A thought on the purpose of prophesied events.

I’ve felt led to resume writing in more coherent ways. Starting is usually the hardest part of writing for me (finishing being a close second), so I thought I’d warm up the blog with something I already wrote to get the pistons rotating a bit.

This is a comment I made in a private forum in which someone asked how one would respond to this question:

“Why would God restore the land to Israel only to destroy the world and create and new heaven and Earth?”

My comment, lightly edited:

The basic answer? Because He promised He would.

The intervening 1000 years are quite relevant; that’s a long time. We could ask the similar question, “Why would God bring the Israelites into the Promised Land, only to kick them back out?” Time and events obviously make a difference.

I think a challenge here comes from our natural tendency to look at tribulational eschatology as a study of “The End,” when really it is just a study of “what’s next.” If we believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ, then the Tribulation is simply the next step in history, not the end of it. The disciples in the time of Jesus made the same error, believing that His coming was The End instead of merely the next step in God’s progressive plan for His people.

The church was a mystery to the Jews. It is highly likely that there are aspects of the Tribulation and the Millennial Kingdom that we have no idea about, even in time periods for which we have considerable prophetic documentation.

My personal theory is that each dispensation provides humanity a test in which we are provided a different economy under which to live. In each case God demonstrates his Grace, and people are offered an opportunity to trust Him by faith. And in each case humanity flunks the exam. A paradise in which there is only one regulation? Flunked. An anarchist-libertarian dreamworld? Flunked. A time period with some human government and an opportunity to freely choose God in ignorance of sin? Flunked. A time when God provides a comprehensive list of guidelines of life and worship, chooses a people to be his direct witness, sprinkled with direct prophetic revelation and miraculous events? Flunked. A time when all might receive salvation by faith through Christ without the deeds of the law? We’re flunking again. A time when God the Son Himself rules on Earth with a rod of iron and his saints right there to assist? The Bible tells us that will be flunked, too.

So God’s purpose, for his own glorification, hasn’t been fulfilled yet. And, by my theory (and it’s just my theory, not Bible doctrine) the Millennium has a particular purpose in God’s plan.

My .02 here only.

Hey, Old Paths and New Independents: Stop It.

James 3:8-9 – But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

I don’t really have a good, artistic opening for a blog post here, so let’s cut to the chase:

Hey, Old Paths Baptists and New Independent Baptists, I consider you brothers in Christ. Fellow-laborers for the same cause. I am personal friends with some of you and I respect many more. So please understand the spirit in which I say this:

Shut up.

I do not mean don’t preach, don’t communicate, don’t talk on the internet. I am talking about, specifically, taking pot-shots at each other on social media. Twitter, Facebook, what have you. Stop it.

Now, there are certain people that I suspect won’t take this advice. Fine; maybe they never come across this, or maybe that’s just how they are. But there are a number of people who consider themselves to be reasonable, who desire to be spirit-filled, who would be considered disciples of Christ that I hope would pay attention.

This is not an issue on only one side or another. It runs pretty equally between both. Yeah, there were some guys criticizing Idea Day earlier this week. My friend Ryan Hayden just posted a blog describing “Old Paths Rage,” but he declined to give examples. I can say that I did see a few people take shots at Idea Day (though I would hardly call it “rage”); I saw even more people gripe about people taking shots at Idea Day. The criticism wasn’t mythical, but it wasn’t universal either.

And it wasn’t surprising. After all, Idea Day is heavily, heavily promoted on social media. It’s a part of its signature. And, because it has been developed and propagated by Josh Teis, It is closely associated with the “New Independent Baptist” concept that he has led whether all of the Idea Day participants identify with it or not. The leaders of it can claim “no politics” all they want, but you can’t look at something developed and led by New Independent Baptists and not associate it with that any more than you can look at the list of preachers at the National Sword of the Lord Conference and not identify what philosophy they promote. So the “usual suspects” were always going to say something about it.

Here’s the thing: The snark coming from the New Independents is just as bad as the snark coming from the Old Paths guys. This is hard for me to write, because some of the offenders are guys I consider friends. The man who runs the @TheIdeaDay twitter account (and serves under Josh Teis) has a personal account littered with insults directed at “old fashioned” Baptists. A speaker at Idea Day has tweeted within the last week suggesting, perhaps inadvertently, that Pastors who have evangelists in for revival meetings with some reliance on them influencing their church should resign. And then, this week, tweeted that criticism and judgmentalism are killing the body of Christ.

Meanwhile, old paths preachers scan the social media of rival pastors, pick out a picture of some Christian School kids on a senior trip, and comment on the attire of the girls to critique their pastor. Others critique compromise in music but attend Southern Gospel Concerts in Methodist churches.

It goes both ways. Smugness. Arrogance. There are hundreds of examples we could indulge in. People using snark as virtue-signaling and as flag-waving, rallying their own troops closer together while lumping the “other” into a group and laughing.

It is extremely off-putting and no side is in any way superior to the other.

It has to stop.

Two reasons why:

1. We Have a Wide Audience.

When you criticize certain ideas or philosophies that differ from you on social media, your readership does not have any context. Perhaps a New Independent is just letting off steam after getting personally mistreated by a caustic Old Paths guy, but the tweet reads as an attack on all people of the philosophy. People like Greg and Carol, faithful laypeople at the church in Michigan I came from. Kind people who love God and have served for decades. I am hurt by this. Many are.

Or an Old Paths guy tweets snark about youth group behavior because they’re genuinely excited that they have teens that are growing in the Lord. But it reads as an attack on a kid who got saved in my ministry on a bus route, a kid with no father in the home and an alcoholic parent who couldn’t tell you the books of the Bible and hasn’t yet developed a lot of visible godliness but begs me to get a ride to church to hear preaching and grow. I am hurt by this. Many are.

You are nuking other Christians from orbit. And there are a bunch of guys like me, who aren’t in a “camp,” who want to be encouraged, to fellowship, and to learn on social media and instead we have to take cover as we get flamed from both sides. And this says nothing of the people who aren’t saved, watching our testimonies.

2. It Is Not Biblical Behavior

This entire snarky dialogue proceeds from a flawed application of biblical separation. The Bible has specific commands about when and how to separate. Two pertinent highlights:

II Thessalonians 3:6 – Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Romans 16:17 – Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

The key words: “withdraw,” “mark,” and “avoid.” If you believe you need to separate fellowship with someone, you mark them (identifying within your own church), avoid them, and withdraw.

You are not to engage, insult, and criticize.

If you cannot fellowship with someone, stop trying to interact with them on social media—withdraw. If you can’t read something frustrating without responding, don’t dig into their feeds to find something offensive—avoid. Don’t invite them to preach at your church, don’t encourage your people to see them, and if necessary (due to their influence) warn your own people about their errors—mark. Taking shots at them is not the right answer.

Now it is possible that you don’t think separation is warranted. That’s great. Perhaps you have a softer view of separation. Maybe you don’t like them but you don’t consider them to be in a doctrinal position that you need to separate from (I should point out here that while I disagree in non-trivial ways with both Josh Teis and Bob Gray Sr. they have both in their own ways attempted to be fair and inclusive to those they disagree with, and that’s admirable). They are on the same team, but they are doing or acting in a way that you believe is wrong. Good news! There’s a Bible command for dealing with that, too.

II Thessalonians 3:15 – Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

I see stuff I disagree with on social media a lot. Some of it may come from people I am not in fellowship with. I try not to respond. Some of it may come from people who just won’t respond or learn from admonishment; there’s no point in talking to them, either.

I have, however, occasionally pushed back when I’ve seen someone I know and respect say something I disagree with. I feel like “the bad guy” when I tweet back, and maybe I am, but I am trying to talk in a brotherly way. Frankly, those guys, the ones I know and have some kind of a relationship with, are the only ones that I can properly talk to as a brother. I don’t know whether I’ve gotten it right, but it’s worth a try.

If you can admonish someone as a brother, go ahead and do it.

Subtweet pot-shot insults are not brotherly. They aren’t Christlike at all. But they are the primary, visible form of interaction between Old Paths and New Independents.

It is unseemly and uncharitable. It is unbiblical and unchristian. And it burns a lot of innocent bystanders.

Stop doing it. Please.

“Our Hope Isn’t In Politics,” Except It Kinda Was

I’ve seen a lot of “My Hope Is Not In Politics” statements and thinkpieces by Christians today. And that is true, as far as it goes.

But the subtext here is that, whether or not we want to admit it, for many of us, our hope WAS in politics. Or rather, in America. Not necessarily the flag-waving anthem-singing patriotic vision of America (though there are some that get carried away in that) but in America, a place stable wealth, leisure, and freedom. (1)

It works like this: A church exists. They buy or own land. They build or own a building. They add people. They add space. The pastor works 40-60 hours a week, owns a decent home, drives a decent car, takes his family on vacations, and saves for retirement. The people put in their time at church; some are true cross-bearing disciples, many are less committed. There is a school or a day-care or a vacation bible school program. Big events take place on the occasional Sunday morning, and “real change” occurs only when the building needs to be re-sided or the pews replaced. (2)

This is the modern church paradigm. There is time and money. There is a stable environment. There is America.

In 2000 years, the American church paradigm is almost wholly unique. Biblical churches have not often had the luxury of both freedom and wealth; far more frequently they have had neither. Christians today advocate for a “godly” leader, yet the number of truly god-fearing leaders that biblical Christians have lived under in 2000 years is vanishingly small. The faith once delivered unto the saints is today most frequently propagated by “church-growth strategies” or outreach programs or media. For most of 2000 years, the faith once delivered unto the saints was propagated in blood.

America has been a great place to be a Christian, but let’s not get carried away. It’s a blip, an exception, a happy break from the norm. If things change, the Faith will continue until Christ calls us in. Whether in freedom and wealth, or in oppression and want: we will be good citizens, we will preach the gospel, we will stand for the Faith.

Christ will provide for us, not an economy. Christ will protect us, not a constitution. Christ will sustain us, not a nation.

Christ is our Hope. We will continue.

As we have for 2000 years.

*   *   *   *   *   *

(1) Which, it should be said, many tried to preserve through politics. Sadly, many also thought that politics was a rational way to perfect the moral behavior of non-believers in the country as well, an effort that was neither biblically nor tactically sound.

(2) I’m not suggesting that these things are wrong per se, just that these characteristics are not requisite elements of a biblical church.

 

 

Jesus Christ Died on Thursday. If You Disagree I Guess You Should Feel Bad but Hey Whatever

It is the best of arguments, it is the worst of arguments.

It is the best of arguments because there is copious chronological information from which to synthesize a conclusion. It involves the most important event in the history of the universe. And it is an argument in which well-meaning, intellectually honest people can disagree.

It is the worst of arguments because the Bible never explicitly identifies the day of the week by number or sequence. There is copious chronological information to work from, yet one cannot come to a conclusion without de-emphasizing certain Biblical evidence no matter what one’s conclusion is. It involves the most important event in the history of the universe, yet well-meaning, intellectually honest people cannot come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

I believe Jesus Christ died on a Thursday.

There is plenty of Biblical evidence for this. Engaging all of it would involve more space than the scope of this post merits, but there are a few important highlights worth mentioning.

A pivotal verse in this timeline is obviously Matthew 12:40. Jesus speaks of Jonah’s three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, and draws a direct correspondence to the three days and three nights he will spend in the heart of the earth.

Those who would argue for a Friday crucifixion, if they are using Biblical evidence, must argue that Jesus is somehow not speaking literally. Dwight Pentecost(1) writes this off as Jesus speaking “idiomatically,” for example. However, there is no evidence for Jesus speaking idiomatically or otherwise being anything other than literal in a plain reading of the text. He is drawing a direct, one-to-one comparison between Jonah’s time in the whale and his own time in the grave.

Further, the Gospel of John goes to some length to provide information that sheds light on the chronological situation. To begin with, it is quite clear that the evening following the trial of Jesus is the “official” passover feast as observed by the Jewish leaders(2), since the leaders would not defile themselves in the judgment hall so that they would be able to partake of the passover meal later that day (John 18:28). God through John further elaborates that it was the “preparation of the passover” in John 19:14.

This is important, since the passover feast took place at dusk of the 14th day of the month of Nisan (or Abib; the name was changed after the captivity), and the feast of unleavened bread followed immediately on the 15th, a day that would start in the evening immediately following the passover feast (See Leviticus 23:4-8). That day was a sabbath.

And John 19:31 makes it clear that the sabbath being prepared for was a “high” day, that is, a special sabbath taken as required for the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.

The implication here is that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14 and hung on the cross as the paschal lambs were being slaughtered for the passover; he was then removed from the cross and buried immediately prior to the fall of darkness that evening, the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, a high day sabbath. On a Thursday, this would result in two consecutive sabbaths, followed by a Sunday morning in which the Mary and company would be anxious to finally anoint the body.

There are a few other pieces of evidence as well, such as when that Sunday is described as the “third day since these things were done” in Luke 24:21, and the Greek rendering of “sabbaths” as plural in Matthew 28:1. I find those important but less compelling than Matthew 12:40, which is without question the hinge verse upon which the Thursday argument turns. He said, “Three days and three nights.” Did He mean it?

I believe Christ died on Thursday.

But not everybody does.

I know good, Biblically diligent people who argue for Wednesday. That is fine, although I find there are too many problems with that view. The two at the front of my mind are the “missing day,” Friday, which in this scenario is not a sabbath (the high day sabbath being Thursday) and in which Mary and company simply wait and do nothing; and the fact that a full 72-hour three-day three-night period requires Christ to rise from the dead… at dusk Saturday night.

And I know of good, Biblically diligent people who argue for Friday.

Some argue that the immediate language used in the synoptic gospels suggests a Friday crucifixion. A plain reading of the end of Mark 15 into Mark 16 certainly suggests this: In verse 47, we see, “ And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. And in the next verse, 16:1, we see, “And when the sabbath was past…”

When this was written, there was no chapter break. Just an unbroken narrative. So I understand the challenge those verses put to the Thursday scenario. I would point out that while these and a couple other companion verses do not state the existence of two sabbath days, they do not specifically deny them either.

Additionally, the frequent use of the term “the third day” in reference to the Sunday of the resurrection can be grammatically construed to argue for a Friday crucifixion by clarifying that the way such a term was used by those speakers was to inclusively list any part of any day. So a small part of Friday, Saturday, and a small part of Sunday.

Those are the Biblical Friday arguments that a Thursday theorist must overlook. They are significant, yes; I do not believe they are any more compelling (and, I believe, they are actually a bit less) than overlooking Matthew 12:40.

The main issue that rankles in this question is not people who argue for Friday from Biblical evidence.

The issue that rankles is the large numbers of people who would consider themselves to be Biblically diligent who hold a to a Friday crucifixion without examining the Biblical evidence at all.

Many of these people, whom I generally respect, would argue that doing or believing something just because one has always done or believed that is inadequate. That it is wrong to hold to “tradition.” They make many choices that deliberately buck “tradition,” arguing that such a choice cannot be wrong because the Bible is what matters.

But they will say the crucifixion was on Friday because that is what almost everybody else is doing.

Look, I believe that this issue falls solidly into the territory covered by Romans 14:5. I will not separate with someone over what day they think Christ died, or even with someone who doesn’t want to identify a day at all. I think it is possible for good people to disagree.

But Romans 14:5 does say that everyone should be “fully persuaded in his own mind.” For the student of the Bible, this is actually an enjoyable study, because there is lots of information in the scriptures that one can find to identify times and days in that final, awful, wonderful week. I have four pages of scripture references and brief notes just cataloguing what the Gospels say about it.

Don’t just say “It was Friday” because everybody else does. And, for that matter, don’t just say “It was Wednesday” or “Thursday” because catholics celebrate Friday or because you saw the headline of an article a few years ago. Study it. Be fully persuaded.

And then, if someone who has looked at the same information disagrees, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It is the worst of arguments, it is the best of arguments.

Yeah, I think it’s important to come to a Biblical conclusion about an issue like this. The day that Christ died is extremely important. It’s the day that He paid for my sins.

But, just as important: He is not dead anymore.

——————-

(1) Dwight Pentecost, The Words & Works of Jesus Christ, Zondervan, 1981, pg 575. Pentecost’s layout of the different arguments for the day of the crucifixion are interesting, but I find that he neglects to address Thursday arguments effectively and is too quick to ignore certain evidence. He also makes errors with regards to the chronology of the week in the Thursday hypothesis. Still, he argues from Scripture, which I appreciate.

(2) A consequence of my study of the different chronological passages is that I find a far more confusing issue involves the question of which day people celebrated the actual passover meal. A cursory scholarly search has been unsatisfactory; the best solution offered (by Hoehner, as quoted by Pentecost) is that Galileans and Judeans celebrated the passover on different days. This does fit both the Synoptic references to the passover and John’s clear reference to the passover occurring after the resurrection. It is, however, unsatisfying. I find the passages in John compelling, so at the very least it is clear to me that the majority of the city sat down to celebrate the passover as their true passover lamb was being lowered from the cross and buried in a nearby tomb.

Apple Goes Full Hobby Lobby: The Shoe is on the Other Foot

An American business has been ordered by a judge to perform an action that it claims is explicitly against that organization’s stated values, in order to satisfy what the judge believes to be a compelling interest of the government.

Yes, that’s the talk about Apple right now. An arm of government is attempting to compel them to perform actions they believe are wrong.

Does this sound like a familiar scenario to anyone else?

The reaction to the Apple news has been… interesting. I’ve seen a number of people vocally supportive of Apple’s stand on their values who, not two years ago, insisted that a corporation such as, to pick one completely at random, Hobby Lobby, COULD NOT have “values.” Most of the same people have no problem with the private proprietors of, say, Sweet Cakes by Melissa having their lives destroyed for refusing to bake a cake.

Suddenly it’s fashionable again for businesses to have values.

And these are values. Consider the wording of Apple’s message to their customers:

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

This is the language of belief, of value, of right and wrong. Held by a business. A corporation, and not even a “closely held” one at that. Yet many people who laud these words felt that Hobby Lobby’s use of the same concept of “freedom,” of “right” and “wrong,” was unacceptable.

These are very similar scenarios. The government believes it has a compelling interest to force a business to take certain actions, and the business believes that such actions would violate its values. Why are the responses so different? The same people who were outraged that Hobby Lobby would decline to fund certain types of birth control (and not all types, contra the willful misinformation disseminated by various information outlets) now cheer in support of Apple for “standing.”

And, to be fair, there are surely some people who supported Hobby Lobby who now believe Apple should comply with the court order.

I suggest that if one’s views differ between the Hobby Lobby and Apple cases, their stances are not based on rational principle.

To those who opposed Hobby Lobby and Sweetcakes, but support Apple:

1. If you believe the State should compel action that violates the conscience of the proprietors of a business when it has a significant interest in cases like Hobby Lobby, you must believe it can compel action in the case of Apple as well. And if you believe that corporations cannot have “personhood” rights that are constitutionally protected and must comply with all civic orders, no matter how personally grievous, you MUST support the FBI’s order against Apple.

If you do not, you have abandoned any claim to rational argument in these cases. You are simply supporting Apple because they are the “right” kind of people and opposing Hobby Lobby because they are the “wrong” kind of people. There is no principle here, just intellectual dishonesty.

2. If you are shocked that a court could presume a person or company to act in a way that violates their conscience, perhaps this can help you understand why Christians have reacted the way they have to recent government attempts to infringe upon our freedom of conscience. Stop listening to thought-free messages that we are acting out of ignorance or hate; we have strong views that we believe must guide our actions. Whether in an area that you personally disagree or in everyday issues like being honest in taxes and loving my children. Christianity, properly lived, is not merely a set of ideas that make us feel nice on Sundays; it is a relationship that affects everything we do in our lives. Including the work we do and the businesses we run.

To those who oppose Apple:

1. If you supported Hobby Lobby and similar businesses, but believe Apple should comply, you have the same problem as the people described above. You support the “right” people but oppose the “wrong” people without actually following any principle at all. As a Christian, I believe my choices should be guided by objective principle, not personal affinity. What was right two years ago is right now; what was wrong two years ago remains wrong now, regardless of who is involved.

David encountered this same problem when Nathan confronted him about his adultery and murder. He held to one principle for the hypothetical story of the rich neighbor stealing a lamb, and to a different principle with himself. If you once believed the government should not violate the conscience rights of a corporation, and now believe that it should, “Thou art the man.”

2. Beware of the law of unintended consequences. It seems simple now to hack a phone of a terrorist mass murderer. Easy to say, “what’s the big deal?” The big deal is the issue Apple raises: This is not just about this phone. According to Apple, this order compels them to build an operating system that could be used to bypass encryption on not only this phone, but other phones as well.

Yours, for example. Or mine.

Do you trust the government with this sort of thing?

Final note:

The questions of privacy and security are thorny. I’ve been torn about this and I don’t think there are easy answers; I agree with others that think there are larger reasons for this fight to occur than what is stated. On principle I generally have to side with Apple here, for reasons established in this post.

 

 

On Grief and Loss

Dad and Mom, near the end.

Two observations on grief and loss, on the thirteenth anniversary of my Dad’s death:

Grief
Everyone grieves differently. We tend to see the experiences others endure through the lens of our own memories of similar events. There is value in our ability to empathize with their situation, but there can be danger as well. When someone responds to loss in a way that we did not, it is easy to think, “They’re doing it wrong.” One may even make a well-meaning but misguided effort to “correct” them.

However, everyone processes personal loss differently. In cases where a close loved one is lost,  the shock is profound. The feelings that flow from it are difficult to process, and they are expressed in unusual and often uncomfortable ways.

When Dad died, this even happened within my own family. He died in the late afternoon on a Saturday in Florida, on the tail end of what was intended to be a vacation for him and Mom. My sisters and I had flown in the previous evening, along with my Mom’s sister Rose. We said our goodbyes that night, and held vigil over him through the next day.

I responded by getting back into familiar places with familiar people, and I only cried once that week, the moment he died. That night, I asked to fly back home before everyone else, early Sunday morning. I wanted to return to the familiar; I wanted to see friends, and I wanted to see my girlfriend (now wife) Tracy. We made arrangements for me to catch the dawn flight back to Detroit Metro, and I settled onto my assigned couch to attempt to sleep.

It was night, and the stress of the day had taken its toll. For perhaps an hour, my mother and her sister… were giddy. They had the giggles. They were boisterous. They laughed, often and uproariously, at insignificantly funny things. I believe, though cannot confirm, that my sisters joined in this. It was surreal.

And it wasn’t wrong. It was just the emotional pop-off valve letting off steam. There would be time to deal with the grief later, time to deal with the arrangements and logistics, all of that. The emotional stress simply expressed itself in a very strange way.

And many people react in different ways. Some strive to do “something” to establish or preserve the legacy of the family member they have lost. Some just get busy with memorial arrangements, wanting everything to be perfect. Some dissolve in tears, or want to be left alone. I’ve seen many different reactions. “Different” is not at all the same as “unhealthy.”

The Bible gives us a precedent for this: David’s loss of his unnamed son in 2 Samuel 12. He grieved and fasted over his own sin and pleaded with God for his son’s life, but when he perceived that his son had died, he shocked his staff by taking food and returning to his normal life. His process was unusual, but it was not wrong.

Memories
Memories balance themselves out over time. Many have considered whether they would prefer a loved one to die suddenly or to experience a long enough illness that there was time to prepare. I’ve been through it, and I am very grateful that I had time to prepare for Dad’s death. There was one significant downside.

When Dad left, the memories were fresh. For nearly two and a half years, his advanced cancer had been the dominant theme of our lives. There were doctor appointments, treatments, medical emergencies, prescriptions, personality changes, medical equipment transfers, you name it. He was frail, and short, (he lost perhaps four inches of height due to the degradation of his spine) and always in poor health. He usually needed an oxygen cannula to assist his breathing, and he had lost all but the most grizzled of hair, and radiation burns from various treatments were visible on his body.

Those were the fresh memories. Yes, there were the sweet times we got to enjoy each other’s company, and the family trips, and the treasured holidays that we knew we would get few of. But there were also the times he couldn’t eat without getting sick, and the surgeries, and the ambulance calls, and the distinctive sounds of an ICU that I had to return to each day at my job at a hospital.

But memories fade with time. When Dad died, my memories were most prominently those of his illness. But as the years have passed, balance has returned. I still remember those difficult days, but those fond memories from earlier in life have re-asserted themselves: His full beard and (slightly more) hair, his relentless work ethic, his self-taught handyman skills, his jogging; family dinners, his love for my Mom, lunch “dates” that he took me on, and watching football together in the den.

The hard memories and the pleasant ones are balanced together now. The loss doesn’t change, but it does fade, and the memories will balance.

I’m glad I had as much time as I did.

The Family

Father and Son, working together

Another Boy

So, I’ve kicked off a personal blog. I enjoy writing, but I rarely find the time to sit down for the time it takes to create a post I am actually satisfied with; the time to maintain a site of my own simply hasn’t existed. In addition, as an assistant/associate pastor, I have long felt it inappropriate to take public positions in areas that could potentially undermine my pastor.

It’s not clear to me whether or not I will spend much time with this, but for those times when I want to express thoughts too complex for Twitter or Facebook, this is a place for me to dump them. On a positive note, I can say that people have, on occasion, encouraged me to start a blog; on a negative note, that encouragement was usually just a polite way of saying that some rapid tweets on a certain topic were getting out of hand.

And that in no way brings me to the topic of this post, which is the current header picture on this site.

And for this I must express gratitude to NARAL, which conveniently reminded me of why I put this picture in my Twitter profile some months ago. Yesterday evening they complained that a Doritos Super Bowl commercial humanized fetuses. The commercial in question showed an ultrasound of a baby a few days from being born. That baby humorously attempted to reach for a chip that the Dad in the commercial was holding.

It is short, amusing, and basically meaningless. It uses an experience many people have (attending a pre-natal ultrasound) and playing with it for the purpose of expressing the desirability of a product. But, to NARAL, anything that suggests anything human about a fetus is wrong. And not just any fetus, but one that is days from being born.

Which is to say, a few days younger than my son was in this picture.

If you think that attributing humanity to a baby is a bad thing, you might be one of the bad guys. Nice work clarifying for us, NARAL.