How rich are you?

Have you ever compared your income to that of the rest of the world? Here is a chance for you to do so. Go to this website and include your annual income: www.globalrichlist.com
dr

Here is Tony and me at an Indianapolis Colts game on December 26, 2004. This is the game where Peyton Manning broke Dan Marino's single-season touchdown pass record when he threw his 49th of the season against San Diego Chargers.

Here is the view of the game from our seats.

dr

Who wrote the Bible?

In Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg argues that there are three options in understanding the authorship of the Bible (page 21ff). Either God wrote the Bible, Man wrote the Bible, or both God and Man wrote the Bible. God cannot be the sole author of the Bible because of the obvious influence of the personalities and contexts of different people writing the many books of the Bible. Both God and Man can not be held equally responsible for writing the Bible because then the person has the impossible task of determining which texts are from which author. So, Borg concludes that only Man can be understood as the author of the biblical texts.

Instead of seeing the biblical texts as how God sees things, Borg recognizes that the biblical texts is how the ancient communities and writers see God. I agree with Borg in his description of the authorship of the biblical texts, but I wonder if his argument could be taken too far in a place where I would be uncomfortable. I do know that the biblical texts are from man's perspectives of the character of God, but I also claim that they are accurate descriptions of the character of God. With Borg's argument could someone argue that they have a more complete understanding of who God is; that the communities and cultures who wrote the biblical texts are mistaken in their understanding of God? I do not want to constrain the revelation of God found in the biblical texts to my own assumptions and biases of who I think God is. I want to allow the Scriptures and the Christian tradition challenge me in seeing God outside the box I continually try to restrain God in. Because man is the sole authorship of the biblical texts, one should not argue that the way a person understands God is more complete or accurate than the biblical texts. People of the Christian faith must continually allow the biblical texts to read and challenge themselves instead of only reading the texts within the limited assumptions of the reader.
dr

got calvinism

I have a T-shirt that has on the front "got calvinism" and on the back a quote about Calvin (no mention of the TULIP accorynm). A friend of mine (who is calvinistic) was talking to me about the shirt. After the converstaion, I realized that he had no interest in my opinion against calvinism and I had no interest in his opinion in favor of calvinism, but we both were respectful of each other's opinion. I do not think it is that simplistic, but this experience made me question the idea of being open minded.

I have done some studying on both sides of the issue of calvinism and believe there is some merit to each side, but I describe myself more on the side of not being very calvinistic. I feel like I have been open minded to each side, but how do I continue to be open minded to a calvinistic mindset of the world when I have already concluded it is too legalistic? I feel like I understand the issue enough to make an informed opinion, but I do not feel I really need to be open minded to the possiblity of me be completely wrong about calvinistic thought. Does that mean I am too narrow minded?

I believe a calvinistic thought is too complex to base an opinion on a shirt or a short conversation. I hope to be in the middle between a Calvinist and Arminianist, but how do I do that through my interation with other people that might lean one way more than I do?
dr

A Parent's Protection

It seems that parents always want to protect their children, even when their problems are self-induced. Since I do not have children, I have no idea what it is like to watch a child struggle through a problem wanting to protect them from that problem, so my observations are very limited. I came to this realization by watching a show about addiction. One person, Daniel, was addicted to crystal meth. His mother would give him money to buy the drug, so he would not have to resort to stealing to provide for his habit. This mother also provided a roof over his head, food on his table and clothes on his back. Daniel was in his twenty's and with no job. He mooched of his mother to provide for his drug habit. The mother was trying to protect Daniel from the harsh realities of his drug addiction.

In the second half of the show the mother and the other siblings confronted him through an intervention to invite him to go to rehab. If Daniel was not willing to go to rehab, the mother was willing to stop providing for him and makes him bare the consequences of his drug addiction. Daniel was very thankful for his family's willingness to confront him on the issue. The show ended by an update that Daniel has been sober for six months, which is a great accomplishment that I can never fully realize as I am not addicted to meth.

The mother was trying to continue protecting her son, even from his own choice to smoke crystal meth, but that protection was the very thing that fueled his addiction. The viewer could see how difficult it was for the mother to provide the money for the drug, but she was scared of what would happen if she did not provide it. At the time of the intervention the very thing that the mother believed she could not do by no longer providing for her son was the very thing that he needed to force to make a choice of attending rehab.

It seems a parent may wish to protect a child from bad choices, but the complete consequences of those bad choices may be the only thing that truly helps the child see the full perspective of his or her harmful actions. I cannot criticize the parent for providing for a child because it probably is very difficult to watch a child go without, but many times the only way for a irresponsible person to learn the reality of life is through the inevitable hardships that can result from bad choices. The show demonstrates that the parents desire to protect a child will never disappear and there is a difficult fine line between protecting a child from evil and sustaining a child in that evil. While this line is difficult to define, it does not mean that it should be ignored either.

dr