Memoirs, part 8: Lake Solitude, continued

There are no words that can do justice to the sunset on the back side of the Tetons. I was lucky to look up when Dad and I were setting up camp for the night. This is the west side of the Grand Teton (I'm pretty sure) in all its glory.

Wow.

Dad set up my hammock for camp; I had only tried sleeping in a hammock once, but this Hennessee Hammock was awesome! It opens up down the middle on bottom, so I had to get in my sleeping bag (pictured), hop over to the hammock, lift it up and put myself through the hole, sit down, lean back, and wriggle up in there. I truly felt like a catepiller entering the cacoon, though the morning did not bring forth the expected results from such a struggle. However, it was not too bad of a night, and we cooked eggs and oatmeal the next morning, and we were on our way!

This was one of the many waterfalls on the hike. It is just below Lake Solitude, as you can see via the sign sticking out of the snow. There was a lot of snow toward the top of our hike, which baffled me, since it was about 75 degrees in the sunshine.

In Estes, Joy had asked me whether I liked hiking up or down the mountain better. I've figured out that I like going up much better than coming down, though it would seem that going down is easier. Well, in a sense it is easier, but when you're going up, you have a lot of athletic-mindedness going for you. You're pushing toward a goal. You're telling yourself, "I'd better do this or else I'll look like an idiot." You can set mini-goals along the way. However, when you're coming back down, you just want to get the heck out of there, and it can't happen soon enough (which of course, makes it seem sooooooo much longer!). Not to mention that the blister on my heel that I mentioned in a previous blog was now up to the size of a bona fide quarter, red and orange, and swollen. I just wanted to run down that beast so I could take off my hiking boots and burn them!

Well, we did get down soon enough, and I'm debating donating my boots to the leather recycling bin. I video-taped the popping of the blister, but I'll have to wait till I get home to delight everyone with that!

This is a pic of the 'Mud House' where we're staying. The windows open up to the mountains (below), and the Jackson Hole Country Club is out the back door. This place is amazing!

I took this picture of the Grand Tetons at 6:25 this morning. I'm not sure if I got the timing right, but hopefully Chris can help me bring out the beauty in the photos when I get home! Did I mention that I love this place?!?

Looking the other direction, to the east of the Mud House is the 'Sleeping Indian.' The sun is peaking over his chest. His feet would be to the left side of the pic, and what you see are his arms crossed over his chest, his nose profile and headdress (as I'm sure all Indian chiefs slept that way!).

I'll get some good pictures of Jackson Hole (the town) tomorrow. Mom and I are going shopping while Dad does another hike without shoe-destroyer-Ali.

*Side note: I really miss you, Beeb! I wish more than anything you were here, and I can't wait till I see you again Thursday night!

Memoirs part 6: Joyous Estes

I decided to upload some pics of my time in Estes apart from the hiking adventures. :) For some reason, blogspot will only allow me to upload three pictures in a post, and if anyone could help me figure out how to do more, I'll buy you ice cream!

Joy and Nate bought hammocks at a concert the night before I flew in, and here's a pic of Joy and me trying it out. We hung it up in a little park of downtown Estes and read for a bit. Well, I guess we spent most of our time taking weird (on my part) pics and laughing. So So fun!


Joy met Nate through his daily 6:30 devotion times in Kind Coffee. The first thing she told me about him was that he brings his copy of My Utmost For His Highest by Oswald Chambers and The Bible to the coffee shop every morning. Well, that sold me! I got to meet him the night before I left Estes, since he'd been working a camp for his church's youth group all week. They are Cute!





This is at some (I'm told) big burger chain restaurant in Denver. I can't remember the name, but our ketchup sure is happy!

I was so sad to leave my friend, especially since I don't know when I'll get to see her again! [Wow, I'm seriously about to cry]. BUT if she chooses to move out to Colorado for good, I guess I'll just have to come visit her every summer. Man, that'd be a chore.



***See more pics on my facebook albums: Album1 and Album2

Memoirs part 7: Hike #4 - Jackson Hole!!!

Sunday evening I arrived at my favorite place on earth - Jackson Hole, Wyoming!!! I love Estes to death, but there's something about the Grand Tetons that can never be compared to anything else. It might be the sheer power and majesty desplayed by the flat plane that runs smack into a wall of mountain as far as the eye can see. I've never seen anything as beautiful.

This pic is after a pizza dinner: Uncle King, Aunt Glenna, Dad, Mom, and me. The sun is washing out the peaks of the mountains. There are better pictures below.

The next morning, Sunday, Mom informed me that I was the only one that had not hiked to Lake Solitude. I replied, "I feel so alone!" but she didn't note the humor as it was 6 am. Such began my trek to become 'one of the guys'. [Fill in: Dad took Asher and the Nelson boys to Lake Solitude NINE years ago and I couldn't go because the day before one of them had pushed me off a rock and sprained my ankle.] I can't believe it's been that long since we were here!!!

Dad and I took off on our overnight hike through the Tetons. We started off with a much-too-large breakfast at the Moose Lodge (which you see here). We're thinking about photo-shopping Asher and Chris into this picture for Mom and Dad's Christmas card! :)

Then, from the trailhead, we took a ferry across Jenny Lake and Mom and Aunt Glenna joined us up to Inspiration Point.

Dad's pointing out our 10 mi hike to Lake Solitude, were we camped overnight and then hiked back.



Behind us is Hidden Falls, a beautiful photo-op about 3/4 a mile and 300' up the trail.












Here I am at Inspiration Point. It's about a mile and and some up the trail, but I think getting there is the steepest part of the hike. It inspires those who stop to admire the view of Jenny Lake.




Eight or so miles later: Lake Solitude. We saw a few moose, marmots, and waterfalls on the way, but the most captivating views were of the cliffs and peaks surrounding us. You almost feel like you are trapped with no way out as you gaze up at 11,000 foot tall rocks in every direction. We arrived here about 3:15 in the after noon, and since we were going to spend the night up here, we took it easy - Dad took a nap on the 'beach' and I explored around the other side of the lake.

I figured out how to put more pictures on a single blog (by myself!), but I think it's reached its max at six. Go here for more pics, and I'll finish the hike on the Memoirs, part 8!

Memoirs #5: Hike #3 - Twin Sisters

Friday, my last full day in Estes, Joy and I traveled up the 3.9 mi hike to the summit of Twin Sisters peak (all together now: awwwwww). The top was 11,280, I believe (I don't have my notes with me). The really funny thing about this hike was the fact that Joy was NOT at all excited about it. I really felt that I was dragging her along. We were engaged in great conversation most of the way, which made the steep incline a little more bearable and breathtaking (due to lack of oxygen more than emotion). However, Joy was a trooper, appeasing her guest in a semi-hardcore hike. :)

When we summitted, we noticed some clouds brewing, so we figured we needed to get down quickly. But we did not realize how quickly! When we were still about a mile out from the trailhead, the clouds openned up and drenched us in a downpour! We started high-tailing it out of there - striding bolders and fallen trees while giggling as water droplets the size of Frosted Mini Wheats pounded our eyeballs. When we finally got into her Jeep, I got video documentation of Joy's exclamation of how "HARDCORE" we are! Twin Sisters = priceless.

Due to the multiple hiking days within a short time span, coupled with wet socks due to rivers and rain and aging shoes, a massive blister formed on my heel. It's about the size of a nickel here. This thing is awesome, and it only got worse the next few days!!!

Memoirs, part 4: Hike #2: Thatchtop

Thursday. 7:30 - 2:45.

Bear Lake to Sky Pond - about 3.5 mi

Sky Pond to Thatchertop - about 1.5 mi

Thatchertop by Solitude Lake, through Glacial Gorge back to Bear Lake - about 5 mi

Overall: about 10 miles, about 3,400 feet elevation gain (start 9,400 and topped out at 12,836)

This was an incredibly intense hike. It started out pretty normal. Many people hike to Sky Pond (pic #1). It is lovely. It is nestled against a lovely piece of the Continental Divide. However, my guide, Derek Brooks, a Duncan native who came out for a summer a few years ago and now calls Estes home (I'm finding out that this is a common occurrence out here) figured out I'm hardcore, and suggested that we find a way up to Thatchtop Peak. We didn't exactly know how to get there, so he suggested the rocks on the left side of pic #1. They are also in pic #2.

This was out of control. We climbed (not hiked, climbed) this loose-rock face in about an hour and a half (it had taken us about 2 hours to get to Sky). When I tried to take out some trail mix, Derek looked at me and said, "No. You're going to be a hard-core hiker today. No eating until we summit." I thought this was halariously mean. Anger was my energy source up the rock face.

Looking down was incredible to see how far we'd come, and surprisingly much more encouraging than looking up at what we had ahead. Pic #2 is about halfway up the face.

I have a t-shirt from Longs Peak that says "You've never really lived until you've almost died." When any miscalculated step could send you plummeting to a stony death, I realized that that idea is more than just an adrenaline rush - it's indescribably humbling and exhilarating at the same time. Humbling in that you realize how small you are and how incredibly fragile your life is. When we finally reached the top, I felt this paradoxal pride coupled with humility. Pride in that, "Wow, look what I just did. I'm flipping amazing," but then humility in that, "What nearly killed me, God formed with one breath. Wow."

When we got to the top, this is the view of the other side. That ridiculously huge piece of granite in the center is the back (northeast) side of Longs Peak. Chris and I climbed that last summer. Doesn't she just look like a beast from this angle? Well, believe me, she is!

We meant to climb Thatchtop, but instead climbed what is known as Thatchtop-Powell Ridge that runs between the two peaks. Derek didn't think that very many (if any) people climbed up where we did. We came out higher than the actuall peak, and the ridge was a very narrow spine that kept us fully exposed to huge mountain winds while shimmying along and jumping across bolders. Again, one wrong step, and you won't have time to wish you had paid more attention.. I'll try to get more pics on here of the ridge and the way down as well.

It was one amazing hike. The scenery was breathtaking, the exercise strenuous, and the conversation fantastic. Derek and I discussed some great theology when he wasn't way ahead of me on the trail. I am so glad I got to take the road less traveled!

"Baby Got Book"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4

This video is hilarious. I'm not saying I agree with everything theologically, but I laughed out loud multiple times. Jen C, I think this video describes you!

100% Whole Wheat

My multi-talented husband lightened the picture of Joy and me... Thanks Beeb!







I've been thinking on the parable of the wheat and the tares because MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus gave me a new perspective on the story. Matthew 13:24-30 -

• "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the lade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, the appeared the tares also. So the servants of teh householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said to them: an enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: ad in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.

What I learned from John MacArthur is that people/preachers often use this parable to condone unbelievers within a congregation. Because Jesus later explains to the disciples that the field represents the World in the parable, the field should not mean the church or the body of Christ. Also, MacArthur points out that this is more a warning about people who look like or profess to be christians but really are not. Tares completely resemble wheat, but when harvested, they have an empty hull. Thus, they are like professing christians who maybe look and sound like the sheep they are emulating, but they produce no fruit (they are empty). To relate to the parables surrounding this one, they may spring up quickly but without root, and thus become scorched under the heat of persecution; or they may not be like the man who sold everything he had buy the field with treasure or the pearl of great price.

The interesting thing to me about this parable is that all believers are (or at least appear to be?) tares (spiritually , unregenerate, sons of iniquity, broods of vipers, etc) before the Holy Spirit rebirths our soul. The Lord alone knows who the Father has given Him to become wheat, so when the servants ask Him if they can go gather up the tares before the harvest, He doesn't let them because He has miracles yet to perform in people's hearts.

Conclusion? Examine yourself, that you are 100% whole grain wheat (not just enriched flour!). Don't be surprised at the empty hulls around you, for there seem to be so many these days, and therefore fill your speech to all with the gospel of Truth. Other conclusions?

Memoirs, part 3: Hike #1

Tuesday morning: Joy and I hiked from Bear Lake in Rocky Mountain National Park to three other lakes: Nymph (next picture), Dream (not pictured), and Emerald (3rd picture). The hike was a warm-up of sorts for me to acclimate. It was about 4 miles roundtrip and not incredibly steep, though I must admit that I got short of breath a few times.

Here's Joy in front of Nymph Lake. The lilypads on the lake were so cute that we decided that people probably thought fairies and nymphs lived in them.

Dream Lake was so calm that it reminded me of early-morning wakeboarding at the Country Club lake... glass. There were a lot of fly-fishers going after some trout, which was kind of cool.

Emerald Lake was incredible. It provided such a perfect reflection that it was difficult to distinguish where the water actually began! The water begins about where Joy's left shoulder is... bet you didn't know until I told you that!

Right now I'm enjoying a rootbeer shake (not float) Joy made me at Kind Coffee. She brought that out pretty much right after I finished the cookie she toasted for me. I've got to get out of here and walk around before she puts 10 pounds on me!

We're planning on a longer hike tomorrow afternoon... I'm loving it!

Memoirs from mountain-ali, part 2 - again, see comment!

Joy and I at a wonderful pizza place in Bolder!

Welcome to Estes!

Best coffee in Estes (Joy's work)

Tuesday morning: At the Bear Lake, Nymph Lake, Dream Lake, Emerald Lake trailhead. (There were a lot of beautiful lakes! :)

Memoirs of mountian-Ali, part 1. Check comment for entry

This was my carry-on and personal item. As you can read in my comment (I can't get it to paste in the right spot - I am SOO technologically inept!), my suitcase was 60 lbs (10 too much), so I had to readjust all my hiking gear: tent, sleeping bag, and all my granola bars ect in my hiking pack as a carry on. Toiletries, rainjacket, book, all the other usual stuff in my purse. Hiking boots on my feet.

I must look like a Colorado chick now!

The Gospel According to Jesus

Wow... this is the best book on the gospel that I have ever read. Granted, I don't have the biggest theological bookshelf out there, but I truly give this book a standing ovation. John MacArthur spells out through scripture what this century has abandoned in the gospel: repentance. True repentance, given to a believer by the Holy Spirit opens the regenerate to see who Jesus Christ really is, how ugly of a sinner the person is, and that he must trust in Christ and surrender to Him in obedience. A professing Christian can be assured in his salvation not by a card he signed or an aisle he walked down, but by a turning from sin, a hatred of sin, and a passion for following and obeying Christ.

While church-shopping at college, I had an encounter with the pastor of the college-student-magnet-church during Sunday School. He was teaching from the gospel John about John the Baptist's message of repentance, which the pastor said only means "to believe." Even though it was my first Sunday in the church and I wasn't really quite sure if Sunday School was a discussion-format or a lecture, I raised my hand. "Sir, doesn't 'repent' mean 'to turn'?" I asked. "Well no," he explains, " the Greek word here means only to change your mind about something, thus believe." Now I was only 18, but give me a break, I grew up with decent teaching (see former blogs about my dad), so I asked him that if it's just an intellectual matter, why does Jesus tie all these actions to it (ie, forsake all others, deny yourself, sell everything you have and follow Him, etc)?

He gave me some high-falooting answer, I'm sure, but all I remember is how my face was on fire, sitting next to these college people I didn't know, arguing with the pastor. Believe it or not, confrontation used to scare the bageebies out of me (that's before I entered the blogosphere). Turns out, that pastor went to Dallas Theological Seminary, apparently a huge proponent of his stance on repentance. Charles Ryrie said that repentance is "'a false addition to faith" when made a condition for salvation, except 'when [repentance is] understood as a synonym for faith'" (177). Repentance = faith? As a grammarian, that's a little odd.

• MacArthur rebuts with: "Repentence is not simply a mental activity; genuine repentance involves the intellect, emotions, and will [as Jesus uses the word in context]. Geerhardus Voswrote: 'Our Lord's idea of repentance is as profound an comprehensive as his conception of righteousness. Of the three words that are used in the Greek gospels to describe the process, one emphasizes the emotional element of regret, sorrow over the past evil course of life, metamelomai; Matt. 21:29-32; a second expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude, metanoeo [I think this is the one the pastor above was referring to], Matt.12:41; Luke 11:32; 15:7,10; the third denotes a change in the direction of life, one goal being substituted for another, epistrephomai; Matt.13:15 (and paralels); Luke 17:4; 22:32. Repentance is not limited to any single faculty of the mind: it engages the entire man, intellect, will and affections... again in the new life which follows repentance the absolute supremacy of God is the controlling principle. He who repents turns away form the service of mammon and self to the service of God" (180).
  

Too bad I couldn't quote all that back then when I needed it. Oh well, you live and learn, I guess. :) I'll try to write more on the issue later, as my mind is just overflowing with joy over it. But first, one of the main oppositions to "lordship salvation," as this idea is nowadays called, is that people deem repentance and sanctification (the process of a believer becoming more like Christ) a work, which if true, would make this idea salvation by works. Completely not a "work" of an individual by himself, for it is the Spirit who leads me to repentance. Repentance and faith are more or less two sides of the same coin in that they are both given to the new born at his new birth.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:8-10.

Quoteworthy

"If a profession of faith in Christ does not grow out of a deep sense of lostness; if it is not accompanied by an inner conviction of sin; if it does not include a tremendous desire for the Lord to cleanse and purify and lead; if it does not involve a willingness to deny self, to sacrifice, and to suffer for Christ's sake, then it is without a proper root. It is ony a matter of time before the flourishing growth withers and dies." (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 130)

I've been a fan of MacArthur since borrowing my dad's tapes of Grace to You back in the 90's (I think he has GTY tapes from the 70's!), but I've never read his quintessential book: The Gospel According to Jesus. So I'm about halfway through it now, and though I've heard most of these ideas before in his sermons, a person could not pay heed to them enough.

I think the main idea of this book (as much as I've read so far) is captured in the excerpt above. This book has been deemed a treatise on the concept of "Lordship salvation," which refutes the present day "easy believism" that reduces salvation to mere believing and no repentance/submission. Evangelism in the last 100 years or so has produced a crop of fruitless who think that Jesus is just something they add to their life to make it better. It seems that I've been frustrated for as long as I can remember with preachers who "share the gospel" without confronting a person's sin (which is their need for a Savior in the first place!). Acknowledging sin is humbling, but that's precisely the point - we need to be humbled to view ourselves correctly in relation to a perfect and holy God. No talk of sin = no talk of salvation, because then there's nothing to be saved from!

More on this book later when I finish.

Sidenote: This summer I'm alternating between novels I've always wanted to read and Christian works, because if I didn't make myself read for fun, I'd only read for what will help me grow in my walk with the Lord. Well, I've wanted to read Joseph Heller's Catch-22 since high school, and though it was a VERY entertaining read filled with wit and vocabulary that sent me to dictionary.com every page, the overall themes felt like a Voltaire novel (bleak, depressing, 'life sucks' kind of stuff).

The story follows Yossarian, a bombardier in WWII, in a tailspin of absurdities, skepticism, and self-gratification because everybody is only looking out for himself and therefore you must do the (the idea of integrity is shown to be completely comical idea). The book is filled with no-win situations (which its title now defines) and just when you think it can't get any worse, something else completely ridiculous happens (which is why I liken it to Voltaire's Candide). I can completely understand the mentality (outside of a Christian worldview) especially during this post-war era (which completely fascinates me by-the-way) because the bottom dropped out from under everyone just when they thought things were getting better.

After The Gospel According to Jesus, I plan on reading Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen.

Compassion Kills

Compassion is definitely something I should work on. This was pointed out to me in Mike's comment on my last post. It was also pointed out to me in a Ligonier Ministries podcast that I listened to today about Jesus' encounter with the adulterous woman (John 8). The pharisees definitely felt no compassion whatsoever on "sinners" because they had the audacity to think that they themselves were not such. I never want to be considered as remotely near that camp because I know all to well what an awful sinner I am.

• "Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.10Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"11She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

Through RC Sproul's words, I began to put myself in the emotions of this woman, dragged to the temple of the Lord, probably naked, and scorned publicly in front of people she probably knew. How horrid!

The pharisees didn't do this because they really cared, but to trap Jesus in between the Law of Moses and Rome: "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the Law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?" Roman law forbade execution by any ordinance other than Roman trial (which is why Jesus fulfilled prophesy by being crucified and not stoned). If He said "Stone her," they'd turn Him into the Roman authorities; if He did not stone her, He was disobeying God's Law. That would be a toughy for anyone other than God Himself.

What does He decide? Stone her! I mean, He wrote the Law, so He's going to keep it, right? However, He also appoints the executioners - the only ones who can justly put someone to death for sins - "He who is without sin among you." Oops. And then there was One. He's the only One around with no sins, and what does He choose to do when He judge her (rightly) right there? He offers mercy.

What a beautiful reminder of the mercy of God toward sinners. I am equally deserving of God's wrath as this woman, and yet He bore my burden so that I may no longer be defined by the sin that had previously enslaved me. I praise Him for saving me, like He did this woman, from the judgment I so deserve! And may I likewise have compassion on all people, knowing what we naturally all are.

Slow-Mo + Water = Randomness

We were playing golf Saturday when lightening forced us to abandon the links... so what do Jared and Chris elect to do? But of course, take my camera and start filming randomness. It didn't take me long to join in... and thus, may I present to you my second video-editing adventure.

All of clips used in this video were shot in slow-motion (180 fps), and I haven't tinkered with the speed of any clips... promise. I'm sure blogspot can't do justice to the clarity of the slow-motion feature on this camera, but it's great nonetheless!

Why I know Jesus lives (feel free to add to this in a comment)

Because of the last post, I had a few requests in comments and emails to complete my story with how I know Jesus lives. These will be short answers, because I'm a novice apologist, so please feel free to add your convictions to the list in a comment:

• The congruencies yet distinctions of the gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all record Jesus appearing to many people after His resurrection. The stories (as with the other stories contained in more than one gospel) are similar, yet not exact, just as eyewitnesses to an event all see the same thing, but notice and observe it from a different point of view.
• Jesus first appears to women. Good Jewish (Greek, orRoman, for that matter) men who were making up a story would NOT include this. Women's credibility as eyewitnesses would not hold up in court.
• Hundreds of people attested to seeing Jesus alive after He had been crucified, spent their lives proclaiming this event, and died defending it.
• Thousands and thousands more during the first few centuries after Christ's death believed and spread the doctrines of the disciples despite the most grueling persecution of any religion known to date. Under decrees of Nero and others, Christians were tortured, crucified, burned, stoned, drowned, etc. for being followers of Christ, and despite this, the faith in Christ as sinful man's Savior spread faster than Nero's fiddle-playing fire.

