a one hundred dollar bill to gain a one dollar bill is stupid. Obviously this was Rand's intent, to logically show the implausibility of Christianity by reductio ad absurdum. And I believe she succeeded with many people.

But Rand wasn't alone in this work. The ground had already been tilled by previous "Christian" philosophers and theologians who had taken Christianity out of the realm of the intellect and logical consistency and put it in the realm of "pure faith" and irrationalism. This may have begun with the brilliant, but way off, Soren Kierkegaard (who said, “It was intelligence and nothing else that had to be opposed. Presumably that is why I, who have had the job, was armed with an immense intelligence”) in the early 1800's. Rand simply took it out of the exclusive realm of philosophers, who could somehow live with such blaring contradictions, and gave it to the common thinking man, who could not rationally live irrationally (and rightly so). To these people Rand gave a supposedly logical reason to reject Christianity and allowed them, with a clear conscience, to safely put it in the category of fantasy and children's stories. Christianity, at least in America, has never fully recovered. It is still regarded by many as childish and totally unconcerned with logical consistency.

But the question still remains, “Why isn't Christianity stupid and wrong?” After all, Rand's understanding of sacrifice seems to make sense. I would certainly call someone at best stupid who gave up one hundred dollars to get one dollar. And sacrifice is without a doubt an integral part of Christianity. Isn't it a religion in which one is continually bringing oneself to a lower and lower standing so that in the end, he or she may be lowest of all? Don't passages like “the first shall last and the last shall be first” and “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” support this view? So then, how can I, who takes great effort to live logically and consistently, still believe Christianity is true? As I admitted above, the argument is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true as well. But therein lies the error. Rand's first premise, her definition of sacrifice and its stupidity and moral wrongness, is not only foreign to Christianity, but is foreign to the general understanding of the word. Among the several listings found for "sacrifice" at merriam-webster.com, the most general is “something given up or lost”. It in no way implies anything concerning the value of the items sacrificed or gained, nor do any of the other definitions make such an implication. Now Rand's first premise (sacrifice is stupid and morally wrong), understood with a correct definition of sacrifice, is not generally accepted as true (unless one is willing to admit that all forms of loss and giving up, even trade, gifts and buying are stupid and morally wrong).

Some may persist that while Merriam-Webster doesn't necessarily see sacrifice as the giving up of something of greater value for something of lesser value,the Bible and Christianity do hold that view. Certainly on other issues, biblical definitions are not always in line with Merriam-Webster's definitions, and this, they may assert, is such an issue. The aforementioned passages may again be appealed to in support of their view. But even in these passages supposedly supporting Rand's view we find the biblical definition of sacrifice to be the complete opposite of what she said. In both of the passages Jesus is telling His disciples how to be first and great. He is not advising his disciples to be last and least, but that by being last and least here (on earth), they may be first and great there (in heaven). These teachings fit in perfectly with the rest of scripture, particularly Matthew 6 where Christ commands the storing up of heavenly treasures rather than earthly treasures precisely because heavenly treasures are indestructible and therefore superior to temporal earthly treasures. In chapter 19 of the same book, He encourages His disciples who have left all and followed Him by saying that the return will be a hundredfold. This is encouragement precisely because the return is a hundredfold the investment – they'll gain much more than they've given. It's clear that true Christianity, rather than the straw man Rand portrays it as, holds the exact opposite view of sacrifice that she attributes to it. She says Christians are called to give away valuable things for less valuable things when the calling is actually to give away what is worthless (earthly goods and services) for what is infinitely valuable (heavenly riches and rule). Here again is an irony of Rand: her idea of righteous selfishness is predated by Christianity's concern for the individual and a righteous desire for one's own well-being by nearly two thousand years. Of course, as an empiricist/materialist, she didn't believe in a heaven and spiritual rewards, but critiquing a system of thought based on suppositions of another system of thought is a worthless endeavor. The Christian does believe in a heaven and spiritual rewards, therefore his or her actions of sacrifice are entirely consistent with his or her system of belief. Either Rand was dishonest in intentionally presenting a straw man that she could easily destroy or she was genuinely ignorant of basic Christian beliefs. Of course that's no surprise since Paul wrote in the book of Romans that men will “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. But whether intentionally or ignorantly, Rand, at least on this point of her criticism of Christianity, was entirely incorrect. In fact, her objectivism was merely following in the footsteps of Christianity, though lacking the necessary preconditions to arrive at such conclusions and any consistent means of determining greater and lesser valuable things.

It may seem odd that my title would include the term 'Insight', when thus far I have sought, and I believe succeeded, to show that Rand's argument against Christianity (at least this one based on sacrifice) was fallacious. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to call it “Understanding Sacrifice: Insight From Ayn Rand's Errors”, but whether stated or not, I do believe we as Christians, and even non-Christians, can learn from Rand's mistake. I confess that her argument seemed so plausible to me at first because I had, unintentionally and unknowingly, begun to view sacrifice in her terms. I had begun to think of the Christian life in terms of what I had to give up or deny myself (sex, freedom, money, new camera lenses, etc.), rather than in terms of what I received (forgiveness, freedom from sin, meaning, Christ and ultimately God). I believe this view is rampant in the church and plaguing it. But the world will not be won for Christ by those who view the Christian life as an investment destined to depreciate. Nor will people be drawn to a Christ who takes more from them than He gives. Let us remember that Christ is the pearl of great price and yes, we must sacrifice everything to get Him, but, oh, what a steal it is! What a bargain we get! We give all of nothing to get the one thing that is real. Those who have been transformed by that truth are the ones who will change the world. Theirs is the philosophy of not only “living on earth”, but living in eternity.

In hindsight, as philosophical novels, categorically the book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead most closely resemble may be the Bible, which would explain their wide appeal and the devotion they inspire. I believe the market is wide open for someone to put forth an intelligent, philosophical Christian novel. If Rand could put forth a false philosophy of objectivism in novel form and lure in millions, it seems probable that someone could put forth a true Christian philosophy (destroying objectivism, empiricism, rationalism, relativism, evolutionism, atheism and a host of other 'isms' in the process) and have success. Granted, the Bible does all that and more and is written by One who cannot lie or make mistakes, but I think a contemporary Christian philosophical work of fiction is at least permissible and perhaps a very worthy endeavor. The situation as it is right now is such that most, myself included, are too ignorant to read and understand a philosophical treatise, but could manage to follow a novel precisely because of the nature of a novel – that of storytelling, it's slowness in developing, less abstraction, practical examples, etc. Whether I have the necessary skills to do so is doubtful, but I believe that has become my life's ambition. That and bouldering V10. Ah, what lofty goals I've set for myself.

Epistemology: The Very Beginning

2009-11-06T21:46:00.000-08:00

Before I can (or at least should) write anything trying to prove something (i.e. say something is true), I must make sure we are on the same page regarding epistemology. Epistemology simply answers the question, “How do we know what we know?” It is the most basic philosophical question. There are various epistemological methods for the various philosophies (empiricism, rationalism, etc.). I do not claim to be an expert on the subject (in fact I have pretty much exhausted my knowledge of it now), but my point is not to try and prove my epistemology, but merely show you the epistemology I use to determine the truths I've come to which I plan on writing about in the future (though upon finishing this little treatise, I realize I've made a bit of an argument for the superiority of my epistemology). I believe all other epistemologies are self-contradictory and self-defeating, but that is better demonstrated on a case by case basis. Most of my readers will accept my epistemology, though they've perhaps not thought about it in these terms before. So, all that to say that epistemology is where we have to start, and my epistemology is propositional revelation, basically, “The Bible tells me so.” John Robbins, from whom I've learned much of this, says the truth of the Bible is the only axiom of Christianity. All other truths (God exists, logic is valid, etc.) are derivatives. “Logic is valid.” in particular deserves some attention, since through logic, we attempt to plumb the infinite depths of the Scriptures (and I, at least hopefully, will be using it in the future to convince you what I believe the Bible teaches, though not explicitly).

So then, where does the Bible say, “Logic is valid.”? Almost surprisingly, the Bible isn't much less clear than that. The word 'logic' is a derivative of the Greek word 'logos', which we know from John 1 is in fact the person of Jesus Christ (“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”). Simply put, God is logic. This translation of the word also fits in very well with the understanding of the Trinity Edwards and Piper hold to that I wrote about some time ago concerning Christ being the knowledge God has of Himself. God's statement to Moses, “I am that I am.” is practically a verbatim use of the first principle, the law of identity (A=A) that Aristotle formulated. Or more accurately, Aristotle’s 'brilliant' formulation in the 3rd century B.C. was only about 1000 years after Moses had recorded God saying it. God even says in Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together.” And while that treads dangerously close to trying to derive an ought from an is, or in this case an is from an ought, when God includes Himself, because of His omniscience, omnipotence and inability to lie, we may safely derive an is from an ought. We also have the abundant examples of Christ and Paul's often complicated logical arguments in the New Testament.

There is a fair amount of debate even among Christians as to the extent of the validity of the use of logic in theology. Just mention the word 'logic' in Christian circles and someone, often with an air of spirituality and perhaps in a voice meant to convey profundity, will likely blurt out, “I don't want to limit God.” or “God is above logic.” I admit there is an appearance of spirituality here, but in actuality it is a covering for ignorance or stupidity. While I whole-heartily agree that I don't want to, nor indeed am in any way able to limit God, that does not mean God has not limited Himself. We know that God is truth and cannot lie. Therefore God cannot lie. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot lie.”? We know God is holy. Therefore He cannot be unholy. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot be unholy.”? In the same way, since God is logic, He cannot be illogical.

Now that we have established the validity of logic, we have a means of deriving truth that is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. As the Westminster Confession says, “The whole counsel of God,... is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture.” This would seem simple enough, but logic is often misunderstood. People often claim to know something “logically” when in fact they are committing logical fallacies (I'm reminded of the witch scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail). So a brief explanation of what logic is and is not may be helpful.

Logic is the study of valid inference, or as stated above, necessary consequence. It has strict laws that must be followed. This definition itself is often misunderstood since the terms valid and necessary are often misunderstood. For logical purposes they are synonymous describing an argument in which the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. This is deductive reasoning. It can also be understood as reasoning from the general to the specific. The classic example is :
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the general (all men) to the specific (Socrates). This is a valid argument. If the two premises (All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man) are true, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is necessarily true as well.

Inductive reasoning, or reasoning from the specific to the general (and what people often mistake for logic), is actually logically fallacious (and can therefore at best give us probabilities, not truths). Taking the same statements above but reasoning inductively we have:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the specific (Socrates) to the general (all men). While the invalidity of this example is not easy to see because “All men are mortal.” is generally accepted as true, it is nonetheless invalid. Another example will show this more clearly.
Midnight is a cat.
Midnight is a good pet.
Therefore all cats are good pets.
Unfortunately we do not have the present voice of those who have been killed by large cats such as mountain lions and tigers to attest the fallacy of this conclusion, but nevertheless we know that not all cats are good pets. Here we have true premises (Midnight is a cat, and Midnight is a good pet) but the conclusion (Therefore all cats are good pets) is false. It is important to understand the only differences in this argument and the second Socrates argument are the subjects and predicates. The form is the same. Symbolically they both could have been written as
X is Y
X is Z
Therefore all Y is Z
where X = Socrates or Midnight, Y = Man or Cat and Z = Mortal or Pet

Regardless of how written and regardless of whether the conclusions are true or not, the arguments themselves are invalid and cannot prove anything. It is worth noting that this inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) is the only reasoning available to the scientific community.

In contrast, the initial Socrates argument can be written as
All X is Y
Z is X
Therefore Z is Y
where X = Men, Y = Mortal and Z = Socrates

Regardless of the symbols used, this argument is valid. This is an important concept to understand regarding logic. Validity refers to the form of an argument, not the content. The premises in a valid argument may be true or false, but if they are true, then the conclusion is always true as well. And since this argument is valid, any subjects and predicates substituted for X, Y and Z that make true premises (All X is Y, and Z is X) will necessarily result in the conclusion (Z is Y) being true as well.

So then, to arrive at truth we must not only have valid logical arguments (deductive rather than inductive), but we must have valid arguments with true premises. As we've seen, valid deductive arguments are fairly easy to construct, but where do we get true premises? From valid deductive arguments with true premises. But again, where do we get these new true premises? From more valid deductive arguments with true premises. This reasoning would result in infinite regress (and does for the rationalist, though Aristotle unsuccessfully attempted to explain it away) except that we have truth in the form of propositional revelation in the Bible. This is my starting point, or to use more intellectual language, it's my presupposition, and therefore, by definition, unprovable. Hence it would be pointless (and Robbins says even detrimental) to try and prove that which cannot be proven. (I believe he maintains it is the work of the Holy Spirit to prove the unprovable). This commitment (that everyone necessarily has, though perhaps unknown) to some presupposition is why all reasoning is ultimately circular. There must be an unprovable beginning. (It's quite ironic, and somewhat funny, when people think they are being logical and intelligent by asking someone to prove their presuppositions. In case you don't see the humor, rather than showing their intelligence, they're showing their ignorance of even the definition of the term.) So while all reasoning is circular, not all reasoning is self-defeating. Well, I should say one reasoning is not self-defeating, namely logical deduction from the Bible, or simply biblical Christianity. All others are not only circular (as biblical Christianity is) but also self-defeating (as biblical Christianity is not). This understanding has led me to expand my view of the Bible. Growing up in Southern Baptist churches, I was taught the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. It wasn't until I came to a Reformed understanding that I came to see it as sufficient for “all things pertaining to life and godliness.” Now however, I've come to see it not only as true and sufficient, but exclusively true. There is no truth apart from the Scriptures (which Calvin and the other reformers taught, but I've just now understood).

The sciences, or rather ignorant and/or deceptive scientists, have somehow fooled the average person into thinking that the sciences belong with logic in the realm of truth assertion. This is simply not the case. The only method of reasoning available to the sciences is inductive reasoning and that from false premises. Einstein himself said he would never accept his theory of relativity as true, even if all of its predictions were accurate. He acknowledged that it more accurately predicted things than Newtonian physics, but through any number of points, there are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through those points and therefore an infinite number of formulas for those lines. If there are an infinite number of possible answers, the probability of choosing the right one is 1/infinity. So not only are scientific theories not likely true, they are certainly not true. And from these certainly false theories (premises), more inductive and fallacious reasoning is done to arrive at more theories. This is done through many stages with the end result being scientists supposedly proving something and giving us truth. While many contemporary “intellectuals” have not acknowledged this, some have. Karl Popper, an agnostic and one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century said,

First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it...[W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... in science there is no “knowledge” in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement; … our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural; … it consists of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths.

Bertrand Russell, another highly regarded secular philosopher and logician who was also quite antagonist towards Christianity, was even more condemning of the contemporary sciences when he said,

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true; now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say; “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

This formal fallacy that he mentions is so common it has been named, but despite its widespread use, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is still fallacious. And yet, as Russell said, fundamentally it is upon this fallacy that “all scientific laws are based.”

My older brother, who certainly disagrees with my epistemology, acknowledged this and said that any decent scientist knows it. Perhaps he's right. He himself is quite intelligent and more well-read than I am concerning the sciences and philosophy, so it would be reasonable for him to be familiar with this understanding. However, the fact that I went through elementary, middle and high school along with five years at three different universities (and got a degree) without ever having this basic understanding of the limitations of science explained to me seems questionable. The atheists and evolutionists I've talked to certainly don't have this understanding. Even the debate about whether evolution should be taught as fact or theory is evidence that the education system doesn't understand this limitation. How could anyone argue for some scientific proposition being taught as fact when science is incapable of arriving at any fact or truth? Unless of course one is making decisions based on one's presuppositions (which one necessarily asserts as true) rather than on what is actually provable. Unfortunately most supposed and even true Christians don't understand the impossibility for science to give us truth. Nor do they have the above menioned exclusivistic view of the Bible as true.

For those who reject my view, you are in a difficult position. It's precisely because I have a Christian view of logic that I can expect your mind and thought processes to be conformed to the laws of logic. Logic is valid because God thinks logically. Man is made in the image of God, therefore man thinks, or at least should think, logically. Notice here I am arguing why logic is valid, not how we know logic is valid as I was above. Without this basis, how do you impose the standard of having to be logically convinced that I am correct? Or why do you think, supposing you were able to do it, that convincing me logically of your position should have any effect on my beliefs? The most common answer to this question from atheists is something like, “Well everybody knows that.” or, “Because....” and then nothing. And people accuse Christians of taking a “leap of faith” and being irrational. It is so ironic that the accusers are guilty of exactly what they accuse others of being but are too deceived to see it in themselves. We should never be ashamed of admitting our presuppositions. They are unprovable, yes, but everyone has them, and the Christian presuppositions are the only ones that fit in with the world we see, the way we think and the experiences we have. The evolutionist/atheist must admit (though they usually will not) that the true love that they long for, the truth they yearn to know and the purpose they hope to fulfill are logically inconsistent with their presuppositions, but they cannot disregard the reality they feel. They must live inconsistently or not live at all. The Christian alone can live and live consistently. And yet every time we sin, we act as though God does not exist.

For any seriously interested in these topics, I'd recommend John Robbins' mp3 lecture serieses which can be found at www.TrinityFoundation.org (for free via download) and Michael B. Yang's Reconsidering Ayn Rand (which draws heavily from Robbins' works as well as Robbins' mentor Gordon Clark's works). If you are already very familiar with philosophy and philosophers (or are simply much more intelligent than I am), jumping straight into Clark's An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, A Christian View of Men and Things, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God or Thales to Dewey would probably be the most direct path. I've begun An Introduction to Christian Philosophy and have never felt like such an idiot while reading an Introduction book.

Just to whet the appetite

2009-08-12T11:51:00.000-07:00

Not sure when I'll get them done, but to all of my adoring and fanatical readership out there waiting for my next blog like the next Harry Potter book or Twilight series, I'm working on three titled

The Superlative Nature of the Single State
Understanding the Nature of Sacrifice, Insight from Ayn Rand
and lastly,
Rethinking Polygamy

Of course, I wouldn't even be interested in writing on these issues unless I thought I had some brilliant insight into an issue that seems to go against modern "Christian" teaching.

And to any who thought I was serious about the Potter and Twilight series comments, I say that in deprecation of myself. I bought the last of the Harry Potter books on the day it came out (and read it with only bathroom and food breaks) and I just finished the Twilight series last week (which though I didn't starting them until they were all out, it took me no more than 2 days to read each of them).

My Mars Hill Church experience

2009-05-18T12:11:00.000-07:00

As some of you know, on my recent trip to Washington I visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle. This is my critique of it. I know that's somewhat lame, critiquing a church and church service, but there are a few who have asked about it, so here you go. If you know nothing about Mars Hill, it's where Mark Driscoll is the main preaching pastor. The church is considered one of the most influential in America and is one of, if not the, flagship church in the Acts 29 Network. Driscoll has a fair amount of popularity (or in some cases, notoriety) for his books and for throwing out some curse words from the pulpit (which I've heard he has repented of). In a recent NY Times piece on the resurgence of Calvinism, Driscoll was the man they picked to talk with about it. His openness about pornography, masturbation, sex and a host of other issues not often dealt with from the pulpit has given him somewhat of a cultic following. The only book of his I've read, Porn Again Christian, is available as a free download and was even a bit surprising to me (it's more of an article than a book, really quick read). You just don't hear the issues he addresses addressed anywhere else from a Christian worldview and perspective. So all of that is the baggage I had going into the service.

A little anecdote is worth telling here, since I think it shows the character of at least some of the Christians at Mars Hill. Before leaving Jackson, I had posted on facebook a short itinerary of my trip and mentioned that I was going to hear Driscoll preach. I got a message from a facebook friend (one of those people who you've never met and probably never spoken to, but have some thin tangent of connection to) saying that he typically preached in person at the Ballard campus. I assumed she went there, so I replied giving her my number (internet access isn't always a sure thing when road tripping, so I didn't know if I'd get her response even if she did send one) and saying we could meet up Saturday if she wanted. I got to Seattle early Saturday (I slept in a parking lot a little south of the city) and headed straight for my favorite place in any city, the public library (restroom facilities are usually pretty decent, the internet is high speed and free and it's a quiet, warm place to read). I forget the details, but we ended up talking on the phone. She was unfortunately busy that evening throwing a birthday party for her roommate, but I, having not had a real conversation with anyone since the previous Sunday and my head brimming with the twenty plus hours of lectures and sermons I'd been listening to while driving, kind of fished for an invitation. It was maybe a bit awkward, but such are real life introductions that begin on facebook. Anyway, I got one and headed out to her place. The party was fun, I met and talked to a few people. Turns out she, my new friend, didn't go to Mars Hill (used to), but her roommate did and several other people at the party. One guy, who I met just as he was leaving with his girlfriend, I had a great, though brief, conversation with and knew he was the type of guy I would like. They left, but a short while later the birthday girl got a call from the guy's girlfriend asking where I was staying. I ended up talking to the guy again and saying that I'd probably find a parking lot somewhere, and so he offered his couch. I of course was more than willing to accept and he gave me the address and left the key out for me. I ended up staying at the party until midnight or so, took a delightful walk along Alki Beach (where the below Seattle skyline night photo was taken) with my new friend discussing all manner of theological and personal issues (And to her credit, she patiently listened as I very poorly tried to convey the gist of the Logic lectures I'd listened to. I'm sure I could not have sounded more boring nor more like an idiot.). Anyway, she, her sister, the birthday girl, the guy I stayed with, his girlfriend and I all met at Mars Hill the next morning to worship. Afterwards we went out to the Pike Place market (saw the famous fish market, the first Starbucks, etc) and I ended up spending another night at his place. I went out to Olympic National Park, but came back through Seattle and stayed another two nights with him. His phrase was “Mi casa es su case.” and I believe he meant it. I also went out again with my friend who was willing to take me to all the other Seattle sites (“Waiting for the Interurban” photo below being one). I was also able to go with the guy and his girlfriend to their “Community Groups” which meet during the week to eat, fellowship and discuss the sermon. It was a wonderful time. In fact, of all the beautiful places I visited (Columbia River Gorge, Crater Lake National Park, Redwoods National Park, Oregon Coast, Olympic National Park), Seattle, because of the beauty of the believers, was the highlight of the trip. Obviously God was looking out for me and orchestrating everything and perhaps He did direct me to the only Christians at Mars Hill who are living out their faith, but I kind of doubt it.

But I digress. I'll get to the original point. What was the church service like? (Though I do wonder if what I just wrote is the main point, and the church service is the secondary issue.) Driscoll preaches five times on Sundays. They have (I believe) eight other campuses that receive the video feed of his teaching/preaching. All other aspects of the service (singing, prayer, Lord's Supper, etc.) are handled individually by the campus pastors. The services are extremely simple. We began with some singing. Now in general, I think it's really lame to begin a service with singing. Particularly if it's just trite choruses written by people whose theology hasn't gotten out of Sunday school yet. Not that singing, i.e. praising God, can't be used to begin a service, but when that is the “worship time”, despite the fact that your intellect hasn't even begun to be engaged, then I think you have a pretty superficial understanding of worship. But fortunately, it was neither. Content wise, it was a mix of contemporary and old hymns. Providentially, one hymn was Nothing But the Blood, one of my favorites, and one contemporary was In Christ Alone, probably my favorite Christian song written in my lifetime. The worship pastor (believe that was his title) made some comments in the midst of it and there was some prayer before or after as well. Then Mark got up to preach. And he preached for like an hour. Now, that's nothing that I'm not used to. My current pastor I believe has done some hour and half sermons and anything less than forty-five minutes I start to question how much preparation the preacher put into it, but I didn't expect a well known pastor, the service which I'm attending is packed, and who's broadcasting to eight other locations, and is going to preach that same sermon five times that day, to bust out an hour long sermon. And one who is openly Calvinistic from the pulpit, a hardliner on men's and women's roles, and who preaches expositorily from the Bible. It still excites me. That's freaking awesome. After the sermon, there was some more singing (Which I love. I much prefer to sing after my heart has been pierced by the Word, and my singing is an expression of the emotion that my intellect has created from understanding the truth just taught rather than an emotion I have to try and work up. That's a good contrast with the superficial worship I referred to earlier.) We also had the Lord's Supper, which they do every week, which I also love. While I won't say it's commanded to do so every week, all of the arguments I've heard against it (thus far) are lame. If doing something weekly or regularly necessarily makes it less meaningful, then quit telling your wife you love her, quit praying and singing praises to God. In fact, you should probably only go to church once a quarter as well. Surely your soul will remain in tip-top shape from those four services a year (Now if you listened to Robbins lectures on Logic, you'd know that's an ad hominen argument.) But again I digress from this digression.

My one point of contention was with the music. I guess not really with the music itself, but with the presentation of it. I'm all for music. I'm all for instruments. I'm even all for musicians playing their instruments passionately and getting into it. But I don't really understand why they need to be up front on the stage. It does make sense if you want to make it like a concert. I mean that's why people will pay $60 to go to a concert when they already have the album and can listen to the music anytime they want. Concerts are all about the performance. It's all about the musicians themselves. People wouldn't go to concerts if the band was playing behind a curtain and never came out. That would be a concert all about the music and not all about the musicians. But as I said, nobody would go to those concerts, but that's the kind of concert I think needs to be taking place in the church. Now I understand this isn't very popular, particularly with musicians. They, perhaps even more so than your average Joe, are prideful and self seeking (I say that as a wanna be musician. The things that make me most self-seeking are the same things that make me want to be a musician.). They like being up there. And I can understand them wanting to be up there. But all that means is that even for their own sakes, we shouldn't put them up there. Even if they honestly could do it sinlessly in themselves, they are a huge distraction to others (to me if no one else). The girl who was up there I thought was exceptionally attractive, and though not dressed particularly immodestly, I was still constantly aware of her presence. Admittedly, that's an issue that I'm hypersensitive to (I just called myself hypersensitive. That's never happened before.), but I don't think the service would have suffered at all had she not been up there and it certainly would have been more beneficial to me. I believe they are in a logical dilemma. If they are the type of people who don't care about being up there, they'll have no objection to not being up there so as not to distract others. If they are the type of people who do care about being up there, they don't need to be up there for that very reason. Either way, they shouldn't be up there.

I do not have this objection primarily for myself. If I honestly am the only one and the church at large is benefiting immensely from having concert style praise, then so be it. I'll gladly sacrifice my preferences for the greater good. Or if only the strong are distracted while the weak are not, then they (the strong) have the biblical obligation to bear with the weak in this and all other matters of preference. Again, I am willing to do this. Mainly I throw this out there as an issue of contemplation. I do not think the Bible is as clear nor as strict on this as say female elders, what to preach, etc. I trust the leadership at Mars Hill has thought the issue through and has come to where they are through prayer and the application of biblical principles. Nor do I say this to detract from the wonderful work God is doing there. I have a strong desire to move there just to be a part of that church. Any who go to Seattle I would encourage to visit Mars Hill (in fact I've got some friends there who I'm sure would love to meet you). I think the reformed community could learn a lot from them. I'd be overjoyed if several churches that I know of or have been a part of became more like Mars Hill. Not that it's a perfect church, but it's striving to reach the world with the gospel. The pure, unadulterated life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. And they are succeeding.

One other note. At the party I asked a guy who attends Mars Hill what a typical member of the congregation was like. I believe I specifically mentioned Calvinism and that I knew Driscoll was but were the people attending the church. His reply was basically that many of them were clueless, even people who had attended for a substantial amount of time. What? How is that possible? I know Driscoll doesn't hide his nor the church's position. In the few sermons I downloaded and listened to, he said he was a Calvinist and that he thought it was the doctrine taught by scripture. I don't even think he went in to an apology for the terminology. This is still incredible to me. People can attend the church, know Driscoll's a Calvinist, not be a Calvinist, and still not feel condemned or belittled enough to leave the church. That's fantastic. I confess I still struggle with not thinking that every Arminian is an idiot and not wanting to immediately show them how ignorant their view is. I trust I am getting better at it and more ready to let the Spirit work and less ready to blast them, but it's not my natural disposition. What an accepting body of believers! How much greater sphere of influence they can have then my extremely limited one. I wouldn't be surprised if I could talk theological circles around 90% of the people at Mars Hill, and yet, I'd be less surprised if 90% of the people at Mars Hill weren't being more used by God as instruments of His grace and mercy than I am. That is humbling. And it's good to be humbled.

A couple photos from the trip

Seattle Skyline from Alki Beach

Waiting for the Interurban statues

The Confessions of Saint Seth

2009-05-13T14:39:00.000-07:00

I use 'saint' loosely and merely as a literary ploy. For any who have read The Confessions of Saint Augustine, the title and our particular area of struggle is the extent of the similitude between the proceeding work and that brilliant piece of literature.

This is, in a way, a bringing together of many of my recent musings. From my own personal failings and that of my family (of which I am a part) to the more general failings of churches (of which again I am a part), this is my attempt to destroy whatever good there is in my name, that I might have no pride in anything, save Christ and Him crucified (Galatians 6:14). Indeed, the world has been crucified to me, and I am invincible. As John G. Paton said, “I am immortal until God's work for me to do is done.” If God is for me, who can stand against me? (Romans 8:31) And who dares to bring a charge against God's Elect? It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:33) If the whole world were arrayed against me, I would, I trust, stand just as firm as Athanasius until they could not help but say, “Seth contra mundum”, “Seth against the world”. It is impossible for me to care less what you think of me. My hope and worth are completely bound up in the person of Christ and His work, and there it rests securely, untouchable. This is at last my disposition. It is only from this position that I feel safe enough to write this. My sincere desire is that you will join me. Free yourself from secret guilt and shame. Cast off the shackles of that easily besetting sin. Acknowledge your sinfulness and seek the Divine Help. How many wallow in sin because they refuse to admit it to themselves? And of those that can admit it, how many fight alone, whose struggling only sink them deeper and deeper into the quicksand? Brothers, sisters, we must help these poor tortured souls! They are your brothers. They are your sisters. They will be your children. I throw myself out there. Whatever sin you struggle with, I have committed it. If not in deed, in mind. And if not in deed, it is only because of an inability, not undesirability. I am a wretch of the first magnitude. I am kin to Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, LaVey, the Pharisees and... Paul. But just saying that doesn't mean much. And so I will show you the darkness of my heart. It is not a pretty sight

(I will remain somewhat general, not to keep things hidden, but for the purity of any who read it. I cannot recommend you read it. I don't know if it will make you struggle. If you wish, you may skip down to the “Now really, why do I” paragraph. You should avoid the sordidness with that.)

Though I'm sure many people could rattle off a lengthy list of my sinful tendencies (and be correct), in some ways, I don't even care about those sins. They are splinters in my foot compared to the beam I know I have in my eye. Not that they in and of themselves are not damnable, but I've never thought it very profitable to spend time cleaning the dirt under my fingernails when I knew I was going to go jump in the pigsty later. Such is, and always has been, the case of lust in my life. I am currently it's master, and have brought it into submission over the last two years, but I hang by a double stranded thread. Those strands are some dear brothers in Christ and the Holy Spirit. Without either of them (Yes, either. Apart from my Christian brothers, the Holy Spirit has not been enough), I know I would immediately run back to it. Ah, perhaps I could last a few weeks or a month, but eventually and certainly, I would run back to it.

My first exposure to pornography was at quite a young age, I assume around five or six. And yes, I can remember some of those images twenty plus years later. At the time I didn't even know what I was looking at, but I knew I I liked it. Since that time I believe I've been addicted to it. Even in times when there was none available, I was addicted to it. Even now, though I do not indulge myself, I am addicted to it. There is nothing I would rather do (except have sex) than look at porn. If someone where to ask me, “Seth, would you like to go climbing, hiking, photographing, out to your favorite restaurant then come back and talk theology?” and I were going to be honest I'd say, “No, I'd rather look at porn.” “But all your friends and family are going to be there.” “That's nice. I'd rather look at porn.” That may come across as an exaggeration, but despite that scenario never having been played out, were the questions asked and were I honest, that's exactly how it would go down. Nor do I say it for shock value. I simply want you to have an accurate view of who I am. It's not that I want that to be my preference, it just is. The Spirit of God can change it, but I cannot anymore than you can arbitrarily change your deep seated preferences. I don't think most people have much to correlate the consuming and obsessive nature of lust with in their lives. An alcoholic might. An OCD person probably does.

If I had lived my life merely with this preference and disposition without any indulgence, than that would be one thing. But I have not. The vast majority of my life has been unabashed abandonment to it. College was not a very good time for me. I don't know what the ratio would be for time spent looking at porn compared to time spent studying, eating and everything besides going to class and sleeping, but it's certainly higher than 2:1. Were I a blatant pagan whose conscience has been so seared or who grew up with abuse or with no knowledge of God and the Bible, that would one thing. But again, I did not.

That is merely the external. The depravity of my thought life is beyond description. The only figures I can use to approximate the imaginative fornications I've conceived would be akin to the number of my heart beats, the number of steps I've taken or the number of breathes I've taken. It is incalculable. And since lust is adultery and the women I have imagined haven't consented, I'm a rapist hundreds of thousands of times over.

This is who I am. Your son, your brother, your friend, Seth Walters. This is me.

Sorry to disappoint.

Now really, why do I say all of this? Surely I can not give a crap about your opinion of me without intentionally destroying your opinion of me. In fact, going to all this trouble to give you a bad opinion of me is evidence that I do in fact care what type of opinion you have of me. So if I really do find all my worth in Christ, why write? Why set up some awkward moments with any who read it next time I see them or make my most embarrassing and complete failures available to the public? Perhaps more than any other, this blog is for your benefit. For almost the entirety of my Christian life, I have walked without the Spirit. Not that He ever fully left me, but my sins so grieved Him, He could not or would not exert His power in my life. I wonder how much farther in my Christian life I could be had I spent the last ten years in communion with Him. I'm sure I'd be much more holy and much more humble about it. So that is what I missed. What I got instead was an unbearable burden that has oppressed me for the vast majority of my life. Loneliness, guilt, shame and failure are the words that most characterize it. There is a self-loathing that comes from this that you cannot understand unless you've experienced it. Pondering death has often been my only relief. And I am afraid, and unfortunately confident, that you, your brother, your husband, your son or perhaps even your sister, wife or daughter may be now, or will in the future endure what I have endured. Someone you know's life, though a child of God and fellow heir with Christ, may be devastated and made useless by an addiction to pornography. For any in the midst of it, I am here for you. Whatever sin it is, there is victory in Christ. It doesn't matter if it's my struggle or not. Christ can overcome it. Homosexuality, bitterness from being abused, abusing others, whatever it is, I know your bondage. I know your fear of men. I know all around you are a bunch of condemning hypocrites. I know that death seems better than confession. But it's a lie. Satan has deceived you. If you only begin you will see the beauty of it, but you can't do it alone. Have you not learned that by now? You will never have victory in your own struggles. Let me help you. Let me show you Christ's love. There is joy immeasurable on the other side. Please, with all I am, I beg you. Join me. I have tasted it. It is so sweet. James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,” Why? “that you may be healed.” Please, be healed.

For the rest, though you didn't throw me into the quicksand, you didn't help me get out either. Had it not been for some faithful and loving brothers, I'd have drowned there. Had I made shipwreck of the faith, your surprise would have been genuine, even though my course was set towards destruction all the while. Oh, you offered help, right in the midst of saying, “Anyone who does that is the worst type of person. Do you do that?” And while now I can boldly respond, “Yeah. And Christ forgave me and still loves me, but your self righteousness will damn you to hell unless you repent.”, for years I could not. And there are many who still cannot. Your attitude keeps them from crying out. Your condemning and judgmental attitude is why they are afraid to confess, repent and “be healed”. If there is any sin or issue that you assume no true Christian would struggle with, then when one does (and most definitely there is not one but legions), they won't come to you. And if that's the prevailing mindset of the family or the church, then they won't go there either. They'll hide it. They'll fight with all their might, but alone, and ultimately to no avail. Some will, by the miraculous grace of God, survive. Many won't. One of them will be the next Dahmer, another just your average serial killer, another a serial rapist and another a pedophile. We the church, and believers individually, are God's instruments of grace in this world. If not us, then who and what has God given to rescue poor wretched souls from Satan's grasp? The Holy Spirit indeed, but He does not work in a mystic, ghostly way . He works through His word and through His people. We are His hands! As corny as that sounds.

