First off... a ridiculously huge thanks go out to Capt. Kirk and all the gang at KNNA. Thank you for playing my story. Hopefully I can have more of the story ready to air soon.
Second, and somewhat hilariously, I'm more upset at the Capt. mispronouncing Wagner than my name (long "au" sound). A little curious what he used for music. Oh well.
You can find the link to the show archive here, or just goes straight to the show itself here. The story isn't read until the last half hour (if you want to skip ahead, its around the 93 minute mark, I think).
Let me know what you think. Want to hear more? Want the transcript posted here? Know what music he used? Comments and critiques welcomed.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Friday, September 29, 2017
Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part V]
So, after four days of this, you are probably asking "why does the title say Gary Cooper and Alvin York?" "I know Cooper was an actor, but who's York?" "What does a 1930s Hollywood actor have to do with this?"
All good questions. But first, let me ask you, do you know who Alvin York was?
If you get the chance, watch the 1941 movie "Sergeant York." It does a good job of depicting the man's life. It should, York was the guy who picked Gary Cooper (his favorite actor) to play him. And, yes, he really did capture 132 Germans after having a duel with 30 machine guns. By himself. Captain America ain't got nothin' on York.
And while the historian in my could go on about a story like this, that's not the point this time. Rather, I'm going to talk about how this former hellion turned pacifist was granted a Medal of Honor for killing 28 enemy and capturing 132.
Now, it has been a number of years since I watched the movie, but a few weeks ago it was on and I caught about 30 minutes of it during my lunch break. I saw from his recruitment to the battle he became famous for. His struggle, and answer, got me thinking about vocation.
What is vocation?
Simply put, a "vocation" is a task or duty for someone to complete. Currently, my primary vocations include "husband," "father," "child," "sibling," and "employee." Soon "student" will be added to the list, and after that "pastor."
Some of these duties overlap, such as husband and father. Rarely are they mutually exclusive. And a vocation does not have to be "religious." I heard Luther once quoted as saying a mother changing diapers (which is part of the vocation of parent) is more "spiritual" than a monk saying vespers.
So, back to York. He had chosen to be a pacifist, which is not required of the vocation of Christian, but his rational is completely understandable (since he converted, gave up alcohol, and went pacifist after a friend died in a duel). However, the government chose him to become a soldier. Within the vocation of soldier, being violent in controlled instances is the core task.
The movie depicts him in training, doing admirably. The city kids who were recruited made fun of his accent (Tennessee) and simplistic yet direct thinking. The instructors did too. Until they handed him a rifle. Most recruits had no idea how to shoot a gun. York grew up with a muzzleloader he used to hunt with. Hitting a bed sheet fifty yards away was too easy for him. His skill with a gun was part of why he was promoted to corporal.
That's when he became more vocal about his desire not to kill. His sergeant, his commanding officer, and the officer in charge of the entire unit, all spoke with him, and did so rationally, not just "you'll follow orders!" you would have expected.
Where it comes to a head is when he's given some leave before, likely, shipping out. He is encouraged to go home and consider what to do. While discussing if it is right for a Christian to fight in a war, he and the officers trade quotes from Scripture, and correctly, not just proof-texting. The CO finally hands him a book on American history, specifically on the Founding Fathers, encouraging York to read it and consider. He does.
Finally, back home, sitting alone with this history book in one hand and the Bible in the other, Alvin York is at a loss. What is he to do? The Christian side of him says "don't fight." The American side of him says "defend your nation."
Which is correct?
Opening his Bible, he turns to Matthew chapter 22. Verse 21 provided the answer.
An antithesis to this, though still just as correct an understanding of the proper distinction between being a Christian and being a soldier, is Desmond Doss. His story is told in the movie "Hacksaw Ridge," which tells the story of his service as an unarmed medic. He elected to enter a combat zone unarmed, in a war against an enemy who would see no issue of killing a medic. But his version of Christianity forbid him from carrying a weapon. So he served during the invasion of Okinawa, some of the bloodiest fighting in all of human history. And at no point did he draw blood. Like York, he earned the Medal of Honor, and is the only unarmed conscientious objector to earn said medal.
So who is more correct in understanding vocation and the proper distinction of the Two Kingdoms, Alvin York or Desmond Doss?
Both.
Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's. We are to serve within our vocations both the State and the Church. For the one in a position of authority in the State, executing their powers is appropriate and even Godly. Yes, even killing an enemy soldier.
Now, this does not excuse war, nor do I mean to make the implication that war is God's desire. Far from it. But this is a sinful world, and conflict occurs. And, like York discovered, being a soldier does not keep one from being a faithful Christian.
See, in the end this Two Kingdoms doctrine is easy, but intricate. The teaching is simple, but there are many moving parts, and quickly we find ourselves in a theoretical discussion. Not that this is a bad thing, but we cannot dwell here. That was the mistake of the monastic movement. Vocation and the Two Kingdoms and the Estates are, in a way, a call to "put your money where your mouth is" and see your life as Christian and [fill-in-the-blank] overlap.
And if any of this discourages you, just remember the one who never struggled with this. His vocation of King and Servant were concurrent, as were His duties as both God and Man. As a humble servant He was nailed to the Cross. As the creator of the universe He rose from the dead. Christ's two natures are not mutually exclusive, but are both active now. If He is any less of one vocation or the other He is no longer the Christ.
Just like how the Triune God is simultaneously all Three Persons; distinct and authoritative in their duties, but united in their action. You cannot have one without the other two.
Funny how all discussions of doctrine run back to Christology and the Trinity. Almost like they actually matter. Like that's all where supposed to focus on anyway...
Now, on to a new topic... once I find one. Well... that's not true. There's plenty, just not sure if the blog, as it is right now, it the most logical format. I'll play with them and see what happens. Until them....
All good questions. But first, let me ask you, do you know who Alvin York was?
(Big ears were so in style in 1918. Epic 'staches a suggested option.)
If you get the chance, watch the 1941 movie "Sergeant York." It does a good job of depicting the man's life. It should, York was the guy who picked Gary Cooper (his favorite actor) to play him. And, yes, he really did capture 132 Germans after having a duel with 30 machine guns. By himself. Captain America ain't got nothin' on York.
And while the historian in my could go on about a story like this, that's not the point this time. Rather, I'm going to talk about how this former hellion turned pacifist was granted a Medal of Honor for killing 28 enemy and capturing 132.
Now, it has been a number of years since I watched the movie, but a few weeks ago it was on and I caught about 30 minutes of it during my lunch break. I saw from his recruitment to the battle he became famous for. His struggle, and answer, got me thinking about vocation.
What is vocation?
Simply put, a "vocation" is a task or duty for someone to complete. Currently, my primary vocations include "husband," "father," "child," "sibling," and "employee." Soon "student" will be added to the list, and after that "pastor."
Some of these duties overlap, such as husband and father. Rarely are they mutually exclusive. And a vocation does not have to be "religious." I heard Luther once quoted as saying a mother changing diapers (which is part of the vocation of parent) is more "spiritual" than a monk saying vespers.
So, back to York. He had chosen to be a pacifist, which is not required of the vocation of Christian, but his rational is completely understandable (since he converted, gave up alcohol, and went pacifist after a friend died in a duel). However, the government chose him to become a soldier. Within the vocation of soldier, being violent in controlled instances is the core task.
The movie depicts him in training, doing admirably. The city kids who were recruited made fun of his accent (Tennessee) and simplistic yet direct thinking. The instructors did too. Until they handed him a rifle. Most recruits had no idea how to shoot a gun. York grew up with a muzzleloader he used to hunt with. Hitting a bed sheet fifty yards away was too easy for him. His skill with a gun was part of why he was promoted to corporal.
That's when he became more vocal about his desire not to kill. His sergeant, his commanding officer, and the officer in charge of the entire unit, all spoke with him, and did so rationally, not just "you'll follow orders!" you would have expected.
Where it comes to a head is when he's given some leave before, likely, shipping out. He is encouraged to go home and consider what to do. While discussing if it is right for a Christian to fight in a war, he and the officers trade quotes from Scripture, and correctly, not just proof-texting. The CO finally hands him a book on American history, specifically on the Founding Fathers, encouraging York to read it and consider. He does.
Finally, back home, sitting alone with this history book in one hand and the Bible in the other, Alvin York is at a loss. What is he to do? The Christian side of him says "don't fight." The American side of him says "defend your nation."
Which is correct?
Opening his Bible, he turns to Matthew chapter 22. Verse 21 provided the answer.
They [the Pharisees] said, "Caesar's." Then He [Jesus] said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."At that point, York realized that being a loyal Christian who sought to "do no harm" was not mutually exclusive with being a loyal citizen willing to go to war to defend the nation and those who are innocent. If he had to kill, he would without seeking it on his own right, but if the opportunity never came up, then all the better. Either way he would have done his duty, to God and country.
An antithesis to this, though still just as correct an understanding of the proper distinction between being a Christian and being a soldier, is Desmond Doss. His story is told in the movie "Hacksaw Ridge," which tells the story of his service as an unarmed medic. He elected to enter a combat zone unarmed, in a war against an enemy who would see no issue of killing a medic. But his version of Christianity forbid him from carrying a weapon. So he served during the invasion of Okinawa, some of the bloodiest fighting in all of human history. And at no point did he draw blood. Like York, he earned the Medal of Honor, and is the only unarmed conscientious objector to earn said medal.
So who is more correct in understanding vocation and the proper distinction of the Two Kingdoms, Alvin York or Desmond Doss?
Both.
Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's. We are to serve within our vocations both the State and the Church. For the one in a position of authority in the State, executing their powers is appropriate and even Godly. Yes, even killing an enemy soldier.
Now, this does not excuse war, nor do I mean to make the implication that war is God's desire. Far from it. But this is a sinful world, and conflict occurs. And, like York discovered, being a soldier does not keep one from being a faithful Christian.
See, in the end this Two Kingdoms doctrine is easy, but intricate. The teaching is simple, but there are many moving parts, and quickly we find ourselves in a theoretical discussion. Not that this is a bad thing, but we cannot dwell here. That was the mistake of the monastic movement. Vocation and the Two Kingdoms and the Estates are, in a way, a call to "put your money where your mouth is" and see your life as Christian and [fill-in-the-blank] overlap.
And if any of this discourages you, just remember the one who never struggled with this. His vocation of King and Servant were concurrent, as were His duties as both God and Man. As a humble servant He was nailed to the Cross. As the creator of the universe He rose from the dead. Christ's two natures are not mutually exclusive, but are both active now. If He is any less of one vocation or the other He is no longer the Christ.
Just like how the Triune God is simultaneously all Three Persons; distinct and authoritative in their duties, but united in their action. You cannot have one without the other two.
Funny how all discussions of doctrine run back to Christology and the Trinity. Almost like they actually matter. Like that's all where supposed to focus on anyway...
Now, on to a new topic... once I find one. Well... that's not true. There's plenty, just not sure if the blog, as it is right now, it the most logical format. I'll play with them and see what happens. Until them....
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part IV]
Now to talk about the Three Estates...
The State, the Family, and The Church. Perhaps a picture to illustrate will help.
So, the infographic should be self-explanatory, but let's break it down a bit.
The bottom half is the "big picture" regarding God and the Church. We, the Church, are under God's authority, and we obey and respect Him in all things. We do this because we have been freed by His love and service. Not necessarily reactionary, since it was not compulsory.
The top half breaks up the various authorities vested by God. These are the Three Estates.
The Estate of the State is obvious, especially since I've already discussed it. God has placed leaders in authority, and we as citizens are to obey and respect. The State is armed with the Law, by which they maintain good order in civic society.
The Estate of the Church (as an organization on Earth) operates similarly. There is a leader appointed (the pastor) who is in charge of running the group. Not so much the "secular" side; that is, the pastor isn't called and ordained to be in charge of the upkeep of the lawn, or the picking of new carpet, or deciding if they should hire a new secretary. Not that he shouldn't be part of those discussions, but issues such as those are technically part of the state. The pastor leads the church regarding following the rules God has established for believers. Remember, some laws are for all (don't murder, don't steal, etc), but some apply to the church (remember the Sabbath, etc). The pastor is called to proclaim confession and absolution. His weapon is not the Law, but the Gospel, which he preaches to the people so they might believe and be saved.
So, two out of three, pretty straight forward and easy to rightly divide. The third, the Home, may seem a bit muddled. The reason why is simple. While the Estate of the State gets to only hold the sword of the Law, and the Estate of the Church can only grasp the sword of the Gospel, the Estate of the Home holds both because it is part of both.
But... wha... huh... didn't you say...?
Yep. The State (as well as the Kingdom of the Left) does not use the Gospel. And the Church (as well as the Kingdom of the Right) are not tasked with the Law. Yet the Home gets to be both.
How?
Think of the Estate of the Home (or, as we could call it, the Family) as a bridge. Like this one here:
On this side, we have the State - the Kingdom of the Left.
And the Estate of the State.
At times, the Home must use the Law (like when a child elects to hit his a sibling with a dog) and dole out punishment appropriate. Other times, the Home uses Gospel (like when a child accidentally breaks mother's favorite knickknack) and establishes forgiveness.
Be aware, the Home is more than just the Parent-Child relationship, but also Husband-Wife, and Employer-Employee. The Home covers the entirety of the Order of Creation, which God established in Eden.
Hence why the Estate of the Home is one of the most challenging, and at times most important. (Not that the other two aren't important.) The Home is where "the rubber meets the road" so to speak. It is the practical side of this discussion. It is the Ten Commandments and the Creeds in action. In some ways it is a balancing act, having to determine when to use law and when to use gospel. Each situation and scenario is different. Part of why parenting is so difficult.
For example, I love my daughter, but if she climbs onto the dresser in the bedroom, I'm going to end up raising my voice, and possibly even disciplining her. Out of anger? No, out of love, and fear of her injuring herself. Law, to be sure, but there is forgiveness too, once the lesson is made. The gospel is without comfort if the sting of the law isn't felt. That doesn't mean running about bashing people with the law just so we can give the gospel, but until someone comes to grips with their transgression, they will not be able to fully appreciate the grace given to them in the gospel.
(And, yes, my little girl has climbed on the dresser. And, yes, she was instructed not to.)
But how about a more concrete example of the Two Kingdoms? Maybe one found in a popular movie? Perhaps finally I'll get around to exploiting the tease in the post title... tomorrow.
* Okay, so I don't actually know if he was humming a symphonic metal song about Charlemagne while on the set of Star Wars. But I do know he actually sang a symphonic metal song about Charlemagne. Actually, he produced four albums, and a number of other songs. Yes, the White Wizard sang metal at age 90. Seriously, its even on YouTube.
(Umm, not those three. Those are estate cars.)
The State, the Family, and The Church. Perhaps a picture to illustrate will help.
(Credit to Rev. Philip Hoppe, LCMS. He put together a presentation on the Table of Duties which you can find heBlogre. Plenty of good stuff available there.)
So, the infographic should be self-explanatory, but let's break it down a bit.
The bottom half is the "big picture" regarding God and the Church. We, the Church, are under God's authority, and we obey and respect Him in all things. We do this because we have been freed by His love and service. Not necessarily reactionary, since it was not compulsory.
The top half breaks up the various authorities vested by God. These are the Three Estates.
The Estate of the State is obvious, especially since I've already discussed it. God has placed leaders in authority, and we as citizens are to obey and respect. The State is armed with the Law, by which they maintain good order in civic society.
The Estate of the Church (as an organization on Earth) operates similarly. There is a leader appointed (the pastor) who is in charge of running the group. Not so much the "secular" side; that is, the pastor isn't called and ordained to be in charge of the upkeep of the lawn, or the picking of new carpet, or deciding if they should hire a new secretary. Not that he shouldn't be part of those discussions, but issues such as those are technically part of the state. The pastor leads the church regarding following the rules God has established for believers. Remember, some laws are for all (don't murder, don't steal, etc), but some apply to the church (remember the Sabbath, etc). The pastor is called to proclaim confession and absolution. His weapon is not the Law, but the Gospel, which he preaches to the people so they might believe and be saved.
So, two out of three, pretty straight forward and easy to rightly divide. The third, the Home, may seem a bit muddled. The reason why is simple. While the Estate of the State gets to only hold the sword of the Law, and the Estate of the Church can only grasp the sword of the Gospel, the Estate of the Home holds both because it is part of both.
(No matter what happens in my life, I fear I will never be as cool as Sir Christopher Lee dual wielding lightsabers while humming a symphonic metal song he wrote about Charlemagne.)*
But... wha... huh... didn't you say...?
Yep. The State (as well as the Kingdom of the Left) does not use the Gospel. And the Church (as well as the Kingdom of the Right) are not tasked with the Law. Yet the Home gets to be both.
How?
Think of the Estate of the Home (or, as we could call it, the Family) as a bridge. Like this one here:
On this side, we have the State - the Kingdom of the Left.
And the Estate of the State.
On this side, we find the Church - the Kingdom of the Right.
And the Estate of the Church.
And here in the middle is the Estate of the Home.
At times, the Home must use the Law (like when a child elects to hit his a sibling with a dog) and dole out punishment appropriate. Other times, the Home uses Gospel (like when a child accidentally breaks mother's favorite knickknack) and establishes forgiveness.
Be aware, the Home is more than just the Parent-Child relationship, but also Husband-Wife, and Employer-Employee. The Home covers the entirety of the Order of Creation, which God established in Eden.
Hence why the Estate of the Home is one of the most challenging, and at times most important. (Not that the other two aren't important.) The Home is where "the rubber meets the road" so to speak. It is the practical side of this discussion. It is the Ten Commandments and the Creeds in action. In some ways it is a balancing act, having to determine when to use law and when to use gospel. Each situation and scenario is different. Part of why parenting is so difficult.
For example, I love my daughter, but if she climbs onto the dresser in the bedroom, I'm going to end up raising my voice, and possibly even disciplining her. Out of anger? No, out of love, and fear of her injuring herself. Law, to be sure, but there is forgiveness too, once the lesson is made. The gospel is without comfort if the sting of the law isn't felt. That doesn't mean running about bashing people with the law just so we can give the gospel, but until someone comes to grips with their transgression, they will not be able to fully appreciate the grace given to them in the gospel.
(And, yes, my little girl has climbed on the dresser. And, yes, she was instructed not to.)
But how about a more concrete example of the Two Kingdoms? Maybe one found in a popular movie? Perhaps finally I'll get around to exploiting the tease in the post title... tomorrow.
* Okay, so I don't actually know if he was humming a symphonic metal song about Charlemagne while on the set of Star Wars. But I do know he actually sang a symphonic metal song about Charlemagne. Actually, he produced four albums, and a number of other songs. Yes, the White Wizard sang metal at age 90. Seriously, its even on YouTube.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part III]
By this point I've discussed the gist of the Two Kingdoms doctrine, and some examples in history to provide some background. Now its time to examine the tools at their disposal.
The State uses the Law.
The Church uses the Gospel.
(Post is done. Everyone go home. Good game.)
Okay, so, maybe its a little more involved than that. What is meant by Law and Gospel, in this context? Lets start with the apparently more challenging one.
The Law is a very multi-faceted issue. There are parts of it that were composed for a temporary use, while other parts have existed since before time, and a few from both categories are able to overlap, in a way. An example, perhaps?
Killing has always been wrong. But that statement is quite broad. Killing anything? Are there things we can kill? And when? Why? From the "big picture" side, all forms of death are bad, this is a philosophical issue that runs consistent. This objective truth is founded in the morality of the writer of the Law - God. All other laws are extensions of this, influenced by the context of the Fall.
That is what makes the Law a challenge to nail down. Is it wrong to kill? Yes. As a soldier who is sent to rescue POWs? Well... no, quite the opposite, in context. It is the vocation of the soldier to use force, even deadly force, but that does not mean he doesn't serve without sin, since he, like all of us, is sinful from birth. Confession and absolution is still necessary. Just because the context allows it temporally does not mean it is a "free play" existentially.
Now, ignore that cobweb riddled rabbit hole for a moment while I try to get back to the actual point.
The State's role is best summed up in Romans chapter 13. It is the job of the State to compose rules for the safety, betterment, and even control of the earthly realm. Things like speed limits, tax laws, building codes, TSA standards, sports regulations, website terms and conditions, etc.
This means it is not the State's job to forgive things. If you break a law, you are due punishment. This is appropriate. The State is tasked with being an overlord. It levies taxes, conducts war, and prosecutes criminals. Is it possible for the State to go too far? Of course. But, as I've posted before, so long as the State is within God's established boundaries, we as Christians are to faithfully serve and follow all Biblically sound laws. If the State exceeds its limits we are to seek out ways of bringing it back into those limits, preferably by legal means that do not require violence.
Now, for the actually challenging one.
The Church is tasked with forgiving sins, in the stead and by the command of Christ, who paid for all (ALL) transgressions. The Church is not given the right to form rules for life now, though they are to adhere to the Law of God, summed up in the Commandments. But the Church's primary, if not sole, role is to proclaim the Gospel. If you are at a church that does not proclaim Christ crucified as the point of every sermon and worship service... well you're probably not at a Christian church.
And here we get to why this is the more difficult one for us. With the State, there are rules, standards, codes by which to measure our actions by. We can see progress and grasp how to be "better." Its like a checklist, and we like checklists. Being able to complete a task is very rewarding. Even more so if it leads to something better. That is something the Law claims to give us: a checklist of how to be a better person. And we humans very much like that, especially us Americans. Being able to self-justify and prove we are "worthy" is, for many of us, a driving goal in life. But, in the grand scheme of salvation, it doesn't work this way. The truth is completely logical and rational, yet it is exactly opposite to what we think should be "fair," and we simply can't wrap our minds around it.
What we cannot grasp is twofold. One, the State (and by extension, the Law) cannot help us, in any way, to be a better (read: sanctified, justified) person. Two, no matter how much we keep the Law, even if someone could be completely perfect regarding any and all aspects of the Law, our only reward ultimately is Hell.
"But if God established a law to be better, and it doesn't work that way, how do we get to heaven?"
We don't get to heaven. We don't do anything. We are the lifeless person drowning in the pool. What can the drowning, unconscious man do to save himself?
The Gospel is rescue, that we are powerless to participate in. We are passive, receiving Grace that we have neither earned nor deserved. We deserve Hell. Thanks be to God that Christ came and saved us from sin, death, and our own self-serving nature.
That is the Church's duty. To proclaim the Cross and the Empty Tomb. To give us the knowledge that we are not hopeless, but saved, which frees us to be able to attempt to adhere to the law. We'll fail, but we are forgiven.
But where does Law and Gospel come to action? That is what the Three Estates is all about. Until next time...
The State uses the Law.
The Church uses the Gospel.
(Post is done. Everyone go home. Good game.)
Okay, so, maybe its a little more involved than that. What is meant by Law and Gospel, in this context? Lets start with the apparently more challenging one.
The Law is a very multi-faceted issue. There are parts of it that were composed for a temporary use, while other parts have existed since before time, and a few from both categories are able to overlap, in a way. An example, perhaps?
Killing has always been wrong. But that statement is quite broad. Killing anything? Are there things we can kill? And when? Why? From the "big picture" side, all forms of death are bad, this is a philosophical issue that runs consistent. This objective truth is founded in the morality of the writer of the Law - God. All other laws are extensions of this, influenced by the context of the Fall.
That is what makes the Law a challenge to nail down. Is it wrong to kill? Yes. As a soldier who is sent to rescue POWs? Well... no, quite the opposite, in context. It is the vocation of the soldier to use force, even deadly force, but that does not mean he doesn't serve without sin, since he, like all of us, is sinful from birth. Confession and absolution is still necessary. Just because the context allows it temporally does not mean it is a "free play" existentially.
Now, ignore that cobweb riddled rabbit hole for a moment while I try to get back to the actual point.
The State's role is best summed up in Romans chapter 13. It is the job of the State to compose rules for the safety, betterment, and even control of the earthly realm. Things like speed limits, tax laws, building codes, TSA standards, sports regulations, website terms and conditions, etc.
This means it is not the State's job to forgive things. If you break a law, you are due punishment. This is appropriate. The State is tasked with being an overlord. It levies taxes, conducts war, and prosecutes criminals. Is it possible for the State to go too far? Of course. But, as I've posted before, so long as the State is within God's established boundaries, we as Christians are to faithfully serve and follow all Biblically sound laws. If the State exceeds its limits we are to seek out ways of bringing it back into those limits, preferably by legal means that do not require violence.
Now, for the actually challenging one.
The Church is tasked with forgiving sins, in the stead and by the command of Christ, who paid for all (ALL) transgressions. The Church is not given the right to form rules for life now, though they are to adhere to the Law of God, summed up in the Commandments. But the Church's primary, if not sole, role is to proclaim the Gospel. If you are at a church that does not proclaim Christ crucified as the point of every sermon and worship service... well you're probably not at a Christian church.
And here we get to why this is the more difficult one for us. With the State, there are rules, standards, codes by which to measure our actions by. We can see progress and grasp how to be "better." Its like a checklist, and we like checklists. Being able to complete a task is very rewarding. Even more so if it leads to something better. That is something the Law claims to give us: a checklist of how to be a better person. And we humans very much like that, especially us Americans. Being able to self-justify and prove we are "worthy" is, for many of us, a driving goal in life. But, in the grand scheme of salvation, it doesn't work this way. The truth is completely logical and rational, yet it is exactly opposite to what we think should be "fair," and we simply can't wrap our minds around it.
What we cannot grasp is twofold. One, the State (and by extension, the Law) cannot help us, in any way, to be a better (read: sanctified, justified) person. Two, no matter how much we keep the Law, even if someone could be completely perfect regarding any and all aspects of the Law, our only reward ultimately is Hell.
"But if God established a law to be better, and it doesn't work that way, how do we get to heaven?"
We don't get to heaven. We don't do anything. We are the lifeless person drowning in the pool. What can the drowning, unconscious man do to save himself?
The Gospel is rescue, that we are powerless to participate in. We are passive, receiving Grace that we have neither earned nor deserved. We deserve Hell. Thanks be to God that Christ came and saved us from sin, death, and our own self-serving nature.
That is the Church's duty. To proclaim the Cross and the Empty Tomb. To give us the knowledge that we are not hopeless, but saved, which frees us to be able to attempt to adhere to the law. We'll fail, but we are forgiven.
But where does Law and Gospel come to action? That is what the Three Estates is all about. Until next time...
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part II]
Okay, kiddos, lets get ready to time travel. Please make sure your seat belts are fastened and keep your arms, legs, heads, and left rib inside the blog at all times. If you forgot to sign the waiver... too late now.
So, historic examples of the Kingdom of the Left and the Kingdom of the Right.
Alright, so here's the "quick and dirty" version. God established a covenant with Israel at Sinai. After entering the Promised Land the nation of Israel spent quite a while conquering and reconquering the territory. During this time they were led by judges and the priests, who spoke God's commands to them.
Finally, they requested a king, and reluctantly God gave them one, Saul. After him came David, whose line continued to rule until Jerusalem's fall in 586. Well, except for the northern 10 tribes, who rebelled and formed their own nation in 910. (They'd be gone by 722.)
Israel was, initially, a kind of theocracy. God was their king, with day-to-day political duties being handled by the Law, and by people like Moses or Joshua. The Law, the big version that takes up most of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was a combination of civic, ceremonial, and moral. The first two were specific for the Israelites within their covenant. The moral, the 10 Commandments, were preexisting, and are still in play. (Not that the rest of it is/was bad, but that's a different post.)
The Two Kingdoms were (or were supposed to be) intertwined in ancient Israel. To use the monarchial metaphor, it was a real union, as opposed to a personal union. And so long as Israel followed God as both Lord and King, things went well, including when the kings were good (ya know, guys like David, Asa, Hezekiah). Israel is the poster child for this concept, not so much in its actual form but in the intention. Hence why this symbol/prototype is used in the New Testament by the likes of Paul, Peter, the write of Hebrews, and Jesus.
Next up: Rome! The empire started in 27 BC, and ended in 395 AD (with the split), 480 AD (with the ending of the Western empire), and 1453 AD (when the Easter/Byzantine empire fell). And, yes, the Byzantine overlaps with the Middle Ages, but that's not relevant right now. The only Roman empire I'm concerned with at this moment is the versions from its founding to the fall of the city of Rome in 476. And there are technically (for my purpose) two: the version founded by Julius Caesar, and the one reformed by Constantine.
In the "classic" Roman empire, the church/state dichotomy was complicated. And I'm ignoring the pagan worship for this. Not because it isn't significant in the empire's formation. But because it adds complexity that isn't needed for this topic. At least right now. But the nice thing is the situation is easy to sum up:
"Then He [Jesus] said to them, 'Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."" (Matthew 22:21.)
This point is brought up in detail by St. Paul in Romans chapter 13. But we will dig deeper there later. For now, the gist is that in early Rome, when the empire was still hostile toward Christians, the Church had to live both within the Kingdoms of the Left and the Right.
In many ways things got better when Constantine what at the helm, but only because the killing of Christians wasn't government sanctioned anymore. The church had other issues on its hands, like major heresies. You know, the ones self-proclaimed "experts" seem to think was "original Christianity" before the councils forced the church to adopt certain ideas about Jesus being God, and other controversial things that are now considered baseline.
(I shouldn't need to take the time to call these guys out, I'll save that for another day. But if the guy you're using as a source thinks a gnostic gospel is 300+ years older than the synoptics, then he should be forced to listen to the first half of the baby back ribs song. Check Scrubs if you don't know that one.)
And now, ladies and gentlemen, for the Medieval period! Sometimes it is (incorrectly) called the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, this slice of time went from the 5th century (400s) through the 15th century (1400s). Basically from the fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.
(By the way, it was Renaissance thinkers who called it the "dark" ages, to imply that they were backward in thought somehow. Arrogant of them, but, that's for a different post.)
The Medieval period covers a lot of things. The kingdom of Charlemagne. The Crusades. The forming of the Holy Roman Empire. The Vikings. The "classic" era of English history (here be knights in shining armor and rogues wearing tights). The voyage of Marco Polo. If you want a feel for the era, check out A Knight's Tale. Anachronistic, sure, but is pretty honest with tournaments. Otherwise, just look up Mike Loades on YouTube. If watching a man in his 60s get knocked off a horse while sword-fighting and giggling in the dirt is your thing, you'll like his work.
The Middle Ages (and its extensions the Renaissance and the Reformation) have common "flavors." One thing that we will focus on is the overlap of Church and State.
The Holy Roman Empire was reestablished in 962 under Otto I. The pope crowned him, and declared him emperor of the Romans. Why? In part as a gambit to combat the Muslims. Remember, at this time, the Muslim world is expanding through North Africa, and is nearing places like Spain and Greece. That understandably scared people in Europe, the Islamic religion being irrelevant initially. Didn't remain irrelevant, but the Crusades are not where I'll dig too much today. Mostly because we don't have time, and I dare not dedicate that many pixels to the topic.
Crusades were called, sometimes sanctioned by the church in Rome. Primarily for the politics first, and the faith-based reason second. People would do good to remember that. But, in that day and age, state and religion were not separable.
Your lord (king, duke, count, prince, etc) determined which religion you (the serf) practiced. And in that day there was only one: Catholicism. Well, at least until the Great Schism in 1054, which made the choice Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. But, regardless, the lord was to be a defender of the faith. Church and State were side-by-side. It gets muddy, though, when you head to Italy to visit the bishop of Rome.
Now, this will upset some, but if you've been reading anything here, it shouldn't surprise. The Papacy of the Middle Ages was operating heretically. One because it claimed to have authority to hold authority in both civic and ecumenical aspects (they've dialed this back), and have authority equal to Scripture (they still believe this). The Pope controlled a large portion of Italy, had an army, and could decide who was to be crowned king or emperor.
Regardless of what you think of that medieval mess, the church and state were so intertwined that it never occurred to anyone to think of themselves as anyone but a Christian, which was both their faith and national identity. In fact, national identity didn't really exist until the late 15th century. Guys like Dr Luther had a lot of influence on the concept of national identity (both good and bad).
And now, the bonus: our modern mess, the American States that are United.
In reality, all I need to address is the whole "separation of church and state" line of the Constitution. Only, its not in the Constitution. Rather, the phrase is in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, explaining the amendment granting people free practice of religion. The founder said there is a wall separating the church and state.
You see, the letter was a response to a religious group who were worried the government would go to them and say "you need to conform to the national religion or pay a fine." (This sort of think happened in England. Part of why the Pilgrims left.) They wrote to Jefferson hoping for support. He responded with an explanation that the Constitution does not allow the State to have say in the affairs of the Church.
You hear that politicians? "Separation of Church and State" defends the church from the state. And before you be all like "oh, history shows us religion takes over governments" (which has happened), may I remind you what happened in Nazi Germany? Hitler forcibly took over the churches. That's why Christians get so upset and worried about politicians supporting things like Planned "Parenthood," insurance rules that required purchasing contraceptives, and calls for us to "tolerate" something we believe is wrong.
That's why this discussion is needed. There is a middle ground, but getting there isn't easy. But it requires knowing how the State and the Church have authority, and what tools are at their disposal.
Tune in tomorrow...
So, historic examples of the Kingdom of the Left and the Kingdom of the Right.
- The Kingdom of Israel.
- The Roman Empire.
- The political mess we call the Middle Ages.
- (Bonus!) The, at times, ridiculous experiment in contradictions we call the United States.
Alright, so here's the "quick and dirty" version. God established a covenant with Israel at Sinai. After entering the Promised Land the nation of Israel spent quite a while conquering and reconquering the territory. During this time they were led by judges and the priests, who spoke God's commands to them.
Finally, they requested a king, and reluctantly God gave them one, Saul. After him came David, whose line continued to rule until Jerusalem's fall in 586. Well, except for the northern 10 tribes, who rebelled and formed their own nation in 910. (They'd be gone by 722.)
Israel was, initially, a kind of theocracy. God was their king, with day-to-day political duties being handled by the Law, and by people like Moses or Joshua. The Law, the big version that takes up most of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was a combination of civic, ceremonial, and moral. The first two were specific for the Israelites within their covenant. The moral, the 10 Commandments, were preexisting, and are still in play. (Not that the rest of it is/was bad, but that's a different post.)
The Two Kingdoms were (or were supposed to be) intertwined in ancient Israel. To use the monarchial metaphor, it was a real union, as opposed to a personal union. And so long as Israel followed God as both Lord and King, things went well, including when the kings were good (ya know, guys like David, Asa, Hezekiah). Israel is the poster child for this concept, not so much in its actual form but in the intention. Hence why this symbol/prototype is used in the New Testament by the likes of Paul, Peter, the write of Hebrews, and Jesus.
Next up: Rome! The empire started in 27 BC, and ended in 395 AD (with the split), 480 AD (with the ending of the Western empire), and 1453 AD (when the Easter/Byzantine empire fell). And, yes, the Byzantine overlaps with the Middle Ages, but that's not relevant right now. The only Roman empire I'm concerned with at this moment is the versions from its founding to the fall of the city of Rome in 476. And there are technically (for my purpose) two: the version founded by Julius Caesar, and the one reformed by Constantine.
In the "classic" Roman empire, the church/state dichotomy was complicated. And I'm ignoring the pagan worship for this. Not because it isn't significant in the empire's formation. But because it adds complexity that isn't needed for this topic. At least right now. But the nice thing is the situation is easy to sum up:
"Then He [Jesus] said to them, 'Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."" (Matthew 22:21.)
This point is brought up in detail by St. Paul in Romans chapter 13. But we will dig deeper there later. For now, the gist is that in early Rome, when the empire was still hostile toward Christians, the Church had to live both within the Kingdoms of the Left and the Right.
In many ways things got better when Constantine what at the helm, but only because the killing of Christians wasn't government sanctioned anymore. The church had other issues on its hands, like major heresies. You know, the ones self-proclaimed "experts" seem to think was "original Christianity" before the councils forced the church to adopt certain ideas about Jesus being God, and other controversial things that are now considered baseline.
(I shouldn't need to take the time to call these guys out, I'll save that for another day. But if the guy you're using as a source thinks a gnostic gospel is 300+ years older than the synoptics, then he should be forced to listen to the first half of the baby back ribs song. Check Scrubs if you don't know that one.)
And now, ladies and gentlemen, for the Medieval period! Sometimes it is (incorrectly) called the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, this slice of time went from the 5th century (400s) through the 15th century (1400s). Basically from the fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.
(By the way, it was Renaissance thinkers who called it the "dark" ages, to imply that they were backward in thought somehow. Arrogant of them, but, that's for a different post.)
The Medieval period covers a lot of things. The kingdom of Charlemagne. The Crusades. The forming of the Holy Roman Empire. The Vikings. The "classic" era of English history (here be knights in shining armor and rogues wearing tights). The voyage of Marco Polo. If you want a feel for the era, check out A Knight's Tale. Anachronistic, sure, but is pretty honest with tournaments. Otherwise, just look up Mike Loades on YouTube. If watching a man in his 60s get knocked off a horse while sword-fighting and giggling in the dirt is your thing, you'll like his work.
The Middle Ages (and its extensions the Renaissance and the Reformation) have common "flavors." One thing that we will focus on is the overlap of Church and State.
The Holy Roman Empire was reestablished in 962 under Otto I. The pope crowned him, and declared him emperor of the Romans. Why? In part as a gambit to combat the Muslims. Remember, at this time, the Muslim world is expanding through North Africa, and is nearing places like Spain and Greece. That understandably scared people in Europe, the Islamic religion being irrelevant initially. Didn't remain irrelevant, but the Crusades are not where I'll dig too much today. Mostly because we don't have time, and I dare not dedicate that many pixels to the topic.