Those are the historical reasons I can think of off the top of my head to back up the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The spiritual reason is even more convincing (or is it more convicting than convincing?). The outright logic in God's plan of mankind's redemption is mind-boggling to me, and leaves me shaking with awe every time I think about it. The doctrine of propitiation, wherein God's wrath for sin is satisfied through His own sacrifice, is ineffably magnificant. Any person who is not an idiot or deranged knows that people are not perfect or even really good. God is a holy (perfect, set apart) Judge, who not only cannot allow anything less than perfect in His presence, but also cannot stand evil (which, let's face it, we are). However, to save fallen humanity and glorify Himself, He became one of us, through Jesus Christ, and lived a life without any tarnish of sin. Though He was without fault - and because He claimed to be God - the people crucified Him, fulfilling prophesy. Through the crucifiction of Christ, the undeserving One was punished in place of the deserving many. "He who knew no sin became sin" to satisfy the wrath of a just God. "The wages of sin is death," and mankind's sin brought the Messiah's death, because "the gift of God is eternal life in [the death and resurrection of] Jesus Christ our Lord." So that to those who look upon Him as their Savior, God sees the perfection of His Son. Our sins were imputed to Him on that cross, and His righteousness is imputed to those who know we have no righteousness in ourselves.

The fact that Jesus did, then, rise from the dead the following Sunday, shows that this propitiatory act was indeed successful. Hallelujah! Because He lives, I too can LIVE! Praise the Lord in His merciful Providence!

Apologetics at its philosophical hard-coreness

I have a feeling that my blog is going to turn into a mini book-review station, as my goal this summer is to read 87.3 books. Well, hopefully I can be a little more lively than that, but nonetheless, I've never really had a summer where I didn't have a job (golf is included in the 'job' category) the whole time. I just finished summer school last Friday (and I'll probably give some high-and-low-lights in an upcoming post), and I have approximately 2 months to read, paint, work out, lay out by the pool, visit Joy in Colorado (!), and climb the Tetons with my dad (!).

Book #1 checked off from my reading list (well, actually, I've been working on this one for a while): Beyond Opinion; Living the Faith We Defend by Ravi Zacharias. An anthology of essays by people associated with this modern-day CS Lewis (as I've heard Ravi called), this book provides a insight into a plethora of religions, philosophies, and worldviews that affront Christianity today.

What really got me thinking while reading this book is how ill-equipped Christians are in the deep and incredibly stimulating truths of the Bible. Ravi describes his three levels of philosophy: "level one states why one believes what he believes. Level two indicates why one lives the way he lives. And level three reveals why one legislates for others the way he does" (321). The problem with most "Christians" today is that they cannot legitimately answer a single one of those questions. They believe a pile of fluff because it makes them feel good about themselves through emotion, conformity, and tradition. They don't want doctrine because they don't want to think, and they don't want someone telling them what to do if it contradicts what they like. "Christianity Lite" and the Emergent movement promote the feel-goodism of emotional experience without the real truth of the Gospel behind it. They only want to invision a God that they like, and forget about the yucky stuff like justice and wrath over sin. However, Ravi says, "None of these levels can live in isolation. They must follow a proper sequence... Life must move from truth, to experience, to prescription" (322). People often jump to experience (hence, personal testimony trumps Gospel presentation) as if the doctrines (what make experiences happen) don't matter. We can't have a real experience without knowing the truth behind it. You can't really "ask Jesus into your heart" without knowing what that really means. You can't be "saved from your sins" without knowing why and how you can be relieved of them. Granted, people do that every day, but can the transformation be real if they don't know what they're doing besides getting a good feeling of acceptance? I'd of course argue no.

While reading this book, I've also been listening to some of the podcast of the White Horse Inn (look it up), which for a series discussed the dumbing down of people and the Church in the name of self-esteem. As a teacher, I've witnessed this sad truth in the classroom, and as a Christian, I'm enraged that people claim to be Christians without any intent to know Christ. Those don't fit together. [That could be a long red-herring, so I'll get back to my intended write].

When I was younger, my dad was constantly quizzing Asher and me over what we learned at church, what we were studying, or what we could explain about what we believed. This questioning was crucial to my growth, because I could not get by with fluff, cliche, or "I don't know". I remember that one time Dad asked me why I know Jesus lives, and I answered, as a good little baptist, with the hymn lyrics: "You ask me how I know He lives; He liiiiiiives withiiiiiin my hearrrrrrrrrrt." Dad banished me from the table until I give him an argument that actually held. Now I was probably ten at the time and used to giving a quick, prescripted Sunday School answer, but I found out rather quickly the merit in actually thinking and reasoning why this is so. Needless to say, I did not go hungry that night or any. :)

I fully believe that this interrogation is what made me dig deeper into the Whys and Hows of the Word of God. It made me make my faith my own, and not just a slew of cute words that had no meaning for me personally. I think this is why, when I went to college, my faith in Christ blossomed under pressure instead of wilting as happens to so many these days. I praise God often for the guided challenge my parents provided, and I wish that all parents and youth pastors could do the same for others. Kids (and all of us) need truth: unfiltered, un-dumbed down, big churchy words and all, TRUTH. And we need to be questioned, without allowance for easy-button answers, so that we actually grow as we are researching to find the best, fullest, most accurate answer. The Word of the Almighty Living God deserves no less!

"Why I'm Not Emergent" By One Gal Who Could Never Be

Upon finishing Kevin DeYoung's and Ted Kluck's Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), I hope I have a greater understanding of the movement that is apparently sweeping the world of Christendom, though this more informed viewing only reveals that there's not much new in the movement, but more of the same ideas that Christians have battled since the beginning.

While the emergent movement calls Christians to be more loving, which is good, it seems to focus way too much on people and not enough on Christ (which is why there's nothing new about it). Particular to the emergent movement (apart from other heresies) is its mother, postmodernism, which (according to Wikipedia), "Largely influenced by the Western European disillusionment induced by World War II, postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy... and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality." Wikipedia later mentions its philosophy founders, who were predominantely men who really hated God.
The emergent church embraces postmodernism and seeks to not only fit in with the postmodern culture, but be itself postmodern as well. When I first heard about this movement, I picked out the postmodern influences immediately, was shocked that they called this movement Christian, and was even more shocked to find out that the above mentioned connection (the fact that this idea was started by atheist should be a red flag) did not cause any concern in the people I know who are caught up in the movement.

Some things to beware of about this movement (that I found in the book) are:

• The movement focuses more on Christ's life and not His death. While emulating Jesus is what Christians are supposed to do, it IS kind of important to know what a Christian is: a former "vessel of wrath" who was chosen and set apart by God in the beginning, purchased by God per Christ's sacrificial death, and transformed by the Holy Spirit. The Cross was the reason Jesus came - for there is no other way a person can be righteous before God but by wearing Jesus's righteousness. Hopefully this does not represent very many emergents, but whenever you consider the real gospel a footnote instead of the focal point, you've got MAJOR issues.


• What emergents are most known for is their pride in their "humility". They take the ambiguity factor of postmodernism so far that they claim that someone who thinks they know something about God is just being arrogant, because no one can know anything about God. The movement finds more beauty in "mystery" than the knowledge of God. So the point of the Bible is...??? and this leads into the next point which is...


• False dicotomies - TONs of them. Like the one above, they say God cannot be known completely and fully (and I agree). However, they also say that if a person cannot exhaust God, then they can't claim what they do know about Him. Which is False. Just because my finite mind can't possibly comprehend everything about the infinite God does not mean that I should claim ignorance of what He's clearly revealed through creation, scripture, and Christ.


• The emergents generally have an errant view of history. They claim that understanding of scripture, exegetical preaching, and doctrine all derive themselves from modernism and the enlightenment (1600's - 1900's). I'm guessing that they haven't read much Augustine, Luther, Calvin.


• I think one of the main causes for all the stirring in the emergent church is emergents' problem with authority. They don't like people who actually know what they're talking about (which is why all their "leaders" constantly claim that they don't know, or that they may be wrong), probably due to the whole 'self-esteem' thing we all want to be equals. Maybe they think only authorities are totally depraved. Maybe they were traumatized when they were spanked as kids (dang parents who don't "spare the rod"!). Who knows. As DeYoung assesses, "Much of the emergent disdain for preaching is really an uneasiness about authority and control. Discussion, yes. Dialogue, yes. Goup discernment, yes. Hearlding? Proclamation? Not on this side of modernism!" Brian McLaren (the main guy [of course titleless] in the emergent church) promotes leaders who are like Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz: "Rather than being a person with all the answers, who is constantly informed of what's up and what's what and where to go, she is herself lost, a seeker, vulnerable, often bewildered." WOW. Could this be an example of "blind leading the blind"? I think so.


• The movement is full of verbiage that lacks real meaning, other than sounding mystical. Most of the phrases just make me laugh, but there are some that cross the line. I'm tired of hearing sacred words like 'incarnate' thrown around when someone could say 'personified' or 'lived out'. Overusage tends to dull down the word so that what it really means no longer has the punch. "Incarnate" should be reserved for speaking of Christ's divinity, so that it can bear more weight of the concept.
  

As with most wayward works-focused movements, the emergent movement puts the cart before the horse, for how can a person act like a Christian unless he first knows Christ? How can he know Christ unless Christ can be known?

This movement is so troubling to me because I can see how people fall susceptable to its deceptions. It is sneaky because it sounds uber-spiritual, nonconformist, and novel, but really the emergent movement is smoke and mirrors, like what Dorothy at first believes is the true Wizard.

"All we need is Jesus" and a million dollars

I've been reading Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, mostly because I've become intrigued by the emergent movement in the church and its unfortunate ties to postmodernism. By ties I mean origins. In a nutshell, it is somewhat a backlash against the megachurch, Joel Ostein phase that is leaving many people jaded and empty. My understanding is that its big thing is that there is not really authority or absolute Truth, but that Christianity is grey, ambiguous, and mysterious (and that that is a good thing). This is not going to turn into a rant filled with Bible passages pointing out the absoluteness of our holy and righteous God, because that could get way too long. Instead, today I'm going to focus on a quote that I found particularly interesting to a broader scope than just the emergents.

"'All we need is Jesus,' many emerging Christians [and I'd say other modern groups as well] cry, 'not these fancy theologies and donctrinal formulations.' Thus Erwin McManus writes, 'The power of the gospel is the result of a person -- Jesus Christ -- not a message.' Granted, this sounds good, and McManus may mean something good by it. But the argument is overstated. How is the gospel event we proclaim different than a message? And how is a message about Jesus -- say, who He is and what He did on earth -- different than doctrine? We can tell people about Jesus every day until He returns again, but without some doctrinal content filling up what we mean by Jesus and why He matters, we are just shouting slogans, not proclaiming any kind of intelligible gospel" (108).

I think that this kind of thinking is not exclusive to the emergent church. A few times in college I attended what I'd consider a 'mega church' where the pastor's practical, almost self-help "sermons", the rock music, and the non-commital atmosphere drew in many of the cool kids of campus. In a sermon about love, the pastor labored the importance of action by saying (almost a direct quote), The doctrine of justification does not matter; what matters is that we love each other.......
.....Ali's jaw hits the floor.........
........You mean the reason I'm going to heaven doesn't matter?!?

My question is: Why is doctrine a bad word? The dictionary defines doctrine as a specific belief. So it's bad to believe something specific? Or is it just bad to know what you believe? I think this is the rub, because whenever one gets too specific about one's beliefs, there could be (gasp) a differing opinion. I've often heard "Doctrine divides," which is true, but so does Christ, and the Gospel, and I'll tend to side with the offensive Truth.

I've sadly seen way too many people who "are just shouting slogans, not proclaiming any kind of intelligible gospel" because they do not know wonderful, deep, enriching, and life-changing doctrine. They most likely have never been taught of the wonder and awe of studying Who God is and what He has done. The Lord spoiled me with parents who seek Him fervently, and I've never known anything different, and therefore people who claim to be Christians but seem comfortable with not really knowing what that means often frustrate me. People sing songs that have no meaning (7-11 songs - 7 word repeated 11 times), they say words that have no root in anything real ("I'm saved" From what? "uhhh?"), they go through actions motivated by who-knows-what-really; and why? because they do not seek to know Him and Him alone. Too many people focus on what Jesus can do for them and not Who He is.

It seems that every errant movement is really the same: it's all about me and what I want. Or is it just me?

Inquiry Journal

The homework for our Advanced Studies inservice meeting is to begin an inquiry journal where I investigate how I think and what about. Well, I think I've got a head start on this one, since that the primary purpose of this blog, but I'll give it a more stream-of-consciousness feel today.

The last few days I've been curious about my seeming intellectual backslide lately. As the temperature outside has been rising, my thinking trends have been lessening. I'm not sure if this data correlates, or if there are other factors weighing in, such as: exhaustion from the end of school (likely), distress of creating a summer school cirriculum about 5 days before classes begin, golf lessons, and tonight's dinner. Nevertheless, it seems that even though I (in theory) have more time now to spend reading and thinking deeply about important issues, I in reality am spending less. Thus, my quest for time begins. What is it that sucks all the minutes out of my day?

To be honest, time-stealers that can be removed are:
1. The Office - Chris and I have watched an episode (or four) per day lately, mostly just while doing dishes after dinner and starting whatever we're doing next (ie, facebook). I HATE getting sucked into shows! Solution: Take care of household tasks (laundry, cleaning, etc in order to kill two birds with one stone)
2. Facebook - though I'm not a junky like most, I do spend a few minutes too many creeping on the book. Solution: Get a life.
3. Working out - I need to find a more efficient way to keep myself a physical specimen. :) The solution I've already inacted is to read while engaging in cardio, which works out (unintended pun) splendidly. Another Solution: Don't eat so much ice cream, and then I won't have to work out so much.

What's weird is that I really don't do much else. I'm still sticking to my previous hypothesis - As the amount of time to spend increases, so does the amount of time wasted. So the question remains - Where does all the time go? And how do I get it back?

"You Got JELIED"

My first editing adventure, this video uncovers the behind the scenes on the greatest serial prank scheme in Campbell Middle School history. Ok, maybe that was a little over the top, but it was fun to do! This video is why I haven't posted anything profound lately... I guess the media/brain function ration is true! Anyway, check out the video, and post your comments! :)