For you parents, if there's any sin that you tell your children is so bad, then you can be certain, when they commit that sin, they won't be coming to you. And for your daughters, if there's any sin you isolate to be “a guy's problem”, then if your daughters have sexual struggles (which is becoming more and more common), then rest assured, they won't come to you. They'll think themselves wicked, evil and perhaps even psychotic, but they won't come to you. And thus, when the infant sin is just taking root and could with but two fingers be plucked from the ground of your child's heart and thrown into the fire, they will hide it from you and allow it to grow. Not that they want to. Not that they don't hate the guilt, but you have forced their deception. Their desire for your love and approval keeps them from bringing that particular issue to you, their parents. And years later, if by God's grace they are able to mortified it, the tree may be dead, but it's roots will have grown so deep that only the resurrection will fully cleanse them. That is where I have been left. The tree has been cut down, but I may always have to fight the new ones that spring up from it's roots. The time of my life of greatest mental aptitude and physical prowess is gone, wasted on fleeting images. I am, more than likely, too scarred to ever marry. The new man could never settle for anyone less than a model of Christian character and above average intelligence, but the old man could never settle for anyone who didn't look like a model. I rejoice that God has saved me, but oh how much the locusts have eaten. Please God, spare my nephews from such a life as I have lived. Kill me rather than have them repeat my mistakes.

So that's why I've thrown myself under the bus. Maybe it'll be easier for someone else to now. Or maybe someone who's already under can get out now. Maybe somebody else will and then another, and eventually the whole of Christendom will be throwing themselves under the bus to help those burdened brothers and sisters in Christ who have been under there for years, constantly being run over by Satan and getting tire tracks down their backs.

Father, forgive me. For these sins and for the sins I've let others fight against alone and for all the rest.
I surrender myself fully to you again. I am your vessel, though weak, ignorant and despicable. Please use me still. May I bring some glory to your name?

Below is one of my favorite hymns. I was so encouraged to hear Mars Hill sing it and privileged to take part. I cannot think of it without tearing up, nor will I ever be able to write something that so well expresses my hope.

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

As a final qualification, if what I've written doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Don't be a little baby and gripe about my generalizations. Yes, I know not every family and every church is like this, but many, if not most, if not almost all, are like this. Use this as a time to thank God for His blessings on you and pray for everyone else. If you were already convinced, be encouraged, the tide may be turning. If you were convicted, repent and change. If you think I'm way off, you're an idiot, but I'm glad you read it anyway.

The idiot comment was said in jest. If you think I'm way off, I think you're wrong. (This is pathetic. I have to qualify my qualifications.)

Oh, and my apologies if you're offended by my forthrightness, but that's also the attitude that's allowing this issue to destroy the church. My email is in my profile if any wish to correspond privately.

Preface to my next blog

2009-05-01T14:22:00.001-07:00

I am back from my road trip. Thank you for your prayers and well wishes. I believe God blessed, as He always does. Hopefully I'll get to give a full report on what I did and the intricacies of God's working, but not sure when. I have so much that I wish to express, but here is a summary.

Before I left Jackson I downloaded a bunch of podcasts from Piper, Matt Chandler and Driscoll and began reading Gordon Clark's Logic (which I still haven't finished, though it's a short book.) For the first week or so I mainly listened to sermons while driving and read when an opportune time arose. The sermons were very good and the book great, once I had humbled myself to acknowledge that I was and still am a very stupid person who is not very logical. I did some internet research on Clark (who is nowhere near as well known as he should be) and came across www.trinityfoundation.org. It was run by John Robbins (He died last year. I very much would have enjoyed hearing him lecture), who lectured on much of Clark's works. I downloaded the 18 part series on "Introduction to Logic" which used Clark's book as the textbook. This was tremendously helpful. I went ahead and downloaded the whole mp3 catalog and yesterday listened to a five part series on the justification controversy plaguing the Presbyterian church. It was fascinating. Reformed Baptist churches are so autonomous that their histories, unless personally involved, are rather mundane. Not so with Presbyterians. So after hearing Robbins rip on lots of people who are incredibly highly regarded (Van Till, Wilson and Leihart) in many reformed circles, I am very interested to get the other side of the story. Apparently it has it's roots in the Clark-Van Til controversy in the 40's, whose outcome has since shaped the Presbyterian church and allowed the errors to begin to grow (at least as it appears to me at this time). Clark, and Robbins for that matter, seem to be super solid theologians, and yet I don't think I'd ever heard of them until I stumbled across Logic a couple years ago by accident (and didn't know what I'd stumbled onto until this past week).

So there are like ten books that I want to read now, but I'm trying to exercise a little patience and finish the ones I currently have before going on to these. But anyway, it was a very exciting time. I was trying to think of an analogy of how much I was engrossed in them and the lectures on Logic, but the only one I could come up with was porn. Some will completely understand that analogy and some won't. I currently have a lust for knowledge that I can only compare to sexual lust. I think I am in some danger of making knowledge an end in and of itself, but hopefully I can keep it in it's proper place. I am sure Satan would be just as happy if knowledge became my new idol to distract me from Christ.

Can't wait to see you, family.

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?

2009-04-14T15:04:00.000-07:00

Warning!!! You may (though I hope not) be too emotionally involved with this issue to read this post. I will be as honest and frank as I usually am. I may call you a murderer and tell you that I think you should be killed. So read at your own risk. I say this as a concession. I wish everyone were as I am. I know and acknowledge that I am a murdering, adulterous thieving idolater. It's the truth and there is so much freedom in the truth. But even I will admit that there are times when we should bring the grace and mercy of God (if the wrath and justice of God have already been brought), so if you are in one of those times, you may want to postpone reading this. Despite all that, I believe the information I'm attempting to convey is extremely important for Christians, men and women, to consider. If you've never seriously looked at this issue or want more information without the conclusions I've drawn, I'd highly recommend Alcorn's book Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? Just please don't be content to remain ignorant on the issue.

So as can probably be guessed, this post was inspired by Alcorn's Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? It was the last of his books that I ordered and had not read. I'm actually not finished with it, but the issue of importance was settled within the first 10 pages or so for me (the book is only about 100 pages, so it's a quick read) so I'm going ahead and writing. It's fresh on my mind and I'm motivated, so it's best if I do it now rather than make an indefinite postponement. I had heard the assertion made years ago by a friend's wife that in fact “the Pill” did cause abortions. I didn't have the technical data of how this happened, but even then I acknowledged that if in fact “the Pill” did sometimes cause abortions, it was morally wrong to use. This was not something that I received with joy. At that time I had much more hope of marriage than I currently do, so the idea that from the outset of marriage, either temporary abstinence or possibly becoming pregnant would be the only options for my wife and I was not something that I was extremely excited about. For the last 15 years there's never been a day when I didn't want to have sex, so getting married and then having to abstain for a certain number of days every month (I don't know the exact number as it has never been necessary for me to know) was definitely not attractive. Being extremely selfish as well, getting married and then my wife immediately getting pregnant was not what I pictured as my ideal plan either (I'm still not sure how much of this view is justifiable and how much is sinful. I think it's an issue of the heart. For some it's sinful, for others it may be sacrificial love. That may be the subject of another post sometime in the future.). All that to say that I sincerely hoped that the “the Pill” did not in fact cause abortions. You may be in the same boat. You may be struggling financially already just as a married couple on two incomes without children. With children on one income seems an impossibility. You may have been using “the Pill” for years and now face the realization that if in fact it can cause abortions, you may have inadvertently aborted one of more of your children. You may think yourself totally unqualified to raise children and something to avoid at all costs. You may gotten married just to have sex without a guilty conscious (ah, a fellow sexaholic) and children wasn't what you bargained for. I don't deny these are real issues (mainly resulting from the sins of the past, but that's irrelevant), but we must never make our judgments about truth based on our circumstances. We must arrive at truth objectively, even abstractly, and then judge our circumstances and make our choices based on that. Without this attitude there's really no reason even discussing anything else. You can and will justify any and everything to suit your desires and circumstances. There is no proof that is valid. There is no evidence that is sound. You have made yourself judge. You have made yourself god. At least acknowledge that and throw off your useless quasi-Christianity and quit trying to pay lip service to God. If you have acknowledged this, that the truth is true regardless of your circumstances, then, and only then, we can have a profitable discussion.

So let's begin with definitions. Up until recently this would not have been an issue and we could understand what the secular world meant when it spoke, but in what appears to be blatant attempts to mislead the public, certain words and definitions have been changed. The most important of these is conception. Obviously this is important since the issue at hand deals with contraceptives, I.e. anti conception. The traditional definition and the one meant in ordinary language is that conception is the point of fertilization. As wikipedia says, “conception (biology) or fertilisation, the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species” (I was actually somewhat surprised that wikipedia has such a good definition). If this were the universal definition accepted and used and contraceptives did in fact do merely that, then there would be no point to discuss. To the question of, “Does the birth control pill cause abortions?” the answer would be a simple, “No. It merely prevents the egg from being fertilized by the sperm which is before conception. Thus no new life has been formed and abortion cannot happen without life.” Of course this is not the case else I wouldn't be laboring so intensely about it. In fact in 1976, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed the definition of conception to mean “anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs six or seven days AFTER fertilization” (emphasis mine). Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Edition) defined conception as “the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst.” Now you see how, using either of latter two definitions above, one could market a product as a contraceptive even if it prevented implantation of a blastocyst, which is a six or seven day old human being, and not be technically lying. And in fact this is exactly what is being done. The birth control pill (and by birth control pill, “the Pill”, oral contraceptives, oral contraceptive pills I am referring to all the combination pills containing estrogen and progestin that are what you think of when you think of any of the many different pills that are labeled “contraceptive”) has three means of “contraception”. The first is prevention of ovulatioin. Obviously if a woman doesn't release an egg then it can't be fertilized and she can't get pregnant. The second changes the cervical mucus which inhibits the sperm from entering the uterus, thus also preventing the egg from becoming fertilized. The third makes “changes in the endometrium which reduces the likelihood of implantation.” The endometrium is the lining of the uterus that, in preparation to receive a blastocyst, gets thick with blood vessels and glycogen. No one argues about the first two. They are contraceptive in nature (now there is another debate as to the morality of contraceptives in general, but that is beyond the scope of this blog). The third means, that is by making changes in the endometrium, however, is the determining factor. Bear in mind, what is being talked about is the implantation of a blastocyst. We are not dealing with eggs and sperm here. An egg or sperm cell doesn't implant. Only blastocysts implant (A blastocyst is a fertilized egg of about a week old). All the genetic material you and I have now was present when we were blatocysts. Preventing this implantation is the expressed purpose of “the Pills”'s third means of preventing “conception”. Now you see the necessity of changing the definition. If conception is understood to occur at fertilization, then “the Pill” not only prevents fertilization by the first two methods, but in cases where it fails to do this and fertilization occurs, it clearly works as an abortifacient. The secular world was intelligent enough to recognize this and make the ridiculous change to the definition of conception. This is however what I would expect of the secular world. They are blind and will do and act in whatever illogical way to serve themselves. What is extremely discomforting is the lengths that supposedly Christians go to deny this. In the book Alcorn quotes several Christian physicians who vehemently deny “the Pill” can have any abortive effects. Their attempts at logically arguing this are indeed pathetic. Even using mental gymnastics, a child could destroy these arguments. Really this is the end of it. If you're a follow of Christ than the issue should be settled. “the Pill” has three means of preventing “conception”. Two of them actually do just that, prevent conception. The third however prevents an already conceived human from implanting and thus being able to grow and live. It's like death by exposure. Yeah maybe you didn't strangle your infant, but leaving him outside in the elements with no food or warmth is just the same. You still killed your baby. Yeah maybe you didn't have your fetus sucked out of you with a vacuum, but intentionally creating a 1 mm thick endometrium so that he or she will pass out of you into the toilet is essentially the same thing.

What I've presented thus far is factual (except my exposure analogy and my evaluation of the secular world and their motives). If you read the small print on “the Pill” insert it will say just what I've said or refer you to the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), which will say it. When someone, particularly a physician, says that “the Pill” is not an abortifacient, they are either ignorant (which actually many are) or have adopted alternative definitions to suit their purposes. As far as I can tell, all contraceptive pills are abortifacients as well. There's really nothing left to discuss. The details as to numbers and what is the primary compared to secondary means is all just that, the details. The principle has been established and decisions are made on that. The book goes into a fair amount of detail and studies which I found helpful and drove the point home even more, so I do recommend it still, but what I've presented I think should be sufficient to convince anyone who is open to the truth.

Now some of you may actually be horrified right now. And to some degree you should be. The fact that it was unintentional is only small consolation to the fact that you may have killed your child. There is some relief that we cannot know for sure. I certainly hope that my mother didn't unknowingly kill one of my siblings or that one of my sisters hasn't unknowing killed one of my nieces or nephews. In fact I'm glad I don't know. But even if we could know, or if we feel guilty even at the possibility, there is forgiveness in Christ. Even as they crucified Him, He said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” What more appropriate language to use now. “Father, forgive us, for we knew not what we did.” Perhaps as Acts 17:30 says, God will overlook these times of ignorance, but regardless, He now commands all men to repent. That is the remedy, repentance and faith. But included in repentance is a turning away from past sins. We must now live according to the light that we've been given. If you didn't know this before, you do now. From now on you can't make a claim of ignorance. You are without excuse. From now on it's murder. But for the past, let us remember that even these sins Christ's blood can cover.

Some of you may actually have known this already and yet disdained it or pushed it out your mind so as not to cause any unplanned ripples in your life. If so, I sincerely hope that the weight of feticide falls entirely on your shoulders and you are broken under the guilt of it. I hope you dream of little babies crying out to you, “Why did you murder me, Mommy?”, “Why did you let them kill me, Daddy?” You have sacrificed your children to your own selfish desires and there will be a reckoning day for it. But even here, there is forgiveness in Christ. (On a side note, it is interesting how closely the Bible relates child sacrifice to pagan worship and how vehemently God tells His people not to do it.)

I've recently been thinking about the term “abortion”. I wonder who came up with applying it to a human life? I imagine it was an attempt to make murder or feticide less grotesque. Abortion is merely the noun form of abort. I think of missions being aborted, operations being aborted, but not life. We don't say that someone aborted someone else by shooting him or that a car wreck resulted in an abortion of a 17 year-old drunk driver. Now I understand that they use abortion in reference to pregnancy, i.e. she aborted her pregnancy. This however still doesn't make sense. Pregnancy is the quality of being pregnant. Pregnant is “containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body.” Thus to abort means to terminate the quality of containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body. Do you see the awkwardness of this? If we normally think of abort in reference to missions, operations, countdowns, etc., doesn't it seem strange to apply it to a quality, specifically the quality of containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring in the body? Are there other qualities that we abort? In our acceptance of the language, we have already capitulated so much. I personally will refer to it from now on as either feticide or child murder.

I remember reading an article in a Catholic magazine (can't remember the name but my roommate John had a subscription) dealing with abortion or rather child murder. The main point was that Christians were trying to make a category distinction that the Bible never makes. The biblical language for pregnancy is “with child”. She's not “with zygote”, “with blastocyst” or even “with fetus”. Not that I don't see and understand the usefulness of having terms that refer to a specific time frame in the child's early life (first 9 months specifically), but the point being that from the outset, she is “with child”. The intentional and unjustified death of the child inside of her is just as much murder as the intentional and unjustified death of the child outside of her. The only categorical difference is before and after fertilization has occurred. Everything else is simply a difference of degree, or more accurately a difference of quantity or a difference of location. If you are going to argue that life begins at any time besides fertilization (though this is only a generalization, I would say conception actually begins when the nucleus of the sperm and egg join giving the unique 46 chromosomes for that individual, but this is the immediate action right after fertilization and I don't know the technical term for it) then on that same basis I could argue that females, who are generally smaller than men, aren't as human as men. And children, who aren't as big as they will be, aren't as human as they will be later in life. Of course older people, once they reach and pass their maximum size start to become less human. And we should certainly not look down on or encourage the morbidly obese to lose weight, why, they have become the most human of all. You see how ridiculous this is, but in fact this (or one similar) is the same argument that one has to make if we do not acknowledge that life and humanity begins with chromosomal fertilization (my term to to refer to the above mentioned moment).

My last question is what should be done with these murderers. Though I don't personally know of anyone who has committed child murder, I'm sure I personally know people who have committed it. And since murder by definition involves knowledge and intent, I would not say that those who have killed their child through the use of “the Pill” are murderers necessarily (if done in ignorance), though some are (if done with knowledge). For those in ignorance, I believe, at least before the courts, they are innocent. If done with knowledge (though of course theoretically since we can't know who has murderer their child through “the Pill”) I believe they are as guilty as any other murderer. Actually, they are more guilty than any other murderer in that their victim never had an act of the will that was remotely punishable at all, much less by death. So obviously if I make that statement about those who murder their child through “the Pill” (which is not 100% successful), then even more so those who surgically murder their child are guilty. So the question remains, “What should be done with these child murderers?” Rack my brain as much as I can, the only logical conclusion I can come up with is the death penalty. All of the arguments that would imply something less are inconsistent with the arguments I've made above. The child of 1 day or 1 month is just as much a child as my nephews are. I would certainly demand the death penalty for anyone who murdered any one of them. How can I then reason something less for another child simply because his physical position is still inside his mother or he is only a couple hundred or couple thousand cells while my nephews are already millions. I can't. It's irrational. Now obviously the laws are not in agreement with me (because our law makers are either content to be inconsistent or too irrational to understand the inconsistency). Child murder is legal. But the question is not “What is being done with these murderers?”, but “What SHOULD be done with these murderers?” Are they innocent because they have believed a lie or does not even their own consciences tell them it is wrong? Is not even the Post Abortion Stress Syndrome evidence that they have done what they know to be wrong? Were slave owners justified in killing their slaves because they sincerely thought of them as animals and property? Were the Nazis justified because they sincerely believed the Jews were sub-human? The Nuremberg trials have already shown that the courts still held them guilty. Many of them were even under orders. Nobody is ordering a mother to commit child murder. In fact nobody, including the father of the child, has any legal right to make her or make her not do what she wants. Granted husbands and boyfriends are often guilty of pressuring a wife or girlfriend into murdering her child, and they should be punished, but ultimately (as of now) it comes down to a woman's choice. And while women will always have that choice (just as I have the choice to murder you or not), it should not be a legally justifiable choice but rather a criminal choice with criminal ramifications.

Now I know there are tons of “what if” scenarios you can come up with to try and negate all that I've said. What if she's raped? What if she's going to die? What if the baby is mentally disabled? What if the baby is going to die? There are perfectly good answers to these questions. If you sincerely have them and cannot rationally apply biblical principles to them, then I'll be glad to answer them for you, but only if you first acknowledge the principles I've set out above. Basically that murder (unjustified killing of someone) is wrong, at conception is the only categorical or qualitative change in an egg and sperm cell and thus life begins at chromosomal conception. Therefore what is commonly known as abortion is in fact child murder and is wrong. And since “the Pill” does in fact act to make a woman's endometrium inhospitable to a human child of 6 or 7 days, then “the Pill” can result in the death of one's own child. Intentionally doing this which actually does result in the death of the developing child is murder.

Again, Alcorn's book is much more technical and far less condemning than I am, so if you doubt my arguments I'd encourage you to pick it up.

Lots of randomness

2009-03-29T15:27:00.000-07:00

Here are a bunch of random thoughts for the last couple months. I think I might can offend some people with this one. I hope it is only the truth that offends and not incorrect thinking on my part.

I've taken a bit of break from reading theology, though The Fountainhead is a bit more heady than the typical fiction I enjoy (think Louis L'Amour westerns). It's by Ayn Rand, who was supposedly a pretty big deal. Her most popular work is Atlas Shrugged. I may read it as well, we'll see. I'm still not sure whether I like the book or not (or rather the question should be whether I think it's a good book or not), but I'm only a bit over half way through with it. There's much that I agree with in her worldview (Objectivism), but in the end it all ends up being totally arbitrary just like all other false views. I flatter myself, but in several ways I remind myself of her hero Howard Roark. I remember, at least in my adolescent years and perhaps before, thinking of how I wanted to be and consciously trying to make myself. I only achieved it to a certain degree (thankfully), but I think my goal was not too far from who Roark actually is. Whatever the case, the book definitely makes me contemplate myself. Again whether that's good or bad I'm not sure yet. It makes me either want to kill myself or do something, but never be one of the masses. But enough of that, maybe I'll write more when I finish.

Let's see what else? I've read several of Randy Alcorn's books of late (that's why I'm taking a break from theological books, that's all I've done for about the last 2 months) The first two were Safely Home and Lord Foulgrin's Letters. Here's a copy of my thoughts on them soon after finishing them.

“I just finished Lord Foulgrin's Letters by Randy Alcorn. It is, as he readily admits, a modern book in the vein of CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. While I greatly enjoyed that book last year and thought it had tremendous insight into the temptations I face, I even more heartily enjoyed Lord Foulgrin's Letters. It, just as Safely Home (also by Alcorn), not only brought me to actual tears running down my cheeks (a couple at least), but is extremely motivating . Alcorn appears to be heavily influenced, or at least in great agreement, with John Piper. Piper's theme of Christian hedonism often comes up in the demon's correspondence, and Piper himself is even mentioned by Lord Foulgrin as one whose books the humans must avoid. This is perhaps why I enjoyed and I trust benefited so much from it. While CS Lewis was a brilliant man and writer, I disagree with him on some major theological points that invariably come out in his writing. Lord Foulgrin's Letters and Safely Home are fiction books written from a worldview I agree with and tout the theological ideas that most echo my soul's cries.”

After finishing those I ordered The Purity Principle, Restoring Sexual Sanity, In Light of Eternity; Perspectives on Heaven, and Money, Possessions and Eternity all by Alcorn. The Purity Principle and Restoring Sexual Sanity were both good, In Light of Eternity was okay, but Money, Possessions and Eternity was one of the most influential books I've read. I'd read a very small book of his, The Treasure Principle, that has the same basic premise (Jesus doesn't condemn us for storing up treasure. He condemns us for storing it up where rust destroys and thieves steal - earth. He then commands us to store it up where rust doesn't destroy and thieves can't steal – heaven.), but Money, Possessions and Eternity was so thorough and compelling. Providentially I was reading it right before and on my way to Haiti. Alcorn, or rather Paul's idea from 2 Corinthians 8:14 that “but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality:” could not apply more aptly to the abundance I have and the lack in so many Haitians. Indeed this is why I have been given wealth, not that I can indulge myself or look down on others, but so that I might redistribute it. God certainly could have made all men equal in all things, but then the relationship that can exist between me and a Haitian student who has no means of going to college save the generosity of others, would never be formed. Without the inequality my Haitian brother would not receive the humility of having to ask and depend on others and I would not receive the blessing of giving, prove my heavenly citizenship and have the responsibility of being depended upon. There is so much genius in everything (that may be the most profound thing I've ever said, that and “There's no excuse for disobedience”). I remember hearing Pastor Russ say (I believe referring to something Bavink said in The Doctrine of God) that the universe was as perfect as it could be. This is hard to believe with all the sin and suffering, but only when one has a such small view of God. If, and I maintain that He has to be, God is most concerned with His glory, then the greatest good is for Him to be most glorified, then whatever brings Him the most glory is best, regardless of it's effects on us. And God, again if He is truly God and not an idol we make, could not let anything happen that would not bring Him most glory. So all the sin, all the worst that we can imagine, all the clever sadistic things we do, all the marring of His image, is somehow exactly what must happen to bring God most glory. It may be the glorification of His wrath by seeing justice at last done and every deed repaid, or the the glorification of His love in pouring out His wrath on Christ for our sakes and imputing His righteousness to us. We will all glorify God, it's simply a question of how. Personally I think I am one who will show the breadth and depth of God's grace and love. If He can and does forgive such a sinner as I, who can and will He not forgive? I wonder if some I know will be trophies of His wrath. Men and women much more moral than I, whose lives are not cesspools of sin, who care for others, who speak with the tongues of angels, who give all they have for the sake of the poor, who render up their bodies to be burned, they do all this, but one thing they lack, love and trust in Christ. They will burn forever, an eternal testament to the unquenchable wrath of God, that even these, the best of men, are not righteous enough for God. That's what I've been thinking at least.

I also read To the Golden Shores The Life of Adoniram Judson. He was a missionary to Burma, in fact the first American foreign missionary. It was fantastic. Maybe not the best thing for me since I romanticize all the pain and suffering he went through (it's easy to do when you've never experienced persecution), but I thought it was great. I also began a biography of Hudson Taylor, but couldn't get into it. The writing just sucked. Another excellent book I read was God's Smuggler. It's about Brother Andrew, just a regular guy who smuggled Bibles into communist countries. It borders on mysticism, but I think he just has tremendous faith in God. Our abundance dispels our faith in God because it affords us so many precautions. Yes, I depend on God, but only if I lost my job, then all my savings ran out, then all my friends got tired of me, then the church failed me, the my family turned me out, then the government denied me, then, if all of that happens and only if all that happens, then I'll really pray to God for my daily food. Then I'll really depend on Him. It was so refreshing to read of someone who really trusted in God for everything, money, life, a home, a wife, and God provided. I think, no, I know, that God can be counted on, but I never really give Him the chance to do anything miraculous because I have such abundant natural means. That's an almost unstated premise of Money, Possessions and Eternity, you can give all you've got away like the widow with the two mites, you can give out of your poverty like the Macedonians, we have a God who owns everything. Now I say all this, but don't get the idea that I have done it. I haven't. I want to. I think it'd be amazing. Even if I died of starvation, I think self-starvation for the sake of others would be a great way to go. I get very little encouragement, though in this area. Everyone is quick to talk about what the Bible says about saving and investing and storing up and providing and a whole bunch of other circumstantial or proverbial evidence, but I haven't heard any good exegetical explanations of what the equality of 2 Corinthians 8:14 means besides “the state or quality of” “having the same amount”. Or why the reason we have been made rich is different from the reason God made the Corinthians rich in 2 Corinthians 9:11. I say all this as someone who would love to be convinced that I'm wrong. I love to indulge myself. I love having everything I want. The Canon 5D Mark II looks like an awesome camera. I'd like to have it. The 500/F4 or 600/F4 are both amazing lenses. I'd like to have at least one of them. I am if anything not an ascetic. But I'm also about the most rational person I know, and rationally I just don't see how I can justify it. Honestly I don't see how you justify it either. Oh, I'm not talking to just anyone, but how do you justify it if you honestly believe the Bible? I think it's one of those things that we all feel a bit guilty about because we all suck at giving (even though Paul commands the Corinthians to excel in the grace of giving 2 Corinthians 8:7) so we don't think about it. When the thought does come creeping into our head, we don't rationally justify ourselves, we just think of everybody else who is just as selfish as we are and who also has no rational justification for their indulgence, but has also pushed his guilt to the back of his mind. But enough on that.

Another book I read, quite a while ago but one I never got to write about, was The Five Love Languages. I did enjoy it. I thought it had some good insight, but it also had one glaring omission. His basic premise that we all have our preferential love language is true. His other premise that to express love we must do it in the recipients language, not our own, for it to be received as love is also true. A more general way of stating it is that the the object of affection determines the appropriate means of expressing affection. This is ultimately true of God who is only bound by Himself in how He determines such expression, but also true in human relationships as well, though limited by God's commands (you can't express, even if they want you to, your love to someone by murdering them). Understanding that and the practical helps in determining a person's love language I thought could be very beneficial. In fact the practical examples of couples trying to do that was the best part of the book to me. This whole idea was nothing profound as I had come to the above generalization independently long ago (though that particular phrasing came from Professor Glodo of RTS Orlando where John's going to seminary). So on those points I agree.

His five love languages are words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service and physical touch. Even this I found helpful as I had not really thought of some of those as ways people actually experience love. For example words of affirmation mean little if anything to me. I know what I am. I know what I'm not. Your affirmation or denial of that does nothing to affect the reality of what I am (though I admit I can be wrong about it, in general I think I know myself better than you do). Acts of service also mean fairly little to me. What you did for me I probably could have done for myself, and while I appreciate you doing it, it doesn't communicate love to me. It just says that you like to or at least obediently serve others. Same with gifts. Pretty much anything bought says very little to me. Again, not that I don't appreciate it, but it doesn't say “I love, you” to me. A homemade gift may depending on how much time went into it. This though is because I think of the time value it signifies, which is also why quality time does mean something to me. With my family and with few closest friends, the time we've spent together (whether playing games, doing nothing but talking, driving, camping out, eating, whatever) are what give me a feeling of being loved. Physical touch is also important to me (he explicitly refers to this as non-sexual, which I'll get to later). Those I love I enjoy even just giving and receiving a hug from or fitting five people on a couch. So all of the above I found helpful, and had he written the book with no specific audience, but just a general “This is how you can relate to anyone and everyone better.” then I would think he succeeded. However, every (as far as I can remember) example and case study is of a married couple. Not that I'm saying what he's written doesn't apply to all relationships, but it is clear that the book is targeted at improving the relationship between a husband and wife. Again, nothing wrong with that, but how can you write a book talking about marital love and the ways of speaking it and not talking about sex. It's like talking about communication and the means of communicating through sign language, and letters, and body language and never talking about speaking actual words with your mouth. It is the supreme expression of love in marriage. If you disagree with that, then you're wrong. Oh I'm sure you're being honest when you say that it doesn't feel like the supreme expression of love, but as in everything else, your feelings having absolutely zero bearing on what is true. Deep down everybody knows this, but for whatever reason they don't want to admit it ad try and deny it. Take a married couple for example. A husband doesn't often hide when he's going out to spend quality time with his friends or family (unless of course he's going out to lust or commit adultery, which only proves my point more) nor is the wife usually hurt by this. A husband doesn't hide his affirmations of a friend or coworker (again unless it's an attractive female, which only proves the point again). Nor does a husband hide gifts he gives to friends and family (unless it's an attractive female, which only proves the point yet again). With all of the afore mentioned love languages, you can find examples of where they can and ought to be spoken to those we come in contact with. Not so with sex. It's only supposed to be spoken to one's spouse and when it's spoken to anyone else, whether that a closest friend or a prostitute, there's hell to pay. For most people it's probably the most hurtful thing one can do. This only makes sense if sex is in fact the supreme expression of marital love. Otherwise why can't I go have sex with anyone I want just like I can give someone a word of encouragement or spend quality time with them? Sure, God said I can't and that's sufficient reason enough, but do you really think God's that arbitrary? It's not like if God hadn't said adultery was wrong wives would be fine with their husbands bringing home some hot 20 year-old every night to have sex with in the guest room before he came to sleep them. The reason God has given so many restrictions is because it is supreme. It is the most powerful, both positively and negatively. I really just don't understand why people won't admit what they experientially know.

I hadn't intended on ripping on women, but I think I'm about to. I used to think that women in general were much less selfish than men in general. Maybe that's still true of men and women in general, but as far as good Christians go, men seem much more the ones concerned with pleasing their wives than the wives pleasing their husbands. The Christian men I know who have or are preparing to or even thinking about marriage, have at least somewhat of an understanding of the responsibilities that it evolves. Now certainly they don't have a full understanding but they know that there's more responsibility and in a lot of ways it's going to suck. They can't do whatever they want anymore. They have to sit and listen to things they think are stupid. They have to be patient when she gets offended for no reason. He has to try and explain things that seem self explanatory. He can't buy his favorite toys anymore. He can't spend 12 hours playing computer games. He can't camp out for the whole summer. He can't go backpack for a summer in Europe. I could go on and on about things guys anticipate having to give up when they get married. Some guys aren't willing to give up these things, and I'm sorry that women have become so desperate that they marry guys like that, but the solid Christian guys I know are committed to being a man in their marriage and giving up things, even though in a lot of ways they know it's going to suck. Even the secular “ball and chain” terminology is evidence for it. Guys go into marriage knowing in some ways it's like going to prison. But just as Christ endured the cross “for the joy set before Him.” guys are willing to get married for the joy set before them. That's great. I commend the men I know who love and serve their wives sacrificially. If anybody should, it should be solid Christian men who show the world Christ's sacrificial love. As far as I can tell though, women have no concept of this. From the very beginning it's all about what she'll get, not give. From the pointless waste of an expensive engagement ring to an extravagant wedding ceremony, it's all about how can she be served. You can even tell from the incredible silliness and plain stupidity that girls get when one of them gets engaged that they have no idea of any of this. In the midst of showing off their rock, do they have any idea that they've agreed to enter into the most difficult relationship humanly possible? I don't think so. And here I'm talking about supposedly solid Christian women. With this mindset it's not surprising that in every marriage I know of, it's always the wife whining and complaining about something. How she's not being served. Getting upset for the most childish reasons. It's almost embarrassing when I hear men speak of how their wives act. Unconverted children know better than to behave like that, and here are Christian wives acting like the spoiled kindergarten kid who nobody liked. Of course I can understand her being disappointed when she thought she was entering into a life of get, get, get and now she's being asked to give. Did she really not know that the primary reason guys get married is for sex? It's the “joy set before him”. That's the reason he's willing to deal with all the stuff that makes men think women are stupid.
It's interesting that God doesn't give a whole lot of things for a wife to provide her husband. She's a helpmate, but that's providing help in what he's already doing. She's to provide children, but even then she's got to have a sperm and that's sexually related. She's to be a homemaker, but that's being, not providing. Off the top of my head, the only, or at least the biggest thing, I can think of that she has the responsibility to provide is sex. Obviously good wives could provide more, but the only responsibility is sex. I don't know what Greek word is used so I'm not sure if this applies, but if he who does not provide for his own household is worse than an unbeliever, then what is she who does not provide for her own husband? But besides what the Bible might say, if it's true that the object of affection determines the appropriate means of expressing affection, how many wives are very concerned with how their husbands want them to express their love? Lots I hope, but few I fear.

You may say that I don't really want a wife, I just want a sex slave. Ha. You haven't even begun to understand me. Your right, I do want a sex slave, but not merely a sex slave. I want a slave in every area of life. And not just a slave, but one who is joyfully committed and obsessed with making me happy. And not only is that what I want but it's the only thing I would accept. Now before you condemn me for an egotistical maniac, isn't that what the call to marriage is? Isn't that what love is? As Piper said, “overflowing joy in God that gladly meets the needs of others.” That's all I want is to be loved. Someone who has such joy in God that it overflows and happily meets my needs. And if I ever say “I do” I won't simply be saying “I do agree to marry you” but that I'm committed to joyfully and obsessively make you happy, regardless of the cost to me for the rest of my life. That is the only true marriage. It's not my view that disgraces marriage, but any and every other view.

I'd say this is probably the biggest reason I'll never marry. Very few women would I accept, and even fewer would accept me. So basically you've got a very small probability times a very small probability which results in an incredibly small probability. Only at times is this troubling. As wonderful as marriage is in my imagination, there's no actual physical marriage I've ever seen that I'm envious of. That is a shame. Not just for me, but for Christendom - that Christians can put nothing forward that is enviable or encouraging. When Jonathan Edwards was dying, he wrote a letter to his wife (who to be so praised by Jonathan Edwards, must herself have had an incredible disposition of holiness) about their “uncommon union” that was so sweet it must have been of a spiritual nature and would exist in heaven. But, I am talking about Jonathan Edwards, so who am I to suppose that I could have such a union. I have a half finished blog about the many reasons I won't marry. If I finish it I'll post it.

On my trip to Haiti I also wrote my obituary. I think it a healthy exercise and recommend it to you all. Apparently Alfred Nobel, who before coming up with the Nobel Peace Prize, had made his fortune inventing or marketing dynamite. At his brother's death, a village accidentally printed Alfred's obituary. It condemned him for growing rich on death and destruction. After seeing this it dramatically changed the course of his life and we have the Nobel Peace Prize due in large part to this change. What follows is mine.

William Seth Walters March 22, 1980 to March 1, 2009. Survived by his parents and siblings. Seth was one of the supreme examples of those who “have done so little with so much.” Marked by pride, arrogance and selfishness, he lived his life with little if any regard for the thoughts, feelings and needs of others. His distorted view of God's sovereignty made him almost totally apathetic to the conditions of others, though he himself basked in God's good providences. He did virtually no good for the cause of Christ. His Christianity was primarily of an intellectual and philosophical type with little affect on the way he lived. He is almost certainly in heaven now, but has almost just as certainly suffered incredible loss when before Christ he was shown the massive amounts of wasted time, talents, possessions and opportunities that could have been used for the sake of Christ. He would have been a great man if his selfishness had been eternally rather than earthly minded, or if he had followed through on any of his untold number of good intentions. The only lesson one can take from his life is if God was willing to save one such as he, surely He can save one such as you.

Part of writing that was was also due to reflecting on my upcoming birthday. It is, even for me, hard to believe that I am now twenty-nine years old. It seems like yesterday that I was thinking about thirty being so far away. It seems like the last decade has been just a blink, and I could well believe it, seeing as can't think of anything that I can genuinely look back on with pride in these last ten years, but alas, I am sure there have been ten years, each with 365.25 days for me just as for everyone else. And yet despite the gloom of the past, for what may be the first time ever, I feel some real motivation to live. The motivation I've had in the past has for the most part been, “I'm alive so I might as well live for something or at least do something to occupy the time and this seems as good as anything else.” but I wouldn't call it real motivation. It's in large part due to Alcorn's books and the more full understanding of heaven I've gotten from them. The biggest being that heaven won't be the same for everyone. There'll be levels there just as in hell. Some will rule, some will be ruled. Some will have great treasure, some will have none. Now what all this treasure will be used for and what type and size of mansion we'll each have, I still don't know, but just using the word treasure means it's a good thing. As of right now I don't have much treasure. I want a lot of treasure. You can try and be all holier than thou and say that you don't care about treasure, but it's Jesus who tells us to store up treasure in heaven and gives us the motivation. Even more so than this however is in thinking about experiencing fullness of joy in God in heaven. Obviously everyone there will be full of joy, but the capacity or size of the container will be different. Right now I think it would take about a teaspoon to give me “fullness of joy” while with men like Paul, Edwards, Brainerd, McCheyne and Piper, God will have to empty out the oceans to fill them. I want to have my capacity stretched. To be honest, I want it to be stretched to the limits of what God allows the human heart to be stretched. I imagine this must be painful, as any stretching is, and suffering is the key. It's so hard to voluntarily suffer though. Richard Wurmbrand, author of Tortured for Christ, said something to the extent of ninety-five percent of Christians pass the test of suffering while ninety-five percent of Christians fail the test of prosperity. I have thus far definitely failed the test of prosperity. Coming from someone who spent fourteen years in prison, that is somewhat comforting hearing that I would likely pass the test of suffering if presented with it. But it's so hard to suffer when you don't have to. We, and me more than most, are such slaves to our comfort. Really, that's what it is. We are in bondage to our own ease. I can't do this because it would hurt. I can't do that because I'd be uncomfortable. For all our talk about money giving us freedom to do this and that, I think it keeps us from doing more than it enables us. When John Wesley was told that his house had burned down, after careful contemplation he said, “The one I have been living in belongs to the Lord, and if it has burned down, that is one less responsibility for me to worry about.” I want that attitude. By God's grace I shall have it.

Sorry for the randomness, just had a bunch of stuff I wanted to put down on paper.

2009-03-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

The winter season is drawing to a close here in Jackson. If all goes as planned, then I'll be leaving April 6 for a week in Utah at Canyonlands National Park, come back for a 2 or 3 week road trip up to the Oregon and Washington coasts (and some National Parks as well), then back to Jackson to catch a ride back to TN (actually I'll probably get dropped off in Louisville, KY, so I might hitch-hike the rest of the way) to see my new nephew who's due at the end of May and spend time with family and friends. Come June 12 hopefully I can fly out to Los Angelos, CA for a Resolved conference (Piper will be there) and then ride back with some fellow church members to Jackson to begin the summer season. Lord willing it should be a fantastic time. I am curently enjoying one of those rare but wonderfully intimate times with the Lord. I think I can actually say that "the things of earth [are growing] strangely dim, in the light of His glory and grace".

I have many things to write about, as the last several books I've read have significantly altered some of my views. Hopefully I'll have the time now that my second job has ended.

Love and miss everyone. Can't wait to see you. If not here, than there.

Just an update

2008-11-11T09:19:00.000-08:00

I'm at the library in Moab. Spent yesterday in Arches NP and the day before bouldering. Drove through Capitol Reef NP the day before that and had a great day of hiking in Bryce Canyon NP. Spent 2 days hiking in Zion NP. Really has been a great trip, though I really wish my camera hadn't messed up. I've been reading The Five Love Languages and almost done with it. It's been interesting. I'll post thoughts later. Love and miss you all. Really wish Josh or Luke could have come out and met me. I may head back through Denver to visit with Pastor Russ, but not sure yet.

Just a quick note

2008-08-25T13:05:00.000-07:00

I know I said my next post would be on the Transcendental Argument, but that's going to take a while to write out, and I don't have my computer right now, so I'm at the library and just wanted to tell you about my day.

I camped out with some friends from church on top of Shadow Mountain last night. It's got the best views of the Tetons anywhere I think, and we also had a beautiful clear sky with a ton of visible stars. This morning I went fishing on the Gros Ventre (pronounced Grow Vont) River. Besides catching a snake river cutthroat and a cuttbow (cross between a cutthroat and rainbow trout), I saw a big bull and cow moose and had a redtail hawk circling overhead. What a wonderful day. Thank you, God.

Oh, and Saturday I went on a float trip with my friend Josh down the Snake River. We saw a bald eagle eating a fish, an osprey catch and fly off with a fish, a juvenile bald eagle, a coyote, a moose and some deer. Oh and later I saw a golden eagle sitting on a post. I hope God does send me to do mission work next year, but it will be hard leaving Jackson. I doubt there's another place like it in the world.

Less than two weeks till I'll be seeing my family for the first time in over a year. Hard to believe it's been that long.

The logical necessity of the Trinity

2008-08-05T13:02:00.000-07:00

In "The Pleasures of God" Piper develops his idea of the Trinity and quotes Jonathan Edwards extensively in the footnotes. I'll quote it as well because it's unbelievably brilliant. I don't think it could be worded better or more clearly. Hard to believe it was written in the 1700's.

Beginning with a human analogy, Edwards writes,
“If a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that pass'd in his mind, all the series of ideas and exercises in every respect perfect as to order, degree, circumstance etc. for any particular space of time past, suppose the last hour, he would really, to all intents and purpose, be over again what he was that last hour. And if it were possible for a man by reflection perfectly to contemplate all that is in his own mind in a hour, as it is and at the same time that it is there, in its first and direct existence; if a man, that is, had a perfect reflex or contemplative idea of every thought at the same moment or moments that that thought was, and of every exercise at and during the same time that that exercise was, and so through a whole hour, a man would really be two during that time, he would be indeed double, he would be twice at once. The idea he has of himself would be himself again. (Edwards, An Essay on the Trinity, 102)

From this Edwards carries the analogy over to God.
"Therefore as God with perfect clearness, fullness and strength, understands Himself, views His own essence (in which there is no distinction of substance and act but which is wholly substance and wholly act), that idea which God hath of Himself is absolutely Himself. This representation of the Divine nature and essence is the Divine nature and essence again; so that by God's thinking of the deity, [deity] must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten, there is another infinite eternal almighty and most holy and the same God, the very same divine nature.
And this person is the second person of the Trinity, the only begotten and dearly beloved Son of God: He is the eternal, necessary, perfect, substantial and personal idea which God hath of Himself; and that it is so seems to me to be abundantly confirmed by the word of God.(Edwards, An Essay on the Trinity, 103)

In a later footnote he quotes Edwards again concerning the “procession” of the Holy Spirit
“The Godhead being thus begotten by God's loving an idea of himself and shewing forth in a distinct subsistence or person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other, for their love and joy is mutual, Proverbs 8:30-”'I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him'”- This is the eternal and most perfect and essential act of the divine nature, wherein the Godhead acts to an infinite degree and in the most perfect manner possible. The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is, as it were, breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz. the deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will. (Edwards, An Essay on the Trinity, 108)

Piper summarizes the idea with a final quote from Edwards.
“And this I suppose to be the blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the deity in its direct existence. The Son is the deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are [sic] properly distinct persons. (Edwards, An Essay on the Trinity, 118)

I have not given Edwards biblical defense of this, but the arguments and scriptural references can be found in the original work. When I read this I was blown away with how logical the Trinity is. In fact, God, as in the true God who is infinite in all ways, could not exist in any other form. As God he must have a perfect understanding of himself which in turn must be divine. The love that must exist between themselves must itself be divine.

I believe this may be another form of the transcendental argument, but not for God but rather specifically for the Trinity. Basically the Trinity must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. An infinite God cannot exist in any other form. In if/then form, if an infinite God exists, he exists in a Trinity. An infinite God does exist, therefore he exists in a Trinity. Obviously I have not given any of the transcendental arguments for the existence of God here, but as that has long been a subject I've wanted to write on it, I will try and make that my next post.

Just as side note, for those unfamiliar with Jonathan Edwards, I would encourage you to at the least read his wikipedia page. Though brief, it gives a glimpse at what an extraordinary man he was. And interestingly enough I was born 222 years to the day after his death.

My life motto

2008-07-31T14:08:00.000-07:00

Still in "The Pleasures of God" by Piper. Thus far besides the introduction dealing with the aforementioned Scougal quote, he has dedicated a chapter each to how God takes pleasure in his Son, all he does, his creation, his fame, election, bruising the Son and the chapter I'm currently in, doing good to all who hope in him. The first couple chapters, while very enlightening, only showed me the majesty of God but gave me nothing to partake in. I can do nothing to increase God's pleasure in his Son, all he does or his creation. The fourth chapter, the pleasure of God in his fame, however has become my motivation for prayer and missions and the purpose for my life. Here is something that is big enough to devote my life to and not in the end say, "I've wasted it." Here is something that is worth any sacrifice I could make. Here is something I can righteously obsess over and not commit idolatry. Piper gives so many references pertaining to God doing something for his name's sake. For any who want to be overwhelmed by how abundant this is in the Bible, look at 1 Samuel 12:22, Jeremiah 13:11, Exodus 9:16, Isaiah 63:12-14,Pslam 106:7-8, Joshua 7:8-9, Ezekial 36:20-23, Ezekial 39:25, Isaiah 48:9-11, Daniel 9:19, Psalm 25:11, Psalm 79:9, Jeremiah 14:7,9 just in the OT. Israel's whole story of being God's people was for his name's sake, not their worth. The reason God spared them so many times was again not because of their worth, but because his name was connnected to them. In the NT, Jesus makes it clear that he came for his father's name's sake, not our worth. John 5:43, 10:25, 17:6,26, 12:27-28. 1 John 2:12 makes it even clearer that we are forgiven "for the sake of his name." Not only is our salvation due to God's pleasure in his fame, but our sanctification as well. Psalm 23:3, Revelation 2:3, 1 Timothy 6:1. Colossians 3:17 makes it all encompassing by saying "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus." Everything we as Christians do should in some way be for the propagation and/or honoring of Jesus' name. Paul seems to be particularly concerned for this. One of his great goals was "to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named." Romans 15:20 Even his apostleship was "for the sake of his name." Romans 1:5. When Jesus first calls Paul, he tells Ananias he will show him "how much he [Paul] must suffer for the sake of my name." Acts 9:16 Paul makes it clear who and what he was willing to die for in Acts 21:13 "I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." I can think of no greater honor than to be presented with the choice of dishonoring the name of Christ and life or refusing to denouce the name of Christ and death. What truer test is there of our dedication when something as simply as "I denounce Jesus as Lord." can be said to save one's life. And what greater testament to the world is there of the supreme worth of Christ when we joyfully choose suffering or even death over dishonoring his name. And to have the grace and love of Stephen to say as they slay you, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."

All of this has led me to form my life motto. The first and original is simply, "By the grace of God, I will make known the grace of God." While technically correct, I think it leaves the all important motivation for such action up in the air. Particularly for someone such as myself who is most often motivated by self-glorification, I modified it to "By the grace of God and for the glory of God, I will make known the grace and glory of God." I do not know if God will grant me to be a foreign missionary. I don't know if I will get to demonstrate my love for him by laying down my life. But regardless, wherever I'm at and in whatever vocation God calls me, my aim is by the grace of God and for the glory of God, to make known the grace and glory of God. Be it affluent guests at the Four Seasons, my Turkish bussers, an African tribe or Muslims in the 10/40 window, I will sacrifice anything for the sake of his name. So help me God.

Henry Scougal

2008-07-14T19:58:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading "The Pleasures of God" by John Piper on recommendation by Pastor Stephen (my former pastor in TN, though in some ways he will always be my pastor). He was even kind enough to provide me with a copy of the book. Piper starts the book off with the quote by Henry Scougal that got him thinking about the pleasures of God: "The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love." Scougal was referring to the worth of a human soul, but Piper applied it to God and thus reasoned that God must love himself most because he is most excellent. Without going more into the book (as I've just begun it, I heartily recommend it, as well as Desiring God, Don't Waste Your Life and probably everything else by Piper). But anyway, the purpose of this short blog is simply to enlighten you as to who Henry Scougal was. Born in 1650, he died in 1678 of tuberculosis before reaching twenty-eight years old. His greatest work by consensus is "The Life of God in the Soul of Man" from which the above quote comes (interestingly it was written as a letter to a friend explaining Christianity, but has become a classic, though not all together well-known). While mentioning him, he also mentions David Brainerd, the missionary to the Native Americans who died at twenty-nine years old, Henry Martyn, the missionary to India who died at thirty-one years old and Robert Murry McCheyne, who also died at twenty-nine years old. These men, one younger than I, were giants of the faith. They preached, wrote, evangelized and have inspired countless others to give themselves as missionaries, pastors and in general pursue God. Indeed, if God so blesses me by allowing me to in some way do mission work, it is these men whose legacies I want to carry on. Not that I at all compare myself to them. They had more biblical understanding and practical holiness at ten then I do now. But nevertheless, here are men, mere mortals, who God used in miraculous ways. They were bright and shining lights who, as was said of Scougal at his funeral, "truly lived much in a few years and died an old man in eight and twenty years." Oh that such a thing could be said of me. I fear many in our day the opposite could be said, "he truly lived little in many years and died a child in five and seventy years." May that not be prophetic of my life. I can never be a Brainerd. I'll never write like Scougal and know "Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and some of the cognate oriental languages". I'll never preach like McCheyne. At twenty-eight I feel like I am just beginning the Christian life. May God "restore to [me] the years that the locust has eaten." How many years were eaten by Nintendo, sports cards, athletics and even pure laziness? I am just now learning that, as Scougal said, "True religion is a union of the soul with God." It is more than knowing right doctrine. It is more than doing certain things. It is more than not doing certain things. It is, like God, knowable but incomprehensible. May I ever grow in that union.

Experiencing the "mannishness of man"

2008-07-04T12:30:00.000-07:00

I already know that I can't explain what I have and am experiencing. As Schaeffer said, I've touched the creation. I'm experiencing the mannishness of man. Oh I can describe my thoughts and surroundings, the things I see and do, but there is something, some true experience that my soul has tasted and that I cannot explain. Though rare I have known it before. I well understand why existentialist who sought such an experience had to be encouraged not to commit suicide after having this “final experience”. I am lying in my hammock suspended between two pine trees near the top of Shadow Mountain at 6866'. The drive up is along a dirt road with perhaps the best and most dramatic views of the Tetons. With a beautiful pink and orange sky with wisps of clouds and Adam Duritz's soul searching voice singing the lyrics to my favorite songs, even in the midst of it I knew with pen and paper or digital 0's and 1's I couldn't explain what my spirit felt. I feel so alive I almost despair of life. The desire to share it and experience it with someone, to know that someone else is as alive as I am is the Trojan horse of such an experience. It's in these moments, the moments when I feel most alive, that I know I am most alone.

These touches with creation invariable lead to the knowledge of the Creator. Perhaps such a moment is what led Descartes to say, “I think, therefore I am.” though, “I, therefore God is.” seems a more appropriate conclusion. And though not enough to show man's remedy, it certainly leaves man without excuse. This may be what heaven is like when we no longer live by faith but by sight, and everything is so much more real. Even if offering prayers and thanksgiving or singing praises is difficult now, when we stand before him in our resurrected bodies, when our resurrected eyes literally see him, when his majesty and glory are so manifest that it is all we can see, then praise and thanksgiving will pour out so naturally that we won't be able not to praise and glorify him. How dreary this life most have looked to Paul, who perhaps more than any other man, experienced this when he was called up to the third heaven. Even from my limited experiences, it is only the command, “Thou shalt not murder.” that keeps me here. No wonder Paul could say, “I desire to depart.”

God, please give me more of yourself. Above riches, fame, glory, beauty, power, children or a wife, give me Christ, the bread of life and spring of living water, to feast upon. All my other desires are mere preferences. This is my one true desire. Give me yourself or take me from this world of distractions and into your presence forevermore. Amen.

What to do with a wasted life.

2008-06-09T17:47:00.000-07:00

Well, since I am actually taking the time to update my blog, you must know that something has happened. Not that anything just happened, but the cumulative effects of many things have finally compounded enough to bring me to my knees and the end of myself. The world, and everything in it, has once again disappointed me (as it always has and always will).

I had thought that God had given me my greatest desire, that of a wife, but God is a jealous God, and He will not share His glory with any of His creations. And so He took that gift away because it had become an idol to me. And I am left with only my unrequited love (which I believe is the only true pain) and the bankruptcy of my life. That is the only way I can describe my life. I'm like a business that God poured time, energy and funds into, but through waste, frivolity, poor management and wicked dealings has run itself into the ground. And yet God has continually propped it up by pouring more time, energy and money into it and thus spared me the consequences. Will I ever do something with my life? Will it ever matter? Besides some tears from my family and a couple of friends, some kind words at my funeral, there would be no loss to the cause of Christ if I left this world. I would just be another one who wasted his life and barely made it to heaven, as through flames. As it is now my only true joy comes in contemplating that this life cannot last forever and one day, even soon if God is gracious, all my pain, suffering, sin and wickedness will be done. My cry will no longer be,

Oh death, where is your embrace.

When will your arms wrap around me

Oh death, where is your kiss

When will your sweet lips touch mine

but rather,

Oh Christ, here is your embrace

Will this really last forever

Oh Christ, here is your kiss

You are more beautiful than I imagined

If God would only tell me where my life might end, I would seek it out with abandonment. If He would only tell me when, even if 100 years from now, I would begin to anxiously count down the days. If my life had any purpose, if anyone were benefiting from my testimony, I could say as Paul, “If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." but I cannot. There is nothing I am torn between. For me to remain is wasteful and to die is all gain. Since I thus far have no significant (if any) fruit, death is all the more lovely. Would it be wrong for me to pursue that avenue that holds the greatest possibility for each individually and both together? Does the fact that I perhaps selfishly want the privilege of dying for Christ disqualify me? Do my years of wastefulness disqualify me? Or will God help me to bear fruit?

Recollections on sin (how nice it would be to feel this way before I sin)

2008-02-19T09:40:00.000-08:00

Sin is interesting isn't it. We keep it close to us and cherish, nourish, protect and defend it while making excuses for it's failings like it's a dear child or best friend who loves us just as much as we love it. In the end it shows it's true nature, that it hates us and all the while has been orchestrating our destruction. This lying and betraying is enough in and of itself to make it loathsome and should cause us to hate it and stop cherishing, nourishing, protecting, defending and excusing it, but alas, in a year, month, week or even a day at times, we are told and believe the same lie, and again draw it in close. We make all kinds of excuses for it such as, “Well I'm so much more holy now.”, “I'll be ready this time.”, “That was just a fluke.”, “I can control it now.” or any number of others. I'm sure you can think of your own favorite justifications. The incredible illogicalness of believing any one of these lies is ample enough proof for me that there must be an actual being, commonly referred to as the Devil, who has been practicing lying for 6000+ years and has mastered it to such a degree that we mere mortals in and of ourselves are helpless not to believe him. Our only hope is to reject our minds' musings and cling to that supernatural truth, God's spoken word the Bible and His Son, the Living Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. With the help of these and the Holy Spirit who enlightens us to Truth, we can resist the Devil's onslaught. Without them we will be laid waste.

If we would only accept our limitations (I cannot bring fire into my bosom and not get burned. I want to think I can, and I think I should be able to, but the truth of the matter is, I can't.) and not flirt with sin, imagine the pain and sorrow we would avoid. This I think may be Satan's most clever lie regarding sin, and perhaps the one I am most prone to believe. With some sins, I've accepted the lie so many times that I'm actually starting to catch on. Now I'll admit it has taken 27 years, and I still fall to them often, but sometimes I'm able to resist. It's not as though Satan has never encountered someone willing to fight him though or who has survived his first attack. He simply pulls out his second arrow, “There won't be any consequences for it. You can get away with it.” and fires away. The Christian, whose resistance is based not on the fact that sin is wrong, against the character of God and therefore should be abstained from regardless of the consequences, but is rather based on the fact that there are consequences for sinning, is totally disarmed and left with no defense. And so he, myself being one heck of an example of such a Christian, goes and sins, thinking that God won't require payment for this sin. Oh, of course there was payment. It is sin, and Christ had to pay for it, but He already did that (I mean to make that sound cheap. It's not. It's the most glorious event in human history, but the way I wrote it is often the way I treat it). What I mean is that the Christian, today tomorrow or whenever, won't have to suffer for it. Ah, again how much pain and suffering we would avoid if we did not think that we could get away with it. Your sin will find you out. It will cost you. God may and probably will be merciful and not chastise you to the degree that He could (You probably won't get an STD from that one-night stand, but you could.), but make no mistake, there will be chastisement (If indeed you are a child of God. If you aren't a child of God, then there won't be any chastisement, just unrelenting supernatural wrath for eternity). As a child of God, if you are fortunate, no one but Christ on the cross and you will suffer for your sin . At best it will be mental anguish for you alone to bear. Much worse is possible and even common. Many men have totally destroyed the lives of the ones who they supposedly loved the most and in the end were left with nothing because they thought there would not be any consequences. At worst, I don't even know the possibilities.

I say all this not for my readers. I say it for myself as I am in the midst of receiving the consequences for my sin. As I wait to see who will suffer along with me and how extensive the damage will be, God has at last brought me to one of those moments of clarity when I feel like I must write something to hopefully spare myself future hardship. Perhaps you can benefit as well. This is one I may suffer for a long time for. The last one like this was about 8 years ago, and I still suffer from it. This one's worse, so the rest of my life isn't out of the question. Others may suffer just as long. May, but hopefully not. God is awfully merciful and awfully gracious. Some have sinned greatly, and God miraculously made the consequences very small. He could do that for me. I believe He has the power, but I don't know that He will. I'm afraid He might say, “Seth, I tried giving you a lesson with lesser consequences, but you didn't learn. You will suffer now. This burden will not be light. And you will know that you have made others suffer as well. Their burden will not be light as well. And it is you who put that burden on them. See them suffer and know that you, Seth, are the cause.” That is what I am afraid God is going to show me as things unfold. All that for three reasons. The first being that I believed Satan when he said there wouldn't be consequences. The second being that I based my obedience on whether or not there will be consequences rather than on what is right in the sight of God. The third being that I'm a selfish bastard who cares more about himself than anyone else.

Whoever you are reading this, my general disposition towards you is probably that I'm smarter than you, better looking than you, more athletic than you, a better Christian than you and a host of other things (and yet despite all this I'd probably somehow also include in there that I'm more humble than you). Now I say this is my general disposition. It is not my current disposition. I don't really have a disposition towards you right now because I can't see you. I have no eyes, and I am laying outside in the grass. The reason I am doing this is because I am dog shit. If you can think of a more derogatory term then insert it instead. Maybe pig shit. That's probably most appropriate all things considered. Or maybe the shit from the dog that ate it's own vomit. That's fairly low. I consider myself in those categories. Again, if you have anything more derogatory, I claim that title as my own. The very superlatives that I pride myself on make my sin all the more grievous. I have read very good books. I have sat under very good ministers and heard countless solid, biblical sermons. I have very good Christian friends. I have felt communion with God to the degree that everything on earth became as loss. I think I understand to some degree the mystery of the cross. I think I have a higher view of God than most, and a lower view of man than most, and thus view the great chasm that Christ crossed to redeem me doubly greater than most. And yet, I said, not literally but in effect, to hell with you Christ. Thanks for going to the cross so I can sin. I'll repent later but for now I'd rather sin.

Damn me. I know I won't burn for this or any other sin, but whatever pain and suffering God brings, I'll deserve it and more. God, pour out your wrath on me. Let me suffer for my failings, but please be merciful to anyone else who suffers on account of me.

Will you work even this for good? Will I someday praise You for this trial? It seems impossible, but I trust Your ways are so much higher than mine that this web of sin I've woven will work itself into the beautiful tapestry of my life that glorifies You, Most High and Exalted God.

I'm sorry, God. Thank You for forgiving me. Thank You for loving me. I don't know why You do. I don't think You should, but I'm glad You do. Whatever happens, I know that as long as You love me then everything will be okay. I love You, God. I know I don't act like it, and I know I usually love myself more, but I do love You. I want to love You more. I don't want to be a selfish, prideful bastard. I want to be humble and serving like Christ. Please help me.

Corbet's Couloir

2008-02-09T07:40:00.000-08:00

Just another quick update. We had some great powder the other day, and so I went to the top of the mountain and did Corbet's Couloir. Since I'm sure you have no idea what that is you can google it or go to http://www.forbes.com/video/?video=fvn/lifestyle/ms_ski012507 and watch some videos of guys running it. It's on youtube as well and is maybe the most famous US run. I totally botched it (along with another chute called the Waterfall that I botched), but I'm still pretty happy to have done it my first season snowboarding. The video shows one preview and then brings up a second one that has it actually being done. I also did the expert chutes, but they're pretty tame. I might try and get my buddy to film me running it next time.

Seth's snowboarding synopsis

2008-02-06T16:35:00.000-08:00

20080206

Been a while again. I can see how it's hard to keep up with these things when you live a normal life. While I was traveling it was no problem to spend 2 hours in a library typing up an update, but now with the confines of normalcy (work and maybe a somewhat unnatural snowboarding habit), it's hard to want to spend the time typing. With normalcy there's also just not as much cool stuff to tell, but I'm sure my adoring audience enjoys my everyday life as much as my eccentricities, so I'll oblige them. I wrote a blog recently that I never published basically telling about a near death experience I had snowboarding. Maybe it wasn't near death, but it was near really painful. I was basically flying through the air about to hit a tree, but fortunately was able to bring my board up and deflect most of the blow. It was a pretty hard impact that I though broke my board in half, but “only” broke the metal edge. But I decided not to publish that one and will rather tell about the near death experience I had yesterday snowboarding. Again, it wasn't really near death, but I'm surprised I came away unscathed. Truly we are all immortal till God is through with us. As for the mishap, I have been progressing quite rapidly with my snowboarding skills and am now going through the terrain park hitting jumps. I started doing jumps a while back, but they were usually pretty small and with powder landings, so even if I busted it was completely safe. The terrain park is different though. It's pretty hard pack and the jumps are pretty big. Plus they are actually jumps while what I was doing before were mainly drops (a couple have been up to about 8 ft. drops which are pretty cool). Anyway, yesterday a friend and I went to the top of the mountain and made an out of bounds run through Rock Springs (great powder) all the way back down the mountain. He left after that, and I didn't want to go off on the mountain by myself in case something happened, so I decided to do laps through the terrain park. I made probably 7 or 8 runs getting some pretty big air (I imagine sometimes I land 15+ ft. from the point of take off) and landing all of them. The terrain park has landings for the jumps, so it's not a super hard landing (unless you totally clear the landing slope and hit on the flat ground which I did a couple times). Anyway, I was making my next to last run and hit the first three jumps better than I had at any point thus far. This in and of itself was good, but that meant for the 4^th jump (which is super steep, and I believe is designed for doing flips off of) I had more speed than I'd ever had on it before. Because it's so steep, it's hard to keep yourself centered over the board. I'd unconsciously been able to do this before, but this time when I went off the jump my board flew out from under me, and I pretty much went flying through the air kind of superman style. While sailing through the air I had a moment to think, “Hmm, this isn't good. I'm about to land head first. I hope this doesn't hurt too ba......” before I felt my face and helmet smash into the snow. I'm not sure I hit head first or if some other part of my body broke the fall first (one of my pinkies is hurting today, so maybe it hit first), but regardless, I hit pretty hard. I really don't think I would be writing this if I hadn't been wearing a helmet (not that I'd be dead, but I'd have at least a concussion for sure). I think I only hit part way on my helmet and rest on my goggles because I totally busted up the lenses. The bridge of my nose is a little bit sore as well and my cheek from where the goggles got mashed into them, but considering what happened, I must once again admit that I am incredibly blessed. Unfortunately no one saw it (or got it on video which would have been even better), so maybe it wasn't as bad as it seemed to me, but it's hard for me to imagine a worse way to land. Go off a jump and pretty much dive straight down. But if you have any fears, I am fine. Today I did the terrain park several more times (though I did purposefully avoid the 4^th jump) and everything was fine. I really want to get some pictures to send you all, so you can see what I'm doing. I'm also kind of wondering if I'm getting as much air as it seems. I've seen a lot of other guys much better than me go off and do tricks and stuff (which I'm not doing yet), but I don't think I've seen any get as much air as I get. Not that they couldn't do it, I'm sure they could, but they don't for whatever reason.

Well, I miss you all a ton. September may be the earliest I get to come visit, but any of you all are welcome out here. A friend of mine who owns a house said you can stay with them in their guest room, so the quality of my living accommodations that Josh mentioned shouldn't be a hindering factor.

Just a quick note

2007-12-02T02:55:00.000-08:00

Not going to say a whole lot, just that I dropped $1137.50 on a season pass to the mountain last week. Yes, $1137.50. That is a lot of of money for someone who doesn't even know how to snowboard yet. But I did go yesterday (12/1/07). By midday I was doing okay. Still wiping out and getting going faster than I was comfortable, but definitely a good bit of improvement from the beginning of the day and the one other time I went a couple years ago. My left butt cheek is pretty sore from catching my back edge, and my neck is a bit stiff from one pretty nasty bust. I also fell and ran into a dude once. But all in all, a lot of fun, and I'm excited about getting better.

Love and miss you all. Love all the pictures.

More misadventures of Seth

2007-11-26T09:49:00.000-08:00

Warning, another long one.

Is it just me, or does it seems that my plans never go according to plan? Not that I am lamenting it. Most of my most enjoyable memories have arisen from most of my most miserable misfortunes. I think it is God’s ever-present witness of His sovereignty in my life. If all of my plans went according to plan, and all of my happiness arose from my happy situations, there would be little cause for praising and worshipping God. But alas, this is certainly not the case for me. A simple recollection is plenty enough proof for me that God is working all things for my good. Friday after Thanksgiving was just such a day. My friend Greg, the Overnight Bellman at the Four Seasons who I share those most active hours of the day 2300 to 0700 with, and I went fishing together down on the Salt River after work Friday. Though it was still pretty cold, the sun was shining and it was looking like it was going to be a beautiful day. We drove down to Alpine (small town south of Jackson) where he lives and ate some breakfast (whole wheat bread with honey that was surprisingly tasty and filling) and waited for it to warm up a bit. Since Greg doesn’t fly fish, and I didn’t know the river, I decided to just borrow a spinning rod from him and fish that way. We stopped at the local shop, and I bought a rooster tail and a sinking Rapala crankbait for the exhorbent prices of $2.50 and $9.25 respectively. Yes, that’s right, $9 freakin 25 for one lure (Remember that, it’s important to the story). Anyway, we began fishing and knowing that I am prone to losing lures, I began with the rooster tail. No joke, first cast I get hung, can’t get it free, break the line, I’m out my $2.50 rooster tail. But it was a beautiful day, and I was glad to be out doing something, so I didn’t mind. Of course now I’m even antsier about using my $9.25 Rapala (that’s before tax, too), so I borrow one of Greg’s rooster tails. I fish with this for a while and hook two, but lose them both. In the meantime Greg hooks and lands one with his $8.50 Rapala. He offers to let me use another copy of the same lure, but I’m still a bit nervous about losing it, so I decline. We continue on walking down the river fishing. My fingers keep starting to hurt, and so I have to keep shaking them to get the blood flowing back into them and warm them up. Eventually Greg tells me to stuff them down my pants, which works really well since I’m wearing fleece pants underneath my snowboard pants (When I say pretty cold, that means snow on the ground and below freezing, not TN pretty cold as in 60 degrees). Anyway I finally thought I’d figured out how to fish the Rapala (yes, the $9 freakin 25 Rapala) without losing it, so I tied it on. I fished for a while, but was seriously considering quitting because my thumb was hurting so badly from the cold. When I would put my gloves on to keep them warm, they kept catching on the reel, and I could barely wind it in. Greg told me I’ve got to try this one more place before we go back so I walk down the river a ways to where the Salt runs into the Snake River. I fished there for a while and was getting ready to call it a day when, yes, need I say it, I get my $9 freakin 25 Rapala hung. I walked up and down the bank trying to change the angle hoping to work it free but to no avail. That went on for a while, but eventually I conceded and tried to pull it free or break the line. To my utter excitement, the lure pulled free. Of course, in my attempts to get it free, the line had gotten tangled up in some brush out in the river and would get hung again as soon as I tried to reel it in. I slowly pull the lure up to the brush and give it one big jerk to try and pull it through. It came through perfectly and I excitedly yelled over to Greg that I had gotten it free. I started reeling it in only to discover that somehow (and this one I don’t understand) I was hung again. This time I could see its green and yellow body in the water only about 15 feet away in what looked like water only about a foot to foot and a half deep. I again walked up and down the bank trying to work it loose but to no avail. Eventually I had to try and pull it free and the line broke. Now I’d been fishing with the lure for quite a while with no luck, and I wasn’t a spin fisherman anyway, so the lure wasn’t super important to me, but just the principle of losing a lure that costs $9 freakin 25 on my first day and in a place where I could see it just didn’t sit well with me. So I told Greg I was going in after it. Now as I said, it was pretty cold, but I didn’t mention that the whole bank along which we’d been fishing was lined with ice. Big sheets of ice had been floating down the river all day, at times getting caught in eddies and flipping halfway out of the water. In fact I’d gotten hung on ice several times throughout the day. So I knew the water was going to be cold, but I didn’t think it would be a big deal. I’d strip down to my underwear, wade in (the water shouldn’t get above my knees), get the lure, dry off with my fleece pants and then clothe back up good as new. Greg tried his best to persuade me not to, but really I just couldn’t walk away from a lure so expensive and so close. I got him to come over because I imagined I wasn’t going to be able to climb back up the back. I stood there shivering in my underwear and base layer shirt, standing on my neck warmer, so I wouldn’t have to put my bare feet in the snow, waiting for him. He eventually came over, and I climbed down the bank. At the point I had chosen to enter the water, there was a sheet of ice extending about 4 to 5 feet out into the river. I stepped on this slowly weighting it to break through. It broke fairly easily and I stepped down through the water on to what I thought was going to be rounded rocks. This was another miscalculation, as the bottom was mud that was slightly textured and looked like rocks. I got out of the water to look again, but everywhere there was just mud that looked like rocks, but no rocks. That one step in had also giving me a taste of the temperature of the water, and it was cold. I knew it was going to be cold, but mentally you can’t really prepare for that extreme of a cold. It’s always colder than what you thought. Plus the water was deeper than appeared and with sinking in the mud, the water had already been above my knees, and that had been just the first step. I contemplated not going back in, but I was wet already, and I’d already told Greg I was going to get it, so back in I went. I walked out to it, losing feeling in my feet as I went and getting deeper as I went. When I got within about 3 feet of it, besides almost slipping and getting completely wet and the water lapping dangerously close to my groin area, I realized that I would have to submerge my whole arm in to reach the lure. That didn’t seem too appealing as it meant I’d get my shirt wet, and I could totally see myself falling while trying to bend over and reach it while shivering and with completely numb feet. I got Greg to toss me a rod which I caught (all those years of football coming in handy) and was surprisingly able to fish the lure out easily. When I reached to pull it off the rod though, I couldn’t help but chuckle. At some point in trying to get it free, I had broken the entire bill off, part of the wooden body and the ring to attach the line. Ha. The lure was completely destroyed and worthless. Ha. I’m laughing about it even now. I told Greg and he began laughing even harder. Apparently the sight of me in my underwear wading through ice is a comical scene, so he’d already been laughing a good bit. I waded back to the bank, got help climbing out and stood there shivering just laughing. I had planned on coming out the water clean, but instead my feet were covered in mud, so I grab my fleece pants and started cleaning them and drying off. My legs were cold, but my feet felt like ice blocks. Actually, they didn’t feel like anything. It just felt like something was there at the end of my leg, but there wasn’t enough feeling to know anything about it. I finally got my socks, fleece pants, snowboard pants, boots and two jackets back on and immediately started walking back to the truck. We were probably close to half a mile away from the truck by then, which at first I was dreading, but the walking ended being the best thing for me. For the first quarter mile or so, I was just walking on those unknowable things at the end of my legs. After that, a little bit of a burning sensation came (which I actually welcomed) and by the time I reached the truck I was good as new. I had planned to get in and crank up the heat and throw my feet up in front of the vents, but the walking had sufficiently circulated my blood to warm them. I waited for Greg, who I unfortunately missed seeing almost bust scrambling up the rock covered hillside. We got in his truck and eventually got turned around, almost getting stuck several times and eventually headed back down the icy road, almost sliding off of it a couple of times.

So what lessons can we learn from this. The first one is pretty obvious. I’m an idiot. I think I pride myself on being a pretty smart guy, but really, I’m pretty stupid. I make a lot of bad decisions that miraculously all work out fine. At some point people are going to start catching on to this and realize that I’ve bs’ed my way through 27 years of life. I can totally see how people get hypothermia and die from falling in freezing water now. Fortunately Greg was there so that even if I had slipped he could have fished me out, but if someone were to accidentally submerge in water like that, even for a moment, I could see how they could die. First, your head getting that cold that quick would probably really screw up your thinking and give you at best a splitting headache, at worst maybe knock you unconscious. Second, your hands getting that cold would probably make them totally worthless as far as intricate tasks such as buttoning, zipping, tying shoe laces, starting a fire and maybe even putting clothes on or taking clothes off. Third, you would lose a vast amount of heat in the brief time you were submerged and continue to lose it until you dried off (which would be difficult with your hands as functional as clubs). All this to say, I should be careful. Not that I really care whether I live or die, but what a lame way to go. “Yeah, we found him frozen. He went fishing, fell in and died before he could get back to get help and warm up.” Lame.

I haven’t decided what I’m going to do with the $9 freakin 25 Rapala. I kept it of course, and it has become my new favorite lure. No way I’d sell it for a meager $9 freakin 25.

Thoughts for the day

2007-11-02T17:32:00.000-07:00

This is what I wrote in my journal today. I hope that I truly believe it.

God, why have You chosen me to pour out Your blessings on? I am certainly no more deserving than countless others. If I have a superlative or distinguishing trait, it is only that I am most wicked. And yet, everywhere I go, You maketh me to lie down in green pastures, leadeth me beside the still waters and prepareth a table for me in the resence of mine enemies. My cup runneth over. Of billions of humans, , why have You given grace to me? You knew I would fail You. You knew I would heap up idols above You. You knew I would look at the cross, knowing what it means, and spit upon it. You knew that I would squander Your gifts and blessings, and seek to glorify myself rather than You. Is it my exceeding wickedness? Truly no man is without hope if You are willing and able to save one such as I. If it is my lot to be a trophy to the great extent of Your ability to forgive the greatest of sinners, so be it. But may I also be a testament to Your power to not just forgive, but change lives? Would You glorify Yourself by causing such a sinner to be such a saint? And yet how can I ask for more, when I have received so much. Regardless of what You do, from justly damning me to everlasting torment, or mercifully calling me to Your glorious presence forever, You are beautiful. In every way perfect. Just, yet merciful. Beyond comprehension, yet knowable. If sending me to Hell to bear unquenchable, unending pain and misery most glorifies You, then I await the flames. In the midst of my screams of pain, I will still say, “Praise Jehovah.”

Settled in

2007-10-17T11:41:00.000-07:00

I got moved into my apartment this week and have spent 2 nights there. My roommate, Ben, seems like a really good Christian guy, and I look forward to getting to know him better. The apartment is small, but meets my needs. It's one room with a loft, small kitchen, a very small bathroom and the smallest shower I've ever been in. Ben has the loft and doesn't take up much space, so I've got plenty of room to store all my books, workout stuff, fly fishing gear, snowboarding gear, clothes and food items. I've actually got a 5 door dresser which is really nice. Even in the place I've been for the last month, I was still living out of my suitcase and had half my stuff still in m car. Anyway, I'm very thankful for it. I also joined the local climbing gym last week. It's really nice and has a fair amount of exercise equipment, so I don't have to join another gym just for that. The class at the Bible College last week was very helpful. It was Survey of th Old Testament taught by Dr. Benware. I didn't get to attend all the classes but found the first three helpful (I'm almost completely ignorant of the OT). He comes from a hardcore Dispensational Premill perspective, which I'm pretty sure I don't agree with, so there was a lot of his interpretation that I probably will reject, but factual accounts and for a summary of the story of the OT I thought it was good. I don't know how many more I'll be able to attend now that I'm working.

I've made a fairly good friend here, Luca. He's from Sardinia (island west of Italy). He was working at the Four Seasons, but for the winter he works as a snowboarding instructor (which is nice for me). He's also a fairly accomplished photographer and probably the most well traveled person I know (travel for leisure at least). It's interesting because we get along well and have much in common, but he is at best agnostic, more like antagonistically atheistic. I am yet to meet someone who shares my devout, fairly orthodox religious beliefs and worldview and still seeks adventure and unique experiences. And that's just anybody, much less a girl like that.

I am quite undecided about what I will do in the future. I plan on staying here for roughly a year at least, but after that I don't know. Washington, Oregon and Montana are still very desirable to see at least, and southern California is still a place I may want to live for awhile. Going back to Denver is also an option that has more than a couple things going for it. If I can become a server at one of the nicer restaurants here in Jackson, I can work summers and winters, have the springs and falls off to travel and still make really good money. The opportunity to travel globally is incredibly appealing to me and now looking like an actual possiblity. Spending the rest of my life in Jackson is attractive as well. I try not to think too much about it and ruin the amazing opportunity I have right now. If things work out as it looks like they will, this year I should be able make more money than ever before, learn to snowboard, get back in shape and grow closer to Christ than ever before. Why ruin that by worrying about the future? And in truth, because I know God is directing each of my steps for my good, every possibility I imagine and even those I can't think of, are so appealing that in some ways I don't care. It's like being anxious about whether I win a million dollars in $100 bills or $50 bills. Who cares, it's a million dollars.

Well, that's it. Hope all of you are doing well. Love and miss you all, specially Radnor and Caleb.

A wanderer no more

2007-10-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been awhile. I hope you are all doing well. It's been a fairly busy September for me. I guess the biggest news is that I have a job. Today I started as a security officer at The Four Seasons of Jackson Hole. It's one of, if not the best, ski resort hotel in the country and a pretty ritzy place. Once my training is over I'll be working the night shift from 11 pm to 7 am, which kind of sucks, but I make $17.45/hr, so I'm not complaining. It's kind of funny that I left a part-time job in Nashville with the intention of not working at all, and here I am beginning my first full-time job ever. After six months I can transfer to another position or after a year transfer to another Four Seasons. They're all over the world and if I'm still single next winter or spring, I'll probably try and transfer to some exotic place like Hawaii, Costa Rica or something. But for now I'm really enjoying Jackson. Last week I was able to audit the class, Universe by Design at the Jackson Hole Bible College. It was excellent and incredibly enlightening for me. It kind of pisses me off how much 'fact' I have been taught through the years that is unproven and even unsupported by scientific evidence. I'd highly recommend “Tornadoes in a Junkyard” to anyone who wants to examine the issues of evolution vs intelligent design and evidence for a global flood. I also caught three Snake River Cutthroat Trout last week. The largest, 17 3/4” was the most brilliant orange you can imagine. Unfortunately I didn't have my camera with me. I also just got back from my first trip to Yellowstone. I was only there for 2 days but saw a bear and two cubs, tons of bison and elk, two coyotes, four bald eagles, mule deer and I don't remember what else. I stayed at Chico Hot Springs Resort just north of the park. It was pretty neat, and I had the tenderest filet mignon I've ever had. On that note, I've been eating some wonderful food (which would account for my stomach being the least defined it's been in a couple years) at some of the restaurants. I've had some very good duck, the best shrimp I've ever had, some scallops that were the best seafood I've ever had, a really good crab baked thingy, the best lamb I've ever had, the best calamari I've ever had and some good salads and desserts. This also is kind of funny considering I left with the intention of not eating out at all and basically it my oats, fruit and tuna for days on end. I also went to the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody, WY. It was quite interesting. In one section with all the guns (I have no idea how many they had but I got tired of looking at them), they had a bunch of world record or near world record mounts of moose, elk, bighorn, etc. Some of the racks were so big it was kind of ridiculous, but still quite impressive. On a sadder note, with this new job I'm pretty sure I won't be back to Nashville for Thanksgiving or Christmas. There's a chance I can visit in March, but I won't have any vacation by that time, so we'll see. I am planning on coming in September for the beach trip, but that might be the earliest I can get back. Well, I miss you all but can say that I am having the best time of my life. I would invite any of you to come and visit me, but I don't think the place I'm moving to is going to be big enough and the plane ticket would be ~$500.

Free will discussion

2007-09-14T14:43:00.000-07:00

This is a message I sent to a girl from myspace who I'm discussing soteriology with. I thought it might be something my family would find interesting (or blasphemous). I post this one because I think it shows clearly the difference in reformed theology (or at least mine) and typical evangelical theology and why I have rejected it. Apologies for all the grammatical errors. These things take me forever to write even with the errors. Anyway,

After reading this I think I again come across as angry. Again, I am not. Try to hear my point rather than my tone. This is just the way I write.

I think the "free will" that we as humans have is not totally free because of the fall. When Adam sinned, it enslaved his will to sin, and he could no longer choose to please God. He had free will, but only to do evil. Man by himself is spiritually dead and cannot choose God until God first chooses him and makes him alive. Then man's will is free to choose God (which any person God makes alive always responds by then choosing God). The best example I know of is Jesus and Lazarus. Lazarus was dead (physically, but I think the analogy is to the spiritual realm). He could not respond until Jesus said, "Lazarus, come forth." There is life giving and creative power in God/Jesus' commands. If you look at it chronologically, Lazarus is dead, Jesus calls him, makes him alive and then the last thing is Lazarus responds by coming forth. When viewing my own salvation, I was dead in sin unable to do anything to please God (though this does not mean I was as bad as I could have been or that there was no appearance of good, my heart did not have God enthroned and thus any good works were not true good works. Without faith it is impossible to please God.) God, not because of anything he saw in me (nor because of any choice he saw I would make for Him) came in and regenerated me and gave me life. Then I, just like Lazarus, responded by having faith and repentance and accepting Christ. So it's not that I'm any better than anyone else, God chose to display His grace to me because He is God and can show His grace to who He wants to. Now as a Christian, God has freed my will, and I can please Him, though even my good deeds are because Him (for it is He who works in us both to will and to do according to His good pleasure Philippians 2:13) All of those issues you mentioned (she mentioned several issues that appear as "setbacks" or "unfortunate" events in the history of God's people) I think were and are part of God's plan to glorify Himself. I think that is one of the most important discoveries God showed me in coming to a reformed understanding. God is most concerned with His glory. He could have made everyone go to Heaven and there be no Hell, but this would not have most glorified Him. In fact I think that everything that has, is and will happen is exactly what God wants. I really believe that with all the sin, the world is perfect. Not according to my view, but according to God's view. This is pretty heady stuff, and a lot of people aren't ready to hear and believe that God is actually God. They want to use the term God but strip it of it's meaning. By calling God, God, it is acknowledging that He can do whatever He wants. He is the standard. Most people want God to be like we are, but He's not. He's so much infinitely above us. To limit Him in any way is to deny He is God. That is why I disagree with the typical view of free will. Free will, if defined as man's ability to act outside of the determination of God, I totally disagree with. If I were to concede this one point then I must admit God is not God, Christianity is a farce, I am still in my sin and have no hope. Either that or my conscious lies to me and really there is no guilt and this life truly is all there is. Either way we should eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Warning, this one's long.

2007-09-09T12:19:00.001-07:00

Well, I am in Jackson, WY right now, right outside of the Grand Teton NP (which I purposely have not been in yet since I'm still unable to take pictures). I went to Jackson Hole Community Bible Church this morning and had an enjoyable worship service. Again very different from RBC Nashville, but I believe sincere believers trying to serve the Lord. The main thrust of the message was that we as Christians are the legacy of Christ (legacy being understood as the influence one leaves here on earth after death). Though a simple lesson, it is profound, and one I am in need of being reminded of. It is amazing how many simple (or not so simple), truths of the gospel I have forgotten. Sundays and the preaching of the word are such a blessing if for no other reason than to be reminded that God is there, He is not silent, and there is a way we must therefore live. I look forward to spending the next several weeks visiting here as I enjoy the fishing, photography and hiking opportunities in the Tetons.

Last night I parked in a church parking lot, and laid out my mat and sleeping bag in there lawn. It was a fairly dark area, and I anticipated a nice night's sleep. It is already a bit chilly here at night (I'm in northwestern WY and at 6234' elevation), so I sleep in pants, a T shirt, long sleeve shirt and wool socks, with my lower body also wrapped in a fleece blanket, all inside my mummy bag zipped completely up. Oh and a wool neck warmer around my head and ears. While I definitely don't get hot, this does keep me from getting more than slightly chilly (This has always been my problem with camping out, when I go to sleep and my metabolism and heart rate slow down, I get really cold, especially my feet. I'm fairly lean body fat wise right now as well, so there's not much insulation). Last night however, after being asleep I don't know how long, I felt raindrops on the small bit of my face that was exposed. This of course woke me up, but only lasted a couple of seconds. Still kind of groggy, I began to contemplate getting up, but as it only sprinkled, I thought perhaps it was over. Again though, the sprinkles came, whetted my face, and left again after only a couple seconds. Finally starting to wake up, I gazed at the sky, which was quite clear. I assumed that must have been it. But again, the same thing happened. Again I looked at the sky and realized this time that the sky was not quite clear but completely clear. With as many stars as I could see there was no way there was a single cloud up there. In realizing all this, I again got sprinkled on. All total I don't know how many times I got sprinkled on before I realized it was the sprinkler system, but it was more than one should need. I'm hoping that it was the sleepiness, and I'm not as stupid as this makes me sound. Finally I did move, but was already a bit wet and my bag, so the rest of the night wasn't as nice as I'd hoped. Which is what I'm blaming my yawns in the sermon on this morning.

For the several days prior to yesterday, I'd been in Rock Springs, WY. Don't go there. It's a pretty boring place. I'd driven there from the cool little town of Saratoga (which is over 100 miles away) trying to get cell service (which I didn't until I reached Jackson). I had to stay there waiting on a package (which still hasn't arrived). I spent a miserable night in my car at a Walmart parking lot (just too bright to sleep) and a better one camped out in the desert at the end of some road. But even here I was kind of worried that my car was going to get towed, or I was going to get run over by an ATV. I'm a little bit excited about going back to Rock Springs to pick up the package, though. I'm thinking about trying to hitchhike there and back to save gas money. I've never hitchhiked but always thought it would be fun (Whenever I do decide to visit Nashville I may try and do it by hitchhiking). I may drive though, because on the way to Jackson, I stopped at Pinedale and visited a flyshop. There I met Leal, a gentleman in his seventies, and we talked for well over an hour, maybe two. There is apparently some great fly fishing there, and the Wind River Mountain Range sounds pretty amazing. So we'll see.

Prior to all this I spent a night in Medicine Bow National Forest. This is along scenic Highway 130 from Laramie to Saratoga. I was going to stay here for several days, but my first night I was in a pretty awesome hail storm at above 11,000'. Lots of lightning as well. This was cool as I was in sleeping in my car and not camping out, but the next morning when I'd planned on hiking to some mountains lakes, it again did it. If it had cleared up I still would have went, but the cloud coverage coupled with being alone in bear country in a place I'd never been without cell phone service persuaded me to only stay the one night.

Prior to this I spent the better part of a day at the University of WY in Laramie, but didn't sleep there. Instead I'd slept about 30 miles south along Hwy 287. I think I saw a wolf on the side of road there as well. That night I'd driven as far as I could before getting tired and then pulled on what I thought would be a rarely traveled dirt road. Because there were ditches on the sides of the road, I just pulled to the side, laid out my mat and sleeping bag and slept on the road, thinking no cars would come before I was up and gone around 5-5:30. Again, my assumptions were wrong and sometime, probably around 2-3 am, I was startled awake by a growing noise. At last, and after growing quite loud, a semi came barreling down the dirt road at what must have been 50+ mph not much more than 5 feet from me wrapped in my sleeping bag in the road. Knowing that a car coming was a possibility, I'd slept in front of my own car, so the odds of getting run over were small. I couldn't help but think how ironic if a car hit my car thereby causing my own car to run over me. I thought of this couldn't help but hold my breath each time I heard a car coming (which ended up being about 5 before I finally got up at 5:30).

Prior to this I was again staying with my friend, Matt. On my last night I was able to meet some Catholic missionaries (missionaries to students at Colorado University in Boulder, not international missionaries). There were 3 guys, 3 girls, all in there twenties plus a couple more people and two priest, Kevin and Pete. All were very impressive young people, and Kevin is a really knowledgeable guy.

Prior to this (this is the last one), I spent several days with the Fightmasters (And while I do like the name Walters, you have to admit Fightmaster is pretty cool. Some ancestor of theirs must have been a total BA). They're a family from the L2 church I'd been visiting. I ended spending several days with them and am actually sending them postcards of my travels. There youngest, Alex, is probably the biggest snake feen I've ever met. (Feen by the way is not a word, but a corruption of 'fiend', but I think it should be a word.) We did a bit of snake hunting with no luck, but we did catch a bunny. The first thing you see when you go in their garage is about 5 rattles from rattlesnakes they've killed in their yard, so you know they're there. Anyway, I had a great time. It's so enjoyable to be so openly received into someone's home and get to become a small part of their lives and have them become a part of yours.

Okay, that's it. Love and miss you family.

Leaving Denver

2007-09-04T19:48:00.000-07:00

Just a quick update to let everyone know I'm leaving Denver and heading to Laramie, WY. I'll post a recap of the last week in Denver when I get the chance.

Seth

What I've been up to

2007-08-24T16:21:00.000-07:00

Well it has been quite a while since my last post. I'm sure you all have been sitting on the edge of your seats, checking multiple times a day to hear a word from me. As for my Civic, because I had taken out the back seat (to make more room), it's trade in value dropped to $0. While at the impound lot, it also wracked up about $200 in fees, and I ended up just signing over the title to them. All in all it cost me about $100 to get rid of it. In addition the blame for the accident came down solely on me, so I have a ticket to pay and insurance gave me nothing (though they did cover damages to the other party). I bought a 96 Toyota Corolla, and though not quite the car I had in terms of power and gas mileage, I am thankful to God for His provision. All of this has severely dampened my plans, as I have $4000 less to live off of for the next four and half months, but am confident that I can manage. Perhaps I may even have to be frugal out of necessity rather than choice.

For the next couple of nights I will be staying with a family from the church I've been visiting here. I spent a night in my car while visiting Rocky Mountain National Park (a magnificent park and relatively unknown compared to some of the others), but the majority of the time has been spent at my friend Matt's apartment. I really don't even know how many nights I've spent at his place, but it has been several.

Today I again went flyfishing on the South Platte. After a couple hours without success, I again tied on a grasshopper pattern and began drift fishing it along the bank. About 20 yards upstream of where I caught my fish mentioned in my earlier post, I was again blessed. The fly was drifting through some rapids, at which point I lost sight of it in the foam, but saw a splash near where I knew it was. I took up the slack, hopeful, but unsure if the fish had taken my grasshopper. The line tightened but the fly stayed under. I was either hung or had one. I pulled on the line a bit more and felt movement, then saw the telltale silver flash of a fish fighting. I maintained my composure a bit better this time, and without a whole lot of difficulty, drug him on to the bank. It was a nice rainbow, probably 14+ inches (by far my biggest trout). Of course nothing goes without incident, and several times he wiggled out of my hands, but fortunately I hadn't removed the fly. When my buddy Ryan arrived with my camera to take a couple shots, I realized my 1 GB card was full. Eventually we got the pictures (which can be seen at www.myspace.com/weedyseadragon along with my RMNP pictures) and released the fish. Many would consider a day catching one fish pretty miserable, but I was quite happy.

I've been reading “The Salvation Controversy” a Catholic explanation of the differing views of salvation. I am just now to the author's explanation of TULIP and am anxious to see what problems he has with it. It has been very enlightening up to this point. It has cleared up a fair amount of confusion regarding terminology. I think Catholics have done a poor job of qualifying their statements, and Protestants have done a poor job in overreacting to Catholic terminology. I also just received “He Shall Have Dominion” in the mail and have read through the foreword. It comes highly recommended by Pastor Russ and is regarded as the definitive exposition of the post-mil position. I am anxious to delve into it, as I am very ignorant in my eschatology. It is a 500+ page book though, and I imagine will take me some time to finish it.

I am at last planning on leaving Denver, probably Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. I am somewhat reluctant to do so, as I have made several friends and have truly enjoyed my time here. I have not, however, met a girl enticing enough to keep me here, and so the lure of adventures in unseen mountains and the Pacific northwest pull me on.

My plan is to perhaps visit RMNP again, then to WY to see the Wind River Range, the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone.

Hope all of you all are well. I appreciate the comments, emails and correspondence I receive. I honestly really look forward to hearing from you.

Confession and repentence

2007-08-12T17:53:00.000-07:00

I am cut to the heart. Today I heard an excellent sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 and must confess that I am an utter failure as a Christian and repent before God. It was nothing new, but I believe I was more ready to hear it now. After a sober-self assessment, I must confess that if anyone has never loved, it is I. I have rejoiced that my external conformity to God's law has increased, but neglected the very heart of obedience. I have sought to speak and write with the tongues of men and angels, and have sought to grow in my knowledge and understanding of the mysteries of life, and have trusted in God's good providence above all, and have entertained ideas of taking vows of poverty and even dream that one day I may be counted worthy to give my body for the sake of the gospel, and at last have realized it has been, is or would be all for naught. None of these works would pass through the fire of judgment. It would do me no good nor bring any glory to God, for I have no love. I do not suffer long, in fact I suffer none at all. I am not kind, only indifferent. I envy all who have what I do not possess. I can think of no one who parades himself more, nor anyone who is more puffed up about so little. I am rude to all who are not as I am, and have only ever sought my own. There is not one deed that rises up in my mind to oppose my conviction of self seeking. I have prided myself on my patience, but it is a patience of indifference. I have no tolerance for anyone who opposes my preferences. I see first always the evil, and only reluctantly accept a brother. I rejoice when judgment comes on any but myself, and despise the truth when it convicts me of sin. I have borne nothing, distrust all, hope only for final redemption and can endure only pleasure. Love never fails, but I have never succeeded. The sum of all the commandments, love God and love thy neighbor, I have missed. Oh, wretched man that I am.

I have said it is doubtful I will ever marry because it is doubtful I will ever find someone (other than Christ) who I consider worthy of me daily giving myself for. Someone who I would sacrifice my own hopes and dreams for. And while it may be true I have this freedom in choosing a mate, who am I too say who is worthy of my efforts? What rights do I have when I have been bought and paid for by Christ's blood? In truth I have no efforts, for all that I am is Christ's, and all my efforts are Christ's efforts. I can not say someone is not worth my personal goals because they are such and such a person and not such and such a person. Christ came and gave His life for just such and such a person, sinners great and small, of whom I am chief. In fact it is only in giving my life for just such and such a person, that I can attain any worth. This is exactly what Christ has called all Christians to do, just as He did, give their lives for undeserving people.

Lord, forgive me of my wretchedness and give me a heart for others rather than myself. Amen.

2007-08-10T20:52:00.000-07:00

Been a couple days since the car update. The situation at present is that my car is totaled, I sold it for $400, and should be getting a 96 Toyota Corolla next week (how a chick can resist a guy driving a 96 Corolla that gets 40+ mpg is beyond me). For now my buddy Matt, who I was staying with, has given me his car while he's in LA (brave guy, I know). But since he's out of town I'm staying with a pastor and his family until he gets back. Really I can't even express how much God has provided for me. I've wanted for nothing. The time spent with my Catholic friend was I think beneficial to us both, and talking and listening to Pastor Russ has been very enlightening.

I also had the chance to read two excellent books, A Refutation of Moral Relativism and Good News About Sex and Marriage. A Refutation of Moral Relativism really does totally show the inconsistencies and irrationality of relativism, and I am convinced that those who hold to it do not do so out of intelligent, thoughtful evaluation of the arguments, but out of willful suppression of the truth to ease their consciences. Good News About Sex and Marriage is the incredibly condensed version of John Paul II's Gospel of the Body. My Catholic friend and I are about to begin studying through this work, but it's so heady (and probably beyond my intellectual grasp), another book, Theology of the Body Explained, (a commentary on Gospel of the Body) is necessary. Together the two of them are above 1200 pages, and this is undoubtedly the most in depth study I've ever done, especially on one issue. Why I am choosing to do it on this issue (which the titles are somewhat misleading, sex and marriage is the subject, the body only in relation to them, not the stewardship of the body) I'm not completely sure. Partially because my understanding is so warped and un-biblical from our degenerate society, and partially because I believe Christian reformed circles (and non-reformed circles even more so) are sorely deficient in this area. I also believe this to be at the heart of the destruction of true masculinity and femininity, primarily responsible for the breakdown of the family unit and more so than anything else why our society is going to crap. It is interesting that in A Refutation of Moral Relativism, the author makes the case that the primary reason moral relativism is so attractive is as a means of justifying illicit sex. I have to agree because it's on these grounds that I would like to accept moral relativism, but thankfully I cannot accept what I know to be a lie.

On a completely different note, I just watched The Great Global Warming Swindle at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
I recommend everyone watch it, just as I recommended everyone watch An Inconvenient Truth. By avoiding it you are choosing to remain ignorant on one of the most important cultural issues of our day (whether it should be or not is debatable, but it is regardless). If you believe the whole global warming thing is bs, you should watch it to get some intelligent reasons to believe it's bs, rather than just the, “The earth is so big.” If on the other hand you are one who thinks anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is an idiot, you should watch to find out how intelligent people are able to not believe in it.

The film was very instructive about the origins of global warming, the influence the media has had and most importantly, rational alternatives to the very observable global warming. I think one fundamental issue that people need clarification on is what global warming is and is not. Global warming in and of itself is not really debated, it's a pretty observable fact. The issue at hand is whether or not man is primarily responsible for the warming (due to the greenhouse gas CO2 resulting from human industry, etc).

And though I would now say I really don't think global warming is that big of an issue, this does not at all affect my stance on things such as reduce/reuse/recycle and pollution. My stances concerning these are not pragmatic, but absolute. Environmental pollution and failure to reduce/reuse/recycle are all areas of poor stewardship of the dominion mandate God has given us to rule the earth. They aren't wrong because of the outcome, but because they are failure to obey God's command. Fortunately we have such a God that is infinitely wise that He has made those things that are harmful sinful and those things beneficial to us allowable. This however kind of gets into are, “Are they wrong because He commanded not to do them, or did He command not to do them because they are wrong?” Ultimately I think they are wrong because they are contrary to His character and thus He commanded against them (or positively speaking, He commanded for some things because it was in accordance with His character).

2007-08-08T16:45:00.000-07:00

At the end of my journaling last night I wrote, “Lord, I am ready. Only please be gentle for You know I weak. Nevertheless, not my will but thy will be done.” I have often prayed such prayers that God would try me and test me to refine me and rid me of my worldliness. I have always made this request with some fear, for I knew the chastisement of God would not be pleasant at the time, but necessary and ultimately for my good. Despite these prayers I was not expecting to be in a car accident this morning with a possibly totaled car, ticket for failure to yield, likely higher insurance premiums and unlikely to receive any reimbursement for the damage to my car. Thankfully no one was hurt, and the only damage was to the vehicles. I am somewhat at a loss as to what to do (since I not only lost my means of transportation but also my house), but am confident God was and is watching over me. My friend Matt, who I was visiting, has been a true friend and brother to me in remaining with me and offering me a place and even places to stay almost indefinitely. Truly God is merciful with His people even in His judgments. I am still waiting to have the damages to the car accessed, but I believe it is substantial. Of the damage to my possessions I don't know yet, but I believe my guitar is destroyed.

I am undaunted, however, for I am as certain or more so of God's work in this as in any good gift I have received from Him. Lord willing I will soon continue on with my journey, hopefully more sobered and thankful than before. Certainly this could have been my end, and while I am ready to die and even think with joy that I was so close to seeing my Savior, I am confronted with my own mortality. I feel compelled to ask you, my readers, if you have confronted yours, or do you amble on through life with no thoughts of eternity. Does your conscience pain you, or have you ignored it for so long you can no longer feel it? Or do you think that God will not require payment for your sins? I know my life of selfishness, worldly lusts and pride scream out in condemnation of me, but I have an advocate with the Father, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Can you also say that Christ is most lovely? That all your hope is in Him? Or do you even think of Him? Whenever your time on this earth draws to an end, be it soon or late, and your secret thoughts and deeds rise up to drag you to hell, who will be your advocate? He alone is able to save, but He is willing only now. No amount of pleas will move Him with compassion in that day. You will be told, “Depart from me for I never knew you.” Do not think yourself in no danger because you are no worse than me. Indeed, my sins are great, but my forgiveness is greater. God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is alone able to forgive sins. Apart from Him you will perish. I speak not of muttering some prayer in a moment of guilt, but in a life of dying daily for Him. Of ever falling more in love with Him. This is what it is to be a Christian. I regret my life has been such a poor example of this, but I beg you not to reject the message because of the messenger. Do not let even this blog rise up to condemn you, for truly you are without excuse before the Lord. I am not trying to judge you, for I cannot see into your soul, but judge yourselves whether you are in the faith or merely deceived.

Seth

What I've been doing in Colorado

2007-08-04T23:16:00.000-07:00

David and I left the Denver Tech Center Marriott this morning, dropped off Ryan's flyfishing stuff I had borrowed and headed to Buena Vista, CO. It was an amazing drive along highways 285 and 24 that made a great backdrop for some good conversation. I am at this moment sitting on a crude stool made from an upended sawed log, being warmed by a fire I built, in a gorgeous, rustic but comfortable wood and stone chalet perched at 12,106' overlooking the headwaters of the Arkansas River, journaling for the past several days. The chalet is surrounded by 1000 year old bristlecone pine and currently there is a very impressive lightning storm going on all around me. Many of the bolts are in fact at my elevation out over the valley. The road to get here climbed more than 3000' over a couple miles and was far and away the worst road I have ever been on. It is barely wide enough for one vehicle, one side rocks, trees and the mountain and the other an amazingly steep drop off. Fortunately our rented Ford Edge had enough clearance, but we still scraped several times going over the huge rocks and deep runoff ditches. We of course ran into several vehicles (usually large 4x4 type vehicles) going the opposite direction, which always resulted in a pause while each examined who had an easier job backing up into one of the few places wide enough for two cars side by side. These were often the most dangerous times as we almost tipped over trying to ride too high on the mountain side once to allow a car to pass and several times riding on the very edge of the cliff. A drive I do not want to do again, but glad I can say I have done it.

It is exactly these experiences, theses perfect moments that I began my trip in search of. Yesterday (August 1st, 2007) I flyfished the South Platte River. It is just as I had imagined a perfect mountain river to be with steep valley walls, rock outcroppings, boulders littering the stream, the occasional small waterfall and the promise of seeing a rising trout. I met an older retired gentleman who was leaving as I was suiting up (which takes a while considering there are waders, 4-piece rod, reel, line, leader, tippet, fly that all had to be put together or on when I got there). He seemed eager to talk, and I was glad to try and glean some tidbit of information from him (he did tell me to make sure I visit a certain lake in Wyoming, which I'll not name here, but do plan on stopping to see on my way north). At last I was wading in the river and fished for a couple hours with no success, but not really bothered by it. The reality of being there and the possibility of success was still very satisfying. Eventually I broke for lunch, found a shade tree overlooking the river and had my devotion and practiced guitar for a couple hours. The only things that could have made it better would be to catch a fish or have someone there to share in the realization of the beauty of what was being experienced. When my fingertips began to hurt, I resumed fishing with a grasshopper pattern that I knew would catch fish if I could only give a good presentation (Earlier in the day while walking on the bank a grasshopper had jumped out of my path into the water. Taking this as an opportunity to see if trout were feeding on terrestrials, I watched him as he floated down stream no more than 15 feet before one rose to take him, missed and immediately came up again and sucked him down.). I had fished with this knowledge for perhaps an hour and a half before I saw and heard a fish come and take my own grasshopper pattern as it floated in the current. The knock on the rod confirming that the fish was not only there, but attached to my line was enough excitement and surprise to elicit an “Oh $@!*.” as I frantically tried to take up the slack and fight him from the reel. He was a rather small brown, no more than a pound, but if you have seen trout and especially if you have enticed one to take a dry fly or floating pattern with a fly rod, you know their beauty and supremacy above all other fish. After much blundering I at last reeled him close, but not having a net, had to try and grab him bare handed (no easily task using a 9 foot rod and thigh deep in water). My line broke and he was gone. And yet the happiness I got from that touch with God's creation is really more than I can express. I think I will go stand outside and watch the lightning a bit. Tomorrow David and I attempt Mt. Princeton, my first 14'er (14'er is short for 14,000 peak. Though not extremely dangerous, they aren't something most people can just do, especially a flatlander like me, so I'm a little nervous.). This is the happiest I have been in a long time. I praise and thank God for His graciousness and blessings.

Later ,

Seth

(Sorry if you found the fish story boring, but it's my blog, and that's what I've been doing.)

Visiting my sister and her family

2007-07-25T16:23:00.000-07:00

I've spent the last several days staying with my sister Katie and her husband and their 8 month old son, Caleb. It's been beneficial since my initial packing wasn't very well thought out. This has given me a chance to make things a little more accessible. Should be leaving Thursday, maybe Friday to work my way through St. Louis to Kansas City to Denver.

It's a little bit sad, thinking that next time I see my nephew, he'll be walking and talking and totally forgotten me and the fun we've had.

Later,

Seth

My first post

2007-07-15T09:12:00.000-07:00

Just making a post to make sure I know how it works before I officially begin. Hope everyone is well and thanks in advance for reading my ramblings.

I'm undecided how intimate I will make this. Usually when I write it is my mind and heart's innermost thoughts and longings, but as this is public, I may just make it a where I'm at, what I'm doing, how great/sucky it is, etc. That seems more appropriate, but I probably wouldn't even enjoy reading my own stuff if that's all it is. I guess it will depend on how open I'm feeling when I write.

Until next time,
Seth Walters

One more note. I apologize for any grammar mistakes, randomness, choppiness and just plain poor writing ability. Hopefully it will improve as I go.