Crusades were called, sometimes sanctioned by the church in Rome. Primarily for the politics first, and the faith-based reason second. People would do good to remember that. But, in that day and age, state and religion were not separable.
Your lord (king, duke, count, prince, etc) determined which religion you (the serf) practiced. And in that day there was only one: Catholicism. Well, at least until the Great Schism in 1054, which made the choice Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. But, regardless, the lord was to be a defender of the faith. Church and State were side-by-side. It gets muddy, though, when you head to Italy to visit the bishop of Rome.
Now, this will upset some, but if you've been reading anything here, it shouldn't surprise. The Papacy of the Middle Ages was operating heretically. One because it claimed to have authority to hold authority in both civic and ecumenical aspects (they've dialed this back), and have authority equal to Scripture (they still believe this). The Pope controlled a large portion of Italy, had an army, and could decide who was to be crowned king or emperor.
Regardless of what you think of that medieval mess, the church and state were so intertwined that it never occurred to anyone to think of themselves as anyone but a Christian, which was both their faith and national identity. In fact, national identity didn't really exist until the late 15th century. Guys like Dr Luther had a lot of influence on the concept of national identity (both good and bad).
And now, the bonus: our modern mess, the American States that are United.
In reality, all I need to address is the whole "separation of church and state" line of the Constitution. Only, its not in the Constitution. Rather, the phrase is in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, explaining the amendment granting people free practice of religion. The founder said there is a wall separating the church and state.
You see, the letter was a response to a religious group who were worried the government would go to them and say "you need to conform to the national religion or pay a fine." (This sort of think happened in England. Part of why the Pilgrims left.) They wrote to Jefferson hoping for support. He responded with an explanation that the Constitution does not allow the State to have say in the affairs of the Church.
You hear that politicians? "Separation of Church and State" defends the church from the state. And before you be all like "oh, history shows us religion takes over governments" (which has happened), may I remind you what happened in Nazi Germany? Hitler forcibly took over the churches. That's why Christians get so upset and worried about politicians supporting things like Planned "Parenthood," insurance rules that required purchasing contraceptives, and calls for us to "tolerate" something we believe is wrong.
That's why this discussion is needed. There is a middle ground, but getting there isn't easy. But it requires knowing how the State and the Church have authority, and what tools are at their disposal.
Tune in tomorrow...
Monday, September 25, 2017
Render Unto Gary Cooper What Is Alvin York's (or) Dual Loyalties Don't Necessarily Mutually Exclude [part I]
Buckle up, kids, I'm going to talk about a somewhat controversial subject: the left and the right.
(cue likely assumption that I mean politics)
In case my spontaneous use of snarky Spaniards doesn't reveal I'm not talking about the political "left" and "right," then either the world is too focused on politics or I've written too much about the topic myself.
As a very wise philosopher once said: "¿Por qué no tenemos ambos?"
But seriously, I wanna talk about the left and right.
A few months ago my wife and I traveled to Denver for a conference on the Two Kingdoms doctrine and the Three Estates.
...
I can tell by the crickets that some of you are unfamiliar. That's okay, it is a bit of inside baseball. The short version is there are two authorities ruling this world, but in very differing ways, and there are three entities by which these authorities interact with us.
So, a primer first. And, yes, I'm stealing/borrowing from the Steadfast Conference and Dr. Luther's Small Catechism.
First, the Two Kingdoms: The Left (State/Secular) and the Right (Church/Spiritual).
Please don't assume that when I use the terms "left" and "right" I'm talking about what Americans mean politically. In this context left does not mean "socialist/anarchist/communist/un-American/liberal," just as right does not mean "conservative/fascist/nationalist/patriot/capitalist." The reasons for the left/right dichotomy is much simpler. We just don't remember it in a post-monarchy western world.
Back in the day, to sit at the king's right hand was a place of authority and power. Often the heir apparent sat there. It didn't mean the left was a bad position, but the symbolism of being the king's "right hand" (which was often his dominant hand) was self-evident. If you live in an era where the sword is the sidearm of choice, where do you want your most trusted advisor and warrior to sit, to represent that he (or she, if applicable) is your most powerful asset?
Not points for guessing the obvious answer, especially since giving the obvious answer is all teaching is. (But that's beside the point.)
When Luther used the Left and Right, he wasn't making commentary on political policies. Rather, he was showing how God uses both the State and the Church as His emissaries. Left and Right are merely shorthand.
So, what is the difference between the two?
Well, first, to quote Yoda, you must unlearn what you have learned (at least a little). You will need to see things from a more historic perspective, placing yourself in previous realities, not just viewing this from the lens of 21st century America (or wherever you hail from). Why? Because most of us living in a post-modern reality have this idea of how Church and State don't mix and mingle. Of how there is this idea of religious liberty and tolerance of worship styles. Now, these are not bad, but operating under a thought process that is influenced by this understanding will have the potential to lead this discussion astray.
Now, with that in mind, we will take a trip back in time. We'll stop in the Middle Ages, in the Roman Empire, and in the Kingdom of Israel. Why? To see examples from each of how the State and the Church work side by side, and even interconnect. Whether they should or shouldn't.
But, that will have to wait until tomorrow.
(cue likely assumption that I mean politics)
In case my spontaneous use of snarky Spaniards doesn't reveal I'm not talking about the political "left" and "right," then either the world is too focused on politics or I've written too much about the topic myself.
As a very wise philosopher once said: "¿Por qué no tenemos ambos?"
But seriously, I wanna talk about the left and right.
A few months ago my wife and I traveled to Denver for a conference on the Two Kingdoms doctrine and the Three Estates.
...
I can tell by the crickets that some of you are unfamiliar. That's okay, it is a bit of inside baseball. The short version is there are two authorities ruling this world, but in very differing ways, and there are three entities by which these authorities interact with us.
So, a primer first. And, yes, I'm stealing/borrowing from the Steadfast Conference and Dr. Luther's Small Catechism.
First, the Two Kingdoms: The Left (State/Secular) and the Right (Church/Spiritual).
Please don't assume that when I use the terms "left" and "right" I'm talking about what Americans mean politically. In this context left does not mean "socialist/anarchist/communist/un-American/liberal," just as right does not mean "conservative/fascist/nationalist/patriot/capitalist." The reasons for the left/right dichotomy is much simpler. We just don't remember it in a post-monarchy western world.
Back in the day, to sit at the king's right hand was a place of authority and power. Often the heir apparent sat there. It didn't mean the left was a bad position, but the symbolism of being the king's "right hand" (which was often his dominant hand) was self-evident. If you live in an era where the sword is the sidearm of choice, where do you want your most trusted advisor and warrior to sit, to represent that he (or she, if applicable) is your most powerful asset?
Not points for guessing the obvious answer, especially since giving the obvious answer is all teaching is. (But that's beside the point.)
When Luther used the Left and Right, he wasn't making commentary on political policies. Rather, he was showing how God uses both the State and the Church as His emissaries. Left and Right are merely shorthand.
So, what is the difference between the two?
Well, first, to quote Yoda, you must unlearn what you have learned (at least a little). You will need to see things from a more historic perspective, placing yourself in previous realities, not just viewing this from the lens of 21st century America (or wherever you hail from). Why? Because most of us living in a post-modern reality have this idea of how Church and State don't mix and mingle. Of how there is this idea of religious liberty and tolerance of worship styles. Now, these are not bad, but operating under a thought process that is influenced by this understanding will have the potential to lead this discussion astray.
Now, with that in mind, we will take a trip back in time. We'll stop in the Middle Ages, in the Roman Empire, and in the Kingdom of Israel. Why? To see examples from each of how the State and the Church work side by side, and even interconnect. Whether they should or shouldn't.
But, that will have to wait until tomorrow.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Aviators, Germans, Mermaids, And Pirates - Oh My (or) Shameless Simultaneous Plug For Both Future Novel And Current Radio Program
Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
Next weekTomorrow (Sat. Sept 30 23) a portion of my most recent story I've been tinkering with will be read on the radio. It will be on KNNA (95.7 FM), a local station here in Nebraska, started by some members at Good Shepherd LCMS. Being a low power station you really can't hear it too far outside the Lincoln city limits (sadly). But they have a website, and an app, so the rest of us can listen live or even listen to archived shows.
The show the excerpt will be read on is called Soundtrack Telling. Its a two hour show starting at 7 am, that plays soundtrack music from movies, shows, video games, and trailers. The host, Capt. Kirk, usually reads story either he has been writing, or a viewer writes, during the second hour, which he will pair with background music. I have no idea what mine will be paired with.
You can find their website here (http://thecross957.org/) or you can visit the show archives and listen to previous episodes of Soundtrack Telling here: (http://thecross957.org/soundtracktelling/).
They have other shows too. They rebroadcast Issues Etc., Table Talk Radio, and a few podcasts (such as Gospeled Boldly). Some of their original shows include Off On A Tangent (where they have no idea what they are doing) and When Music Was Music (where Ol' Lovable Jack plays hits from the Big Band era).
And, yes, today's title is a bit of a hint regarding the story. But that's all I'll say for now.
So, yep,tomorrow next Saturday, 7 am, 95.7 FM. Be there or listen to it archived later. Maybe I'll have the next section finished and able to send in to read... or maybe I'll just leave y'all hanging until the story is ready to publish.
***
*Edit: Okay. Checking my email after work revealed that, due to unforeseen circumstances, there will not be a new Soundtrack Telling episode on Sat. Sept. 23. My story is still to be read, but not until next week.
Next week
The show the excerpt will be read on is called Soundtrack Telling. Its a two hour show starting at 7 am, that plays soundtrack music from movies, shows, video games, and trailers. The host, Capt. Kirk, usually reads story either he has been writing, or a viewer writes, during the second hour, which he will pair with background music. I have no idea what mine will be paired with.
You can find their website here (http://thecross957.org/) or you can visit the show archives and listen to previous episodes of Soundtrack Telling here: (http://thecross957.org/soundtracktelling/).
They have other shows too. They rebroadcast Issues Etc., Table Talk Radio, and a few podcasts (such as Gospeled Boldly). Some of their original shows include Off On A Tangent (where they have no idea what they are doing) and When Music Was Music (where Ol' Lovable Jack plays hits from the Big Band era).
And, yes, today's title is a bit of a hint regarding the story. But that's all I'll say for now.
So, yep,
***
*Edit: Okay. Checking my email after work revealed that, due to unforeseen circumstances, there will not be a new Soundtrack Telling episode on Sat. Sept. 23. My story is still to be read, but not until next week.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Did You Know We're Supposed To Answer Phones With "Ahoy!" (or) I Swear There Was No Rum Involved
Happy "Talk Like A Pirate Day"! (And happy my youngest bro's birthday!)
Now, get yer self over to www.piratechristian.com and start learning the ropes, ye scallawags.
Or ye can head over to www.wordvieweverlasting.com if ye prefer ninjas. They'll have a live show tonight at 1830 CDT, which you can find on their YouTube account (video will be here), so be there or be square walk the plank.
But first, listen to this rousing sea shanty.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Overreactions In Either Direction Are Still Both Wrong (or) My Earthly Allegiance Doesn't Need To Be Reaffirmed Daily
So, I'm pretty sure trolling for stories I can respond to and link my post in the comments might be a bit confrontational and sensationalist, but whatever. This one is (technically) harmless. Or at least what I'll comment on.
No, I don't think the teachers should be allowed to manhandle students. No, I do believe that everyone should stand for the pledge, the anthem, et cetera. No, I do not believe you are required to participate/recite/sing the pledge, et al. No, I don't think opting out of participation (even to the point of kneeling) is un-American, though in context it may be disrespectful. But that is what I don't think, how about what I do think.
I think that my own children do not have to recite the pledge. It is an oath, to be sure, and as a Christian, taking an oath is an occasional sticky wicket. Even more so since the wording has the speaker's loyalty tied to a symbol. Not the people, not the foundational legal documents, not the governmental leadership. No. An image.
Kinda like when the Romans would go around and have people give a small prayer and offering to an icon of the emperor. Christians knew this wasn't an issue of loyalty to the empire (which they were fine with, by the way) but a conflict of faith.
So, yes, I stand for the national anthem, and I'll stand for the pledge, but I don't recite it anymore. As a Christian, especially as one who is going to be a pastor, my allegiance is to God first, then other entities, such as the nation. Is that disrespectful? And to whom?
People talk about how the men who died for that flag. Its just a striped canvas. A symbol of identification. Does it represent anything worth honoring?
Of course it does. And I am proud and grateful for being a member of a nation where I can freely learn and express.
But if someone says that it is not appropriate of them to give an oath because their loyalty is to God alone, calling them unpatriotic and saying they don't love their country is ignorant. Context matters. Now, does that mean it is appropriate for a middle schooler to refuse to recite?
(pardon me while I shrug my shoulders in indifference)
Its not right, its not wrong. As for not standing or back-talking to teachers... that is inappropriate, though the latter more than the former. Not standing for the pledge is like not taking off your hat and sunglasses when indoors. It is about respect and reverence. Something both sides of this juxtaposition have forgotten.
I think the United States is the greatest nation on earth, but I have every intention of removing the US flag from the front of the sanctuary at whichever church I serve at. Why? Because the state does not control the Church, nor do we, the Church, owe allegiance to the state where it does not deserve it.
We would do good to remember that while unchecked individualism leads to anarchy (often through socialism first), unchecked patriotism leads to nationalism. Both are bad. But this situation is about unchecked nationalism, to the point of it being a religion.
Hence why I feel able and compelled to write about it without any fear of being called out. Even if someone does respond with something like "love our country or leave it," or that philosophy is the exact opposite of American philosophy," I won't take it personally.
In the first example, because nothing I have said means I do not love the country I live in. I wouldn't be such a student of history if I did not love it at some level.
As for the second, it is true, the philosophy I subscribe to is opposite the American worldview. And every other one, for that matter. Like Peter said "we must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) When the choice is between my loyalty to my country and loyalty to my God, and I cannot choose both, I will choose God.
Now, this is not a defense of anyone else's actions, including those of a player of professional "hand-egg." Rather, this is an explanation of my take on the issue, writ large. We have people running around calling each other out for being either un-American or being fascist. To be honest, both sides are un-American and fascist. We've always taught Americans work together, but not as a collective being lead by a dictator, but as a community of peers. We are not dependent on the central government, but are independent yet united. We call out that which is wrong, cruel, and unjust, especially if it parades as patriotic.
To be certain, the situation with the student not standing is frustrating to me, but not in the way most would realize. What was missed was a teachable moment. The teacher should have taken the time to call attention to the issue: people doing something simply because they are told to (both sides, here). Explain why the pledge is spoken, and why so many feel so passionate about the symbol that the flag is. Explain why people use this time as a peaceable protest, and when this is and is not an appropriate action. Explain how one can be respectful to the authorities placed above them (something else God has told us to do) while still maintaining their integrity and values when compelled to do something that goes against their beliefs.
I've had a similar scenario recently. My wife, our two boys, and my in-laws, went to Arlington National Cemetery. Our oldest is autistic, so I was ready to react so as not to disturb anyone. Now, to be fair, he did admirably. Better than many of the adults I saw there. And much better than the high schoolers.
But at the tomb he did get too restless and was becoming vocal. Thankfully it was near the changing of the guard. So he and I walked down the path toward the Maine's mast and I explained to him what was going on. We watched from a distance, and he did shout a couple times, but without the usual vigor.
If we had stayed there, and he had shouted, the guard would have called for silence (he duty to do so) and everyone would have stupidly stared at us to shame us for bringing our son to learn about our history and his grandfather's time in the army.
In that situation, who is the one acting inappropriately: the one who, due to unfortunate and uncontrollable circumstance cannot filter themselves; or those who out of ignorance and self-righteousness look down upon someone who is incapable of conforming to their standards for whatever reason?
If you think it is the boy who stood, respectfully, silently, for the committal of his veteran great-grandfather (including the salute), then I have some unfortunate news for you.
It is all in how we teach the next generation. And as a Christian from a tradition that has a deep understanding of the Two Kingdoms, patriotism isn't a problem, but neither is conscientious objection. If it was, then neither choice Alvin York struggled with would have been correct.
If you haven't familiarized yourself with that story, please do, its good. The movie's not bad either. After completing training, York was struggling with going to war. As a Christian, killing is wrong. As a soldier, killing is your duty. He could not find the middle ground, until he read Matthew 22, verse 21. "Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's."
You can have it both ways.
So, if you see me at a baseball game, I'll have my hat off, and I may even try my hand at the lyrics (if I'm feeling extra musically inclined). If I'm in a situation with the pledge of allegiance, I'll stand, respectfully. If you see me on the 4th of July, I'll likely be in red, white, and blue.
(I really should do that case study on Vocation using Alvin York as the example.)
No, I don't think the teachers should be allowed to manhandle students. No, I do believe that everyone should stand for the pledge, the anthem, et cetera. No, I do not believe you are required to participate/recite/sing the pledge, et al. No, I don't think opting out of participation (even to the point of kneeling) is un-American, though in context it may be disrespectful. But that is what I don't think, how about what I do think.
I think that my own children do not have to recite the pledge. It is an oath, to be sure, and as a Christian, taking an oath is an occasional sticky wicket. Even more so since the wording has the speaker's loyalty tied to a symbol. Not the people, not the foundational legal documents, not the governmental leadership. No. An image.
Kinda like when the Romans would go around and have people give a small prayer and offering to an icon of the emperor. Christians knew this wasn't an issue of loyalty to the empire (which they were fine with, by the way) but a conflict of faith.
So, yes, I stand for the national anthem, and I'll stand for the pledge, but I don't recite it anymore. As a Christian, especially as one who is going to be a pastor, my allegiance is to God first, then other entities, such as the nation. Is that disrespectful? And to whom?
People talk about how the men who died for that flag. Its just a striped canvas. A symbol of identification. Does it represent anything worth honoring?
Of course it does. And I am proud and grateful for being a member of a nation where I can freely learn and express.
But if someone says that it is not appropriate of them to give an oath because their loyalty is to God alone, calling them unpatriotic and saying they don't love their country is ignorant. Context matters. Now, does that mean it is appropriate for a middle schooler to refuse to recite?
(pardon me while I shrug my shoulders in indifference)
Its not right, its not wrong. As for not standing or back-talking to teachers... that is inappropriate, though the latter more than the former. Not standing for the pledge is like not taking off your hat and sunglasses when indoors. It is about respect and reverence. Something both sides of this juxtaposition have forgotten.
I think the United States is the greatest nation on earth, but I have every intention of removing the US flag from the front of the sanctuary at whichever church I serve at. Why? Because the state does not control the Church, nor do we, the Church, owe allegiance to the state where it does not deserve it.
We would do good to remember that while unchecked individualism leads to anarchy (often through socialism first), unchecked patriotism leads to nationalism. Both are bad. But this situation is about unchecked nationalism, to the point of it being a religion.
Hence why I feel able and compelled to write about it without any fear of being called out. Even if someone does respond with something like "love our country or leave it," or that philosophy is the exact opposite of American philosophy," I won't take it personally.
In the first example, because nothing I have said means I do not love the country I live in. I wouldn't be such a student of history if I did not love it at some level.
As for the second, it is true, the philosophy I subscribe to is opposite the American worldview. And every other one, for that matter. Like Peter said "we must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) When the choice is between my loyalty to my country and loyalty to my God, and I cannot choose both, I will choose God.
Now, this is not a defense of anyone else's actions, including those of a player of professional "hand-egg." Rather, this is an explanation of my take on the issue, writ large. We have people running around calling each other out for being either un-American or being fascist. To be honest, both sides are un-American and fascist. We've always taught Americans work together, but not as a collective being lead by a dictator, but as a community of peers. We are not dependent on the central government, but are independent yet united. We call out that which is wrong, cruel, and unjust, especially if it parades as patriotic.
To be certain, the situation with the student not standing is frustrating to me, but not in the way most would realize. What was missed was a teachable moment. The teacher should have taken the time to call attention to the issue: people doing something simply because they are told to (both sides, here). Explain why the pledge is spoken, and why so many feel so passionate about the symbol that the flag is. Explain why people use this time as a peaceable protest, and when this is and is not an appropriate action. Explain how one can be respectful to the authorities placed above them (something else God has told us to do) while still maintaining their integrity and values when compelled to do something that goes against their beliefs.
I've had a similar scenario recently. My wife, our two boys, and my in-laws, went to Arlington National Cemetery. Our oldest is autistic, so I was ready to react so as not to disturb anyone. Now, to be fair, he did admirably. Better than many of the adults I saw there. And much better than the high schoolers.
But at the tomb he did get too restless and was becoming vocal. Thankfully it was near the changing of the guard. So he and I walked down the path toward the Maine's mast and I explained to him what was going on. We watched from a distance, and he did shout a couple times, but without the usual vigor.
If we had stayed there, and he had shouted, the guard would have called for silence (he duty to do so) and everyone would have stupidly stared at us to shame us for bringing our son to learn about our history and his grandfather's time in the army.
In that situation, who is the one acting inappropriately: the one who, due to unfortunate and uncontrollable circumstance cannot filter themselves; or those who out of ignorance and self-righteousness look down upon someone who is incapable of conforming to their standards for whatever reason?
If you think it is the boy who stood, respectfully, silently, for the committal of his veteran great-grandfather (including the salute), then I have some unfortunate news for you.
It is all in how we teach the next generation. And as a Christian from a tradition that has a deep understanding of the Two Kingdoms, patriotism isn't a problem, but neither is conscientious objection. If it was, then neither choice Alvin York struggled with would have been correct.
If you haven't familiarized yourself with that story, please do, its good. The movie's not bad either. After completing training, York was struggling with going to war. As a Christian, killing is wrong. As a soldier, killing is your duty. He could not find the middle ground, until he read Matthew 22, verse 21. "Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's."
You can have it both ways.
So, if you see me at a baseball game, I'll have my hat off, and I may even try my hand at the lyrics (if I'm feeling extra musically inclined). If I'm in a situation with the pledge of allegiance, I'll stand, respectfully. If you see me on the 4th of July, I'll likely be in red, white, and blue.
(I really should do that case study on Vocation using Alvin York as the example.)
Friday, September 15, 2017
If It Is Broken, Please Fix It (or) Originally Was And Still Is About Jesus
Martin Luther.
(insert political rant of any slant here)
(insert soap box sermon about any athlete here)
(insert your disgust for a song/musician/genre here)
(et cetera, et cetera, et cetera)
None of that matters right now, because, in a little over a month the Church will be remembering, even celebrating, the 500th anniversary of when a non-tenured professor at a relatively new university lost his cool momentarily while struggling with how in the heck he is to stand by and watch as the organization he is part of destroy itself by completely lying to those who desperately need help.
That's a long sentence, and I'm not sure its grammatically correct. Shorter version is: the church (as an organization/government) stopped preaching the Gospel, and started, instead, preaching that people can earn salvation. Luther got fed up with it, started researching, and kicked off what should have been a discussion to figure out what went wrong. Instead of doing the right thing, the organization calling itself the church simply said "no, you don't get to question what we've said, and no, we don't care if the Bible says otherwise, just sit down and shut up and tow the line."
(Okay, so it wasn't shorter. But hopefully it was more coherent.)
The papacy's response to Luther was a blunder.
If the first great blunder is "never start a land war in Asia," and the second is "never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line," the third most certainly is "never force a German to deny undeniable fact simply because you said so."
Especially when that German is one of the leading experts in biblical research. Seriously, Luther was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. He wasn't going to simply go quietly while the people were openly and flagrantly lied to about what the Bible actually taught.
Obviously this post would be better in a month and a half, and I probably will write something more on Dr. Martin Luther. But I'll probably post it on his birthday in November. This though, is sort of in response, or rather at least because I took the time to watch, a PBS special about Luther.
Near the start of the documentary the show claims that this time period was a showdown between the medieval and the modern. While there is truth to that, since the 16th century is when "modern" history begins, that wasn't what happened with the nailing of the 95 Thesis. Luther's actions against the lies of the church was not a postulating of new ideas.
Rather it was a battle between the new/old lie and the timeless truth.
The assumption being made is that Luther arrived at an idea, either new or radical, that shook Western Civilization. The reality is, however, simultaneously much more simple and much more complex. You see, Luther, in his daily struggle with the undeniable fact he, a sinner, deserved Hell, found the answer in the last place peopled dared look, for it was the most dangerous place: the Bible.
What he found there was revolutionary, not because it was new, but because if was radically in opposition to anything a human could have ever thought up. The idea which drove everything Luther ever wrote or said is that all of salvation is the Cross, nothing more, nothing less.
I should note that the documentary overlooks that the indulgence sales were RCC sanctioned, though the salesmen's methods were not specifically prescribed. The RCC had given indulgences, and still do, as a way to "bypass" Purgatory (another RCC lie). But selling forgiveness was a new thing, at least at that level and that openly. Giving money as a "suggested offering" was common, as was paying for a mass to be performed, or other such "works of merit" which earned some sliver of grace. Tetzel, though, was the patron saint of used car salesmen.
It was at this point that the church should have had the discussion. But instead, they chose to ignore while the printing press allowed Luther the means to tell everyone.
There are periods of time when everything just waits for a spark to set a wildfire off. In the early 20th century it happened in Bosnia. In the 18th century it was in Boston. In the 16th century it happened in Wittenburg. The Western World was ready for things to shift, drastically. Politics as usual were not being tolerated. Technology was on the move. People wanted their lot in life to improve. The idea of identity, both individual and national, was popular. The world was ready for a change. But that was not why Luther wrote what he did. What Luther wanted was to reform the church and rid it of the false teachings.
When presented with canon law, which even Luther could not deny within its own authority, it was clear he was wrong. But when looking to Scripture, which even the church is compelled to agree is the first, last, and only determining factor regarding the Christian faith, there was no doubt who was in the wrong: the church based out of Rome.
Any time an entity places something above Scripture, they don't just stumble into heresy, they leap head long. Be it a pope, a council, a tradition, the use of reason, the use of willpower, the use of freedom, or anything else.
"Luther's rejection of the pope's authority is the central difference between catholics and protestants to this day." Um... no.
(Though, I do joke that the only difference between Lutherans and Catholics is that we don't have the pope.)
There is a difference between Roman catholic, Protestant, and Lutheran more substantial than the lack of a "vicar of Christ." (I wish I could just say "protestant" and mean Lutheran, but, thanks to the likes of Calvin and the "great awakenings" I can't. Should call them "reformed protestant," "radical protestant," or "liberal protestant" since that's what they are.). Lutherans believe that salvation is by grace* through faith without works. This is the difference between us and the church in Rome. They add "merit" (that is to say, works) to faith. Most "protestant" churches do the same, or similar, focusing on mysticism and emotion, or on rationalization. Lutheran's don't play nice with others because we take the doctrines, and by extension Scripture, seriously.
*(And, yes, Luther did insert the word "alone" here in his translation of the New Testament into German. But remember, he was a doctor of the church, and a Greek scholarly rock-star. His translation was as faithful as he could be, and even he admitted that if you don't like it, you can ignore his translation, for it is just a translation. If you want the best version, get the original languages. However, the text, context, and grammar are of such that the use of the word "alone" is appropriate, since it is implied in St. Paul's statement.)
Did you know German doesn't have a word or phrase for "small talk." The closes to that is "lying." Germans get to the point, say what they mean, and mean what they say. Blunt. So when someone complains about how the Lutheran's aren't "cooperating" perhaps its because they are not willing to compromise their values and integrity by agreeing to something that is likely wrong.
(I had promised myself this was going to be a quick thing, and not a "scathing treatise" on the Reformation. Clearly that promise fell through. I'll at least tried to keep the controversy down.)
Faith without works is dead. But works without faith is to be damned. God does judge all humankind based on works, but a Christian is judged, at Judgement Day, by only one work: the Cross.
#stillaboutjesus
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Please Don't Ask, I'm Really Not Sure What Happened (or) No, Seriously, Even I'm Confused
I am the very model of a modern medieval minister.
I've information heretical, doctrinal, and literal.
I know the kings of Israel, and I quote the saints historical
From Abraham to Pentecost, in order categorical.
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters apologetical,
I understand the teachings, both the simple and metaphysical,
About the two kingdoms doctrine I am teaming with a lot of zeal,
With many cheerful facts about what the Scriptures truly reveals.
This parody of a Gilbert and Sullivan song brought to you by me trying to come up with clever titles and really liking how "modern medieval minister" sounded. Gonna use it in the future, since it describes Lutherans in an accurate yet silly manner.
So, enjoy this bonus post.
To Long, Don't Read (or) Yeah, You Ain't Getting Outta This One
If you've been to this blog before (and not been scared off), thanks. If you're new and yesterday's doorstopper makes you question my sanity (and perhaps your's) that's okay. I try not to write anything that could elicit a "tl;dr" comment.
But for when I do, if you're here reading then that comment is not necessary. Clearly you're here to read what I write, which makes me wonder if Stockholm syndrome is in effect. Not that you have to read any of this, or comment whether you do or do not read. This is just me, writing my thoughts out loud.
Also, by all means comment. Though, DAR, unless you come up with something more clever (or ambitious but rubbish), I may just keep ignoring them.
In other news, if you tune into 95.7 FM out of Lincoln NE on Sept. 23 at 7 am, you'll get to hear part of a story I wrote. You can find them online here. Lots of good stuff there.
Trying to crack into the lectionary, write a study/devotion/lesson based on the readings for the upcoming week. Why? Practice, and give me something to work on. Got a few other things I've been wanting to dabble in. Things along the lines of "Hmm... the current infatuation with science as the only answer sounds way to similar to when France tried to worship reason as a goddess. I wonder how best to counter that."
Other than that, its just me here, being me and writing whatever tickles my fancy.
But for when I do, if you're here reading then that comment is not necessary. Clearly you're here to read what I write, which makes me wonder if Stockholm syndrome is in effect. Not that you have to read any of this, or comment whether you do or do not read. This is just me, writing my thoughts out loud.
Also, by all means comment. Though, DAR, unless you come up with something more clever (or ambitious but rubbish), I may just keep ignoring them.
In other news, if you tune into 95.7 FM out of Lincoln NE on Sept. 23 at 7 am, you'll get to hear part of a story I wrote. You can find them online here. Lots of good stuff there.
Trying to crack into the lectionary, write a study/devotion/lesson based on the readings for the upcoming week. Why? Practice, and give me something to work on. Got a few other things I've been wanting to dabble in. Things along the lines of "Hmm... the current infatuation with science as the only answer sounds way to similar to when France tried to worship reason as a goddess. I wonder how best to counter that."
Other than that, its just me here, being me and writing whatever tickles my fancy.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Lies, Darned Lies, and Statistics (or) I Think I Over Thought This One, But I'm Too Far To Stop Now
Yeah, this one's kinda long. Sometimes having access to a blog is a dangerous thing. So, if you like tangental discussions of aircraft, military history, and Star Wars, stick around. Otherwise, maybe I'll be back tomorrow with something "normal."
Well, normal for me, at least.
There are a few things that I like that have no real usage in the profession I seek. I am a fan of Star Wars. ("oh really?" yousnark say) I like World War 2 aircraft (well, actually, any aircraft, but 1939-45 had a lot of great planes).
What? You're surprised I'm a nerd? Clearly you've not been paying attention if this comes as a shock.
Anyway, being a nerd, I enjoy kibitzing the discussion regarding the ships of SW, and the aircraft from whenever. So I was happy to have found a number of people on the interwebs who make videos about such things. One is EckhartsLadder, who compares sci fi ships, most notably Star Wars.
What EL does is a "who would win" scenario, comparing two craft in "firepower," "defenses," and "intangibles" in a 1v1 with equal skilled pilots without mods or backup. Best out of 10 wins.
The one that caught my attention was the Incom T-65 X-Wing vs. Incom/Subpro ARC-170. (here if you are interested)
Before I say anything else, I think if fair to say his method is flawed and shortsighted, but not a bad start. Why? Eric "Winkle" Brown and the Wildcat.
(insert Tim "the Toolman" Taylor questioning grunt here)
Captain Eric Brown, Fleet Air Arm, served during WW2 as a pilot. Most notably he served with N. 1426 Flight: the RAF enemy aircraft testing squadron. This mean that Brown got the opportunity to fly a lot of types of aircraft. 487 types.
Let that sink in a moment. 487 types. Not 487 aircraft, but aircraft types. This is a record that will never be broken. Especially if you count the individual marks, not just types. For example: Brown flew 14 versions of the Spitfire during his career, yet the record only lists Spitfire once.
Brown also has the most carrier landings ever: 2,407, in 20 different types. Including the first tricycle undercarriage and first jet.
And he was the only Allied pilot to ever fly the Me 163 Komet rocket interceptor. You know, the one with the corrosive fuel that would melt pilots, and if the plane hit a bump during takeoff it might explode.
He was a fan of the de Havilland Hornet and the F-86E Sabre, thinking both to be exceptional aircraft and his favorite regarding their engines.
Because of this vast experience, Brown was able to quantify what made for a good fighter plane. He came up with six characteristics that an effective fighter should have. They were:
What does any of this have to do with Star Wars? Well, unless you were asleep in history class, or are not a nerd (even a little), it will come as no surprise that Mr. Lucas used a lot of inspiration from WW2. Hey, if you've got good material, use it.
So, the Incom T-65B X-Wing vs. the Incom/Subpro ARC-170... who would win? The X-Wing.
How frequently? About 90+%, assuming we have a trained pilot in the seat.
So, to break it down, the X-Wing meets Brown's criteria better than the ARC. It has the speed, and climb, sufficient firepower and armor/shields, and maneuverability. All it lacks is an advantage in visibility. Based on Corky's mission lineup, the X-Win does it all. Perhaps not as well as a dedicated craft, but it is a "swing role" fighter.
Usually "jack of all trades" don't come out on top frequently. But, bear with me a second while I take and replace the Star Wars craft with their 1940s doppelgängers. (This is where EL missed some important items in his 1v1.)
The X-Wing is comparable to the P-38 Lightning, while the ARC-170 is the P-61 Black Widow.
If you're still wondering who wins, just look at the to planes for a second.
Oh, still aren't sure. Well, consider, one is a twin engine single seat interceptor, the other is a twin engine three place night fighter... that is the size of a medium bomber.
Now, I ain't knocking the P-61. She was designed as a purpose build radar equipped night fighter. Heavily armed with 4x 20 mm cannon and 4x .50 cal machine guns in a turret. Powered by two R-2800s, and able to tote around 3 tons of bombs, she was a powerful plane. Very agile for how big she was, too, thanks to Northrop's clever spoilers. A little late to prove itself, but, that's not the point.
The Lightning's a bit of an oddball. Designed as a heavily armed interceptor, found to have great range, respectable agility, decent armor, and ridiculer versatility. Four .50 cal machine guns and a 20 mm cannon, backed by up to a ton of bombs. And her twin V-1710s made her one of the fastest planes of the early portion of the war.
So, who wins in a dogfight? Well, first is the need to acknowledge the caveat to Brown's 6th characteristic: don't dogfight. Why are speed and climb first? Because the pilot who has the altitude and speed picks when the fight starts, and when it ends. Diving attacks trump spinning and loops. See the work of the Flying Tigers, or Red 2's interception over Yavin.
We have this notion that fighters are all about dogfighting and that goes back to the "romantic" depictions of the Great War. Watching men like Ball, Bishop, Barker, Guynemer, Voss, and Richthofen dueling in chivalric arial joust makes for great stories. Its not the truth. Check out Oswald Boelcke's dicta:
Okay, so performance is kinda the keystone factor. If the fighter doesn't have enough get-up-and-go winning won't be likely. But what about the other factors?
Firepower is self-evident. You can have all the speed in the world, but without enough punch, it doesn't matter. The MiG-3 found that out the hard way.
Armor protection should be obvious as well. You need a strong, rugged craft to ride into battle. There are plenty of stories of American planes shrugging off lots of hits. Robert S. Johnson's P-47 taking all the ammo from an FW 190 is a paramount example. But if your ship has the heft to shrug it off, it had better have the power to move. Hence the order. The A-4 Skyhawk is a great case study in how to correctly build a fighter. First, find the limits of your size and weight, then pick a powerful engine, finally don't exceed the limits.
Pilot visibility is one that is easily forgotten and taken for granted. The Bf 109 had a narrow canopy that made turning your head difficult. The F-4 Phantom had heavy frames that limited view, especially for the rear canopy. The F-8 Crusader had a lot of stuff in the windscreen, which made landings especially "fun." Having visibility is majorly important for pilots, especially combat pilots. The one who sees the target first wins. Modern technologies, like radar, IR, long-range cameras, all improve situational awareness.
Lastly, again, is maneuverability. If having the ability to "zoom-boom" is top, then agility isn't important, right? Not at all.
The agility then is for defense, avoiding an attack, as seen in #6 of Dicta Boelcke.
So then, back to the P-38/P-61 debate. In a straight up 1v1, who wins?
Answer: the pilot who sees his opponent first and has the altitude to start a diving attack, most likely. But lets be "fair" for the argument. In an equal level fight, where they meet at the merge, who wins . The P-38. All the time.
Why? Size is not the P-61's friend, and all that firepower is useless if you can't get it pointed at the target. At this point some table-top gamer will be like "aha, what about the turret?"
You mean the turret that didn't work in the initial marks? The turret that was there primarily for bomber interception? The turret that added weight and complexity which degraded performance? The turret that was a throwback to the turret fighters of the early 40s (the Defiant, Roc) and the two seat fighters of WW1?
Yes, in WW1 many of the early attempts at building a working fighter resulted in a pilot flying the plane, and the main armaments being manned by a gunner. Care to guess how well it worked? Well enough that one of the best fighters of the war, the Bristol F2A, was shot down a lot when flown like a two seater.
You see, the idea of the turret guns was a symptom of not paying attention to reality. This exemplified itself in the phrase "the bombers will always get through." Who needs escorts when the bombers are literal flying fortresses, bristling with guns? The 8th Air Force, that's who.
What does any of this have to do with the X-Wing/ARC-170? A lot. EL assumed, like many do, that the numbers can lead to the answer. This is what has lead to the X-Wing table top game. People think that if you have a quantifiable amount more of speed, or agility, or aggression, you can win. Which is where EL's idea of "intangibles" makes sense.
So, who wins, the X-Wing or the ARC-170? With exceptional pilots in both, the X-Wing. With average pilots in both, the X-Wing.
Why? Well, four cannon is more weight-of-fire than two, meaning greater chance of hitting the target. While the ARC does have more torpedoes, not enough to make a difference in a dogfight. In an attack mission, different story. The ARC is the better attack bomber. (And, by the way, torpedoes are guided in the SW universe.) Better acceleration, and the ability to keep that speed means the X-Wing determines when, and where, the fight starts and ends. The X-Wing's smaller size means its harder to see, therefore harder to evade.
Of course the swing-role fighter beats the high-performance attacker in a dogfight.
Yeah, this one kinda got away from me.
Well, normal for me, at least.
There are a few things that I like that have no real usage in the profession I seek. I am a fan of Star Wars. ("oh really?" you
What? You're surprised I'm a nerd? Clearly you've not been paying attention if this comes as a shock.
Anyway, being a nerd, I enjoy kibitzing the discussion regarding the ships of SW, and the aircraft from whenever. So I was happy to have found a number of people on the interwebs who make videos about such things. One is EckhartsLadder, who compares sci fi ships, most notably Star Wars.
What EL does is a "who would win" scenario, comparing two craft in "firepower," "defenses," and "intangibles" in a 1v1 with equal skilled pilots without mods or backup. Best out of 10 wins.
The one that caught my attention was the Incom T-65 X-Wing vs. Incom/Subpro ARC-170. (here if you are interested)
Before I say anything else, I think if fair to say his method is flawed and shortsighted, but not a bad start. Why? Eric "Winkle" Brown and the Wildcat.
(insert Tim "the Toolman" Taylor questioning grunt here)
Captain Eric Brown, Fleet Air Arm, served during WW2 as a pilot. Most notably he served with N. 1426 Flight: the RAF enemy aircraft testing squadron. This mean that Brown got the opportunity to fly a lot of types of aircraft. 487 types.
Let that sink in a moment. 487 types. Not 487 aircraft, but aircraft types. This is a record that will never be broken. Especially if you count the individual marks, not just types. For example: Brown flew 14 versions of the Spitfire during his career, yet the record only lists Spitfire once.
Brown also has the most carrier landings ever: 2,407, in 20 different types. Including the first tricycle undercarriage and first jet.
And he was the only Allied pilot to ever fly the Me 163 Komet rocket interceptor. You know, the one with the corrosive fuel that would melt pilots, and if the plane hit a bump during takeoff it might explode.
He was a fan of the de Havilland Hornet and the F-86E Sabre, thinking both to be exceptional aircraft and his favorite regarding their engines.
Because of this vast experience, Brown was able to quantify what made for a good fighter plane. He came up with six characteristics that an effective fighter should have. They were:
- Speed
- Rate of climb
- Firepower
- Armor protection
- Pilot visibility
- Maneuverability (though he would stress "don't dogfight")
- Fighter vs. fighter
- Bomber escort
- Ground attack
- Photoreconnaissance
What does any of this have to do with Star Wars? Well, unless you were asleep in history class, or are not a nerd (even a little), it will come as no surprise that Mr. Lucas used a lot of inspiration from WW2. Hey, if you've got good material, use it.
So, the Incom T-65B X-Wing vs. the Incom/Subpro ARC-170... who would win? The X-Wing.
How frequently? About 90+%, assuming we have a trained pilot in the seat.
So, to break it down, the X-Wing meets Brown's criteria better than the ARC. It has the speed, and climb, sufficient firepower and armor/shields, and maneuverability. All it lacks is an advantage in visibility. Based on Corky's mission lineup, the X-Win does it all. Perhaps not as well as a dedicated craft, but it is a "swing role" fighter.
Usually "jack of all trades" don't come out on top frequently. But, bear with me a second while I take and replace the Star Wars craft with their 1940s doppelgängers. (This is where EL missed some important items in his 1v1.)
The X-Wing is comparable to the P-38 Lightning, while the ARC-170 is the P-61 Black Widow.
If you're still wondering who wins, just look at the to planes for a second.
the Lockheed P-38G Lightning
the Northrop P-61 Black Widow
Any questions?Oh, still aren't sure. Well, consider, one is a twin engine single seat interceptor, the other is a twin engine three place night fighter... that is the size of a medium bomber.
Now, I ain't knocking the P-61. She was designed as a purpose build radar equipped night fighter. Heavily armed with 4x 20 mm cannon and 4x .50 cal machine guns in a turret. Powered by two R-2800s, and able to tote around 3 tons of bombs, she was a powerful plane. Very agile for how big she was, too, thanks to Northrop's clever spoilers. A little late to prove itself, but, that's not the point.
The Lightning's a bit of an oddball. Designed as a heavily armed interceptor, found to have great range, respectable agility, decent armor, and ridiculer versatility. Four .50 cal machine guns and a 20 mm cannon, backed by up to a ton of bombs. And her twin V-1710s made her one of the fastest planes of the early portion of the war.
So, who wins in a dogfight? Well, first is the need to acknowledge the caveat to Brown's 6th characteristic: don't dogfight. Why are speed and climb first? Because the pilot who has the altitude and speed picks when the fight starts, and when it ends. Diving attacks trump spinning and loops. See the work of the Flying Tigers, or Red 2's interception over Yavin.
We have this notion that fighters are all about dogfighting and that goes back to the "romantic" depictions of the Great War. Watching men like Ball, Bishop, Barker, Guynemer, Voss, and Richthofen dueling in chivalric arial joust makes for great stories. Its not the truth. Check out Oswald Boelcke's dicta:
- Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible keep the sun behind you.
- Always carry through an attack when you started it.
- Fire only at close range and only when your opponent is properly in your sights.
- Always keep your eye on your opponent and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.
- In any form of attack it is essential to assail your opponent from behind.
- If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught but fly to meet him.
- When over the enemy's line never forget your own line of retreat.
- (For the Squadron) Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats take care that several do not go for one opponent.
Okay, so performance is kinda the keystone factor. If the fighter doesn't have enough get-up-and-go winning won't be likely. But what about the other factors?
Firepower is self-evident. You can have all the speed in the world, but without enough punch, it doesn't matter. The MiG-3 found that out the hard way.
Armor protection should be obvious as well. You need a strong, rugged craft to ride into battle. There are plenty of stories of American planes shrugging off lots of hits. Robert S. Johnson's P-47 taking all the ammo from an FW 190 is a paramount example. But if your ship has the heft to shrug it off, it had better have the power to move. Hence the order. The A-4 Skyhawk is a great case study in how to correctly build a fighter. First, find the limits of your size and weight, then pick a powerful engine, finally don't exceed the limits.
Pilot visibility is one that is easily forgotten and taken for granted. The Bf 109 had a narrow canopy that made turning your head difficult. The F-4 Phantom had heavy frames that limited view, especially for the rear canopy. The F-8 Crusader had a lot of stuff in the windscreen, which made landings especially "fun." Having visibility is majorly important for pilots, especially combat pilots. The one who sees the target first wins. Modern technologies, like radar, IR, long-range cameras, all improve situational awareness.
Lastly, again, is maneuverability. If having the ability to "zoom-boom" is top, then agility isn't important, right? Not at all.
The agility then is for defense, avoiding an attack, as seen in #6 of Dicta Boelcke.
So then, back to the P-38/P-61 debate. In a straight up 1v1, who wins?
Answer: the pilot who sees his opponent first and has the altitude to start a diving attack, most likely. But lets be "fair" for the argument. In an equal level fight, where they meet at the merge, who wins . The P-38. All the time.
Why? Size is not the P-61's friend, and all that firepower is useless if you can't get it pointed at the target. At this point some table-top gamer will be like "aha, what about the turret?"
You mean the turret that didn't work in the initial marks? The turret that was there primarily for bomber interception? The turret that added weight and complexity which degraded performance? The turret that was a throwback to the turret fighters of the early 40s (the Defiant, Roc) and the two seat fighters of WW1?
Yes, in WW1 many of the early attempts at building a working fighter resulted in a pilot flying the plane, and the main armaments being manned by a gunner. Care to guess how well it worked? Well enough that one of the best fighters of the war, the Bristol F2A, was shot down a lot when flown like a two seater.
You see, the idea of the turret guns was a symptom of not paying attention to reality. This exemplified itself in the phrase "the bombers will always get through." Who needs escorts when the bombers are literal flying fortresses, bristling with guns? The 8th Air Force, that's who.
What does any of this have to do with the X-Wing/ARC-170? A lot. EL assumed, like many do, that the numbers can lead to the answer. This is what has lead to the X-Wing table top game. People think that if you have a quantifiable amount more of speed, or agility, or aggression, you can win. Which is where EL's idea of "intangibles" makes sense.
So, who wins, the X-Wing or the ARC-170? With exceptional pilots in both, the X-Wing. With average pilots in both, the X-Wing.
Why? Well, four cannon is more weight-of-fire than two, meaning greater chance of hitting the target. While the ARC does have more torpedoes, not enough to make a difference in a dogfight. In an attack mission, different story. The ARC is the better attack bomber. (And, by the way, torpedoes are guided in the SW universe.) Better acceleration, and the ability to keep that speed means the X-Wing determines when, and where, the fight starts and ends. The X-Wing's smaller size means its harder to see, therefore harder to evade.
Of course the swing-role fighter beats the high-performance attacker in a dogfight.
Yeah, this one kinda got away from me.
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Where Is God During Hurricane Season (or) Someone Flunked Bible Class
It doesn't surprise me. Not any more. Supposedly trained religious "teachers" making ridiculous statements backed up with a few verses out of context. A wild canine wandering about a flock would be more subtle.
I'm not surprised at all. But it does frustrate me to no end.
So to deal with said frustration (and others as well), I'm writing this, sort of in response to a very amateur attempt at using Scripture. And to give me something to do to "stretch my legs," theologically.
For those of you new to this blog, you may be surprised that I'd label veteran bible-thumper Max as an "amateur," but that's the politest term I can use for someone who is twisting Scripture.
With all the hurricanes the US has endured in the last couple weeks, and will probably endure in the next couple, its no surprise he wrote this article. At least he wasn't claiming that believers can control the weather. (And, yes, people have claimed this. Listen to the explanation and correction here.) Anyway, back to Max's article.
"Hurricane Irma is coming. Where is God?" (read it here if you want)
As soon as I saw the title, warning alarms were sounding and shields were up. "Oh, great, here comes another attempt to sell 'I can do all things' bologna."
He starts off okay, by asking questions that are really understandable in these situations.
1) How can this be happening?
2) How should we respond?
3) Where is God?
Before I get to his answer, I'll give the quick, but correct, answers.
1) Weather patterns and seasons. Though to be fair, the destructiveness of weather is an extension of the Fall, though that explanation is not a quick one, nor necessary for this specific discussion at the moment.
2) Pray, for forgiveness and in thanks to God for salvation. Look for ways to provide aid, either in person or by assisting with sending relief to those who will need it once the storms pass.
3) He is God. He is here, as He promised He would always be.
To begin answering these, Max decides, wisely, to quote the Bible, but his choice proves anything but wise.
Context.
Context.
Context.
What is the context of Luke 21? If you guessed "end of the world" based on what vs. 25 said, you'd be given partial credit. Jesus is, for a short portion, speaking of the end of the world. But for most of it, He's speaking of the end of the age.
The astute among you will have noticed "those aren't exactly the same." And that's true. The "end of the age," which is what all the "wars, rumors of wars, etc" is all about is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The hint is "this generation will not pass away before all this has taken place (vs. 32)."
Remember, though, the disciples asked Jesus "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place? (vs. 7)"
That's two questions. I already showed you the answer to the first (when will these things be). For the second question, allow me to go to Mark 13, mostly because the answer He gives is more direct. (Its the same conversation, but Mark gives a different perspective. That's why we have four Gospels.)
“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. (Mk. 13:32-33)"
So, having Max here pull out a whole implied "this is a sign Jesus will be here soon" is a bit dishonest. Not that he's technically wrong, since all trials and troubles are signs of sin, which is why Christ came and died and rose.
Max goes on to say:
While Max does use Psalm 121 decently, he's far too hands off in his approach to a crisis. While, yes, we shouldn't dwell on our troubles, to "wallow" in our sorrows, but we need to be active in moving forward in our lives.
However, that was not the lesson we should glean from Peter's Amazing Not Drowning Show.
Peter didn't volunteer to leave the boat. None of them did. Why would they. Being on a small craft in the middle of a stereotypically stormy sea is frightening enough. Seeing what must undeniably be a ghost was too much. The only reason Peter gets kudos is because he was smart enough to know that where Jesus is would be the safest place, and if He said it was safe to come to Him, then it was. As long as Peter focused on Christ, he was safe, both physically and spiritually.
Granted, Peter had Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, standing next to him, so physical danger was irrelevant.
The last three paragraphs of Max's "oh, no, there's a storm, but its okay, God's got a plan" are just wishy-washy. Not wrong, but nothing overly helpful. Especially since nowhere does he mention Christ and Him crucified. Its almost as if Max isn't a Christian pastor...
Yes, God has a plan. And that plan was, and is, and will be, Christ crucified. That is what saves us from sin, death, and the power of the devil. It is our salvation. Our inheritance. Our narrow way to eternity.
But what about the here and now? What about those who suffer sickness, injury, persecution, famine, unjust government, war, storm, and so on? Paul answers that:
As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” (Romans 8:36)
He's quoting Psalm 44 (vs. 22 specifically). David is expressing how God has saved Israel, and how He punishes them as He sees fit. But that does not stop David from pleading for divine aid. And he knows it will come, even if it does not come now or in the manner David asked for it. Because unlike most contemporary Christians, David knew where his hope was anchored. A hope Paul alludes to as he continues:
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. (Romans 8:37)
It is not that we are the ones who conquered. It is Christ who did the fighting. We are merely the refugees who He rescued. Our eternal hope rests in Christ saving us from the stain of sin. He never promised that we'd be saved from our suffering now. In fact, we are told we are being punished, disciplined, by our Father for our sins. But it is temporary.
As Christ said:
"I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
If you stuck with me this long, are still reading and haven't thrown your computer through a plate-glass window, you deserve a Kit-Kat. If you still think "tl dr" I'm sorry. I could have gone longer, but that would have included a three or more page tangent on how the Fall is to blame for weather.
If you want to help, you can go to Lutheran World Relief (here) or Orphan Grain Train (here) for ways to do so.
I'm not surprised at all. But it does frustrate me to no end.
So to deal with said frustration (and others as well), I'm writing this, sort of in response to a very amateur attempt at using Scripture. And to give me something to do to "stretch my legs," theologically.
For those of you new to this blog, you may be surprised that I'd label veteran bible-thumper Max as an "amateur," but that's the politest term I can use for someone who is twisting Scripture.
With all the hurricanes the US has endured in the last couple weeks, and will probably endure in the next couple, its no surprise he wrote this article. At least he wasn't claiming that believers can control the weather. (And, yes, people have claimed this. Listen to the explanation and correction here.) Anyway, back to Max's article.
"Hurricane Irma is coming. Where is God?" (read it here if you want)
As soon as I saw the title, warning alarms were sounding and shields were up. "Oh, great, here comes another attempt to sell 'I can do all things' bologna."
He starts off okay, by asking questions that are really understandable in these situations.
1) How can this be happening?
2) How should we respond?
3) Where is God?
Before I get to his answer, I'll give the quick, but correct, answers.
1) Weather patterns and seasons. Though to be fair, the destructiveness of weather is an extension of the Fall, though that explanation is not a quick one, nor necessary for this specific discussion at the moment.
2) Pray, for forgiveness and in thanks to God for salvation. Look for ways to provide aid, either in person or by assisting with sending relief to those who will need it once the storms pass.
3) He is God. He is here, as He promised He would always be.
To begin answering these, Max decides, wisely, to quote the Bible, but his choice proves anything but wise.
Jesus said, “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.” (Lk. 21:25, NIV)Now, it is true that this is what Luke 21:25 says. But what this passage has to do with the current state of the American Gulf Coast is not what Max thinks. So, we shall start by employing the Three Rules For Sound Biblical Exegesis.
Context.
Context.
Context.
What is the context of Luke 21? If you guessed "end of the world" based on what vs. 25 said, you'd be given partial credit. Jesus is, for a short portion, speaking of the end of the world. But for most of it, He's speaking of the end of the age.
The astute among you will have noticed "those aren't exactly the same." And that's true. The "end of the age," which is what all the "wars, rumors of wars, etc" is all about is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The hint is "this generation will not pass away before all this has taken place (vs. 32)."
Remember, though, the disciples asked Jesus "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place? (vs. 7)"
That's two questions. I already showed you the answer to the first (when will these things be). For the second question, allow me to go to Mark 13, mostly because the answer He gives is more direct. (Its the same conversation, but Mark gives a different perspective. That's why we have four Gospels.)
“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. (Mk. 13:32-33)"
So, having Max here pull out a whole implied "this is a sign Jesus will be here soon" is a bit dishonest. Not that he's technically wrong, since all trials and troubles are signs of sin, which is why Christ came and died and rose.
Max goes on to say:
Increasing frequency of natural calamities are like the birth pangs of pregnancy—indications of an impending delivery. Christians do not know when Christ will return, but we believe we will see “…the Son of Man coming in the cloud with great power and glory. When these things (natural disasters) begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (Lk. 21:27-28, NIV)Um... no. You did that wrong, Max. The "Son of Man coming in the cloud" is a reference to the Ascension, which is the linchpin to the end of the age of the Temple and the Sinai Covenant. Christ is saying to lift up you heads so the disciples can look at the cross, because their "redemption is drawing near."
While Max does use Psalm 121 decently, he's far too hands off in his approach to a crisis. While, yes, we shouldn't dwell on our troubles, to "wallow" in our sorrows, but we need to be active in moving forward in our lives.
However, that was not the lesson we should glean from Peter's Amazing Not Drowning Show.
Peter didn't volunteer to leave the boat. None of them did. Why would they. Being on a small craft in the middle of a stereotypically stormy sea is frightening enough. Seeing what must undeniably be a ghost was too much. The only reason Peter gets kudos is because he was smart enough to know that where Jesus is would be the safest place, and if He said it was safe to come to Him, then it was. As long as Peter focused on Christ, he was safe, both physically and spiritually.
Granted, Peter had Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, standing next to him, so physical danger was irrelevant.
The last three paragraphs of Max's "oh, no, there's a storm, but its okay, God's got a plan" are just wishy-washy. Not wrong, but nothing overly helpful. Especially since nowhere does he mention Christ and Him crucified. Its almost as if Max isn't a Christian pastor...
Yes, God has a plan. And that plan was, and is, and will be, Christ crucified. That is what saves us from sin, death, and the power of the devil. It is our salvation. Our inheritance. Our narrow way to eternity.
But what about the here and now? What about those who suffer sickness, injury, persecution, famine, unjust government, war, storm, and so on? Paul answers that:
As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” (Romans 8:36)
He's quoting Psalm 44 (vs. 22 specifically). David is expressing how God has saved Israel, and how He punishes them as He sees fit. But that does not stop David from pleading for divine aid. And he knows it will come, even if it does not come now or in the manner David asked for it. Because unlike most contemporary Christians, David knew where his hope was anchored. A hope Paul alludes to as he continues:
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. (Romans 8:37)
It is not that we are the ones who conquered. It is Christ who did the fighting. We are merely the refugees who He rescued. Our eternal hope rests in Christ saving us from the stain of sin. He never promised that we'd be saved from our suffering now. In fact, we are told we are being punished, disciplined, by our Father for our sins. But it is temporary.
As Christ said:
"I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
If you stuck with me this long, are still reading and haven't thrown your computer through a plate-glass window, you deserve a Kit-Kat. If you still think "tl dr" I'm sorry. I could have gone longer, but that would have included a three or more page tangent on how the Fall is to blame for weather.
If you want to help, you can go to Lutheran World Relief (here) or Orphan Grain Train (here) for ways to do so.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
No Taking It Back Now (or) That Envelope Was Heavy
Well. That's done. I mailed of my response to the acceptance email from Ft. Wayne. I'll soon know when classes officially start for me, and when I'll be able to take the entrance exams.
In the mean time, Greek and Hebrew studying for me. (yay)
And playing in my spare time with a novel that went from maybe one book to three. Spare time? What spare time? Between work, two active boys, one rambunctious girl, one kiddo to arrive, financial aid searching, I really don't have spare time.
So why am I here writing when I should be working on stuff? Pardon me while I make a hasty if melodramatic exit with the equally over-the-top "I shall return!"
In the mean time, Greek and Hebrew studying for me. (yay)
And playing in my spare time with a novel that went from maybe one book to three. Spare time? What spare time? Between work, two active boys, one rambunctious girl, one kiddo to arrive, financial aid searching, I really don't have spare time.
So why am I here writing when I should be working on stuff? Pardon me while I make a hasty if melodramatic exit with the equally over-the-top "I shall return!"
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Countdown, And Not To The New Star Wars (or) Incoming: Panic Because There's No Time To Panic!
Its like I upgraded from a hard-served R2 astromech to a slick R6. Not quite those new-fangled R7s, R8s, and R9s, but still quite the step up from where I was.
Don't worry if that doesn't make any sense.
What should make sense, and is much more important is news I got about a week ago. Well, I guess the "new droid" does make this news easier to handle, since I'll be needing it.
I've been trying to get into seminary for a long time now. After having the process of applying to St. Louis keep getting snagged I applied to Ft. Wayne. The logic was simple: two applications makes it twice as likely that I get accepted. Now, perhaps its a near decade of experience, or it may be a simpler admission department, but the results are undeniable.
Concordia Theological Seminary Ft. Wayne has accepted my application.
This is great news! Quick! Call up the minstrels so we can celebrate properly! (Oh, wait, can't do that. The minstrels were eaten during the winter of the quest for the grail.)
The complicating news is that St. Louis will be reviewing my application in two weeks, on Sept. 11. Which leads to the trouble I have. You see, I want to simply fill out the paperwork saying I will be attending, pack up my family, and move in about nine months.
But what to do with St. Louis? Just not sure how to word it to them. Because I've worked for a long time trying to apply to there, and they've done a lot to help. That, and there's a part in the back of my mind that protests, saying I'm giving up... somehow. Which is a bit ridiculous, because either way I reached my goal. Just apparently I was looking in the wrong state.
So now that I've got a large chunk of work done, I have more work to do. I have to complete the tests, study the languages, apply for financial aid, and contact churches who may be willing to "adopt" me and my family.
Which will be very helpful, since we'll also be needing diaper money.
Yep, that's right. Kiddo No. 4.
So we're in a bit of a countdown situation with regards to 1) moving, 2) classes starting, and 3) new baby.
Like the toys pondered: should we be hysterical?!? (flail arms)
No! Yes! Maybe... but not right now!
Don't worry if that doesn't make any sense.
What should make sense, and is much more important is news I got about a week ago. Well, I guess the "new droid" does make this news easier to handle, since I'll be needing it.
I've been trying to get into seminary for a long time now. After having the process of applying to St. Louis keep getting snagged I applied to Ft. Wayne. The logic was simple: two applications makes it twice as likely that I get accepted. Now, perhaps its a near decade of experience, or it may be a simpler admission department, but the results are undeniable.
Concordia Theological Seminary Ft. Wayne has accepted my application.
This is great news! Quick! Call up the minstrels so we can celebrate properly! (Oh, wait, can't do that. The minstrels were eaten during the winter of the quest for the grail.)
The complicating news is that St. Louis will be reviewing my application in two weeks, on Sept. 11. Which leads to the trouble I have. You see, I want to simply fill out the paperwork saying I will be attending, pack up my family, and move in about nine months.
But what to do with St. Louis? Just not sure how to word it to them. Because I've worked for a long time trying to apply to there, and they've done a lot to help. That, and there's a part in the back of my mind that protests, saying I'm giving up... somehow. Which is a bit ridiculous, because either way I reached my goal. Just apparently I was looking in the wrong state.
So now that I've got a large chunk of work done, I have more work to do. I have to complete the tests, study the languages, apply for financial aid, and contact churches who may be willing to "adopt" me and my family.
Which will be very helpful, since we'll also be needing diaper money.
Yep, that's right. Kiddo No. 4.
So we're in a bit of a countdown situation with regards to 1) moving, 2) classes starting, and 3) new baby.
Like the toys pondered: should we be hysterical?!? (flail arms)
No! Yes! Maybe... but not right now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)