Signs
Sceptics would call this "coincidence," but I prefer to call it "Signs that I am Loved."
Yesterday I took our fuel efficient Chevy Malibu to town. I had Princess Elodie, Groovy Garnet, Beautiful Bethany, and Terrific Trahern. We got about half way to town when all of a sudden every light on my dashboard came on. Then the speedometer, thermometer and RPM meter went dead. Then the car died -- right in the middle of an intersection near a gas station. I put the car into neutral, and thankfully there was no traffic for once at that busy corner, and we pushed the car into the gas station so that we wouldn't be in imminent danger of being struck.
I was able to phone my daughter Trista who came and picked up the children in two lots with her little car while I stayed with our sick and ailing Malibu to await a tow to the automotive shop. You know your life is too full when you consider a break down a bit of a holiday. I made my way into the convenience store attached to the gas station and bought myself some corn chips and bottled water and settled down in my car for a blissful 20 minutes to eat and read uninterrupted.
The car was duly towed and Trista then graciously came and picked me up from the shop and drove me all the way home so I could get the family van for a return to town for the children and a resumption of the grocery store trip.
So my first sign that I am loved is the fact that God arranged for my car to have a fit in a convenient location.
Well, we got through the grocery shopping in record time. I drove home with a van load of food and the children only to realize once I got home that I had left my keys to the office behind at the grocery store and now could not answer the business phone or get to the computer or any of the 3 million things that I keep in here. So... back into the van with Handsome Hannah and Neat Nate in the hopes that my keys would be found and a brief stop at the Y to work out some of the kinks my back had acquired during the course of the day.
I walked into SuperStore and inquired about the keys. They were not there. I started to walk around the store to see if I could find them, only to be called back by the customer service rep on the PA. Someone had just turned my keys in.
So there you have it -- my car breaks down in a good place for breaking down, and my keys are returned at precisely the same moment I am in the store. Coincidence? Nah. I am Loved.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Spring Fever
The sun has been out, a warm wind from the south has been blowing and the snow is melting rapidly. Everywhere you look are decaying mounds of snow, no longer lovely but dark, dirty and trashy looking. Garbage that was decently interred under drifts is now being resurrected and needing a thorough burial at the dump or immolation on the burning pile.
Because the sun is rising earlier now, it gets me out of bed at an early hour too -- frequently before 6 am. And now that the days are longer and warmer, I am feeling the itch to CLEAN!
So, the next few weeks, before Marc returns home from his work stint in Calgary, will be devoted to deep spring cleaning all the rooms in the house as well as painting and decorating the bathroom, the girls' bedroom and the mudroom. I feel the blood surging through my veins in anticipation of the soul-cleansing feeling of a thoroughly clean house.
The sun has been out, a warm wind from the south has been blowing and the snow is melting rapidly. Everywhere you look are decaying mounds of snow, no longer lovely but dark, dirty and trashy looking. Garbage that was decently interred under drifts is now being resurrected and needing a thorough burial at the dump or immolation on the burning pile.
Because the sun is rising earlier now, it gets me out of bed at an early hour too -- frequently before 6 am. And now that the days are longer and warmer, I am feeling the itch to CLEAN!
So, the next few weeks, before Marc returns home from his work stint in Calgary, will be devoted to deep spring cleaning all the rooms in the house as well as painting and decorating the bathroom, the girls' bedroom and the mudroom. I feel the blood surging through my veins in anticipation of the soul-cleansing feeling of a thoroughly clean house.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Garnet
Elodie is not the only cute one in the family. The office of cutest small boy has been reserved for Garnet, who is three and a half.
Garnet was potty trained many months ago but still has the habit of coming and announcing to me that he needs to use the washroom before he will use it. The other day my husband and I were sitting in our office chatting and Garnet came in to tell me that he had to use the washroom. I replied, "Okay, go for it, man!" but Marc, my husband asked him, "Garnet why don't you still wear diapers?" Garnet replied, "Cuz Mom won't buy them for me any more" as he left the office with a downcast expression and sigh for the good old days.
And while I think of it, I will ask Emeth to post a picture of Garnet so that I won't be challenged on his cuteness.
Curing Matt's Agnosticism
Since doubt has been cast on my ability to judge the daintiness and sweetness of Princess Elodie, I have forwarded a picture of her to Emeth who controls how my blog looks (since I don't have a clue how to do this, or I would remove the orange colors off of it) and I hope she will post it for me. Then you can all judge for yourselves.
Since doubt has been cast on my ability to judge the daintiness and sweetness of Princess Elodie, I have forwarded a picture of her to Emeth who controls how my blog looks (since I don't have a clue how to do this, or I would remove the orange colors off of it) and I hope she will post it for me. Then you can all judge for yourselves.
Friday, March 07, 2003
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Morbid Curiosity
I don't always understand how my brain works or why I feel driven to learn about certain things. Lately, I have felt a compulsion to understand the process of dying. No one that is close to me is terminally ill, and I have no premonitions about my own health or death. In some respects I guess this is the other end of the continuum of my education about health and life. I used to be a doula and have a pretty good knowledge of how people get here. Now, perhaps, it is time for me to round out my education and learn about how they leave here.
This is a rather strange subject to delve into. Death is the one thing that we don't want to deal with, but which is always hanging over us. You can't get out of life alive. Ok, so how do we get out?
Prior to the advent of antibiotics, death was far more common and life was often far shorter than it is today. The smells, sights and feelings of death were things that were commonly experienced by earlier generations on an uncomfortably regular basis. Death wasn't limited to only the elderly -- many babies, many youths, many young men and women were struck down in their prime by a variety of circumstances. Now, fewer babies and young people die and life has been extended into the 80's and 90's for more and more people.
The result? Death has become something that many of us are not familiar with in our youth. The shortness of life is easier to ignore. And when death comes, it is sanitized very often by the intervention of doctors and nurses, morticians and funeral home directors. The reality of death is almost limited to the void that is left by the person being gone. There is little that we personally have to do with our family members who pass on. You can hire someone else to do it.
Of course, not everyone is so arm's length from death. There are those who do hospice care in their homes for their loved ones so that they are in familiar surroundings when the end comes. When I go, I hope that I will be able to do it this way. I don't want to be in a ward in a rented bed. I want to be in my own surroundings with those I love around me to encourage me on. Of course, we don't necessarily get to choose how we will die or where. But if I had my druthers....
I wonder if birth control would be so popular if people didn't think most of their children would make it beyond the first few years of life?
I don't always understand how my brain works or why I feel driven to learn about certain things. Lately, I have felt a compulsion to understand the process of dying. No one that is close to me is terminally ill, and I have no premonitions about my own health or death. In some respects I guess this is the other end of the continuum of my education about health and life. I used to be a doula and have a pretty good knowledge of how people get here. Now, perhaps, it is time for me to round out my education and learn about how they leave here.
This is a rather strange subject to delve into. Death is the one thing that we don't want to deal with, but which is always hanging over us. You can't get out of life alive. Ok, so how do we get out?
Prior to the advent of antibiotics, death was far more common and life was often far shorter than it is today. The smells, sights and feelings of death were things that were commonly experienced by earlier generations on an uncomfortably regular basis. Death wasn't limited to only the elderly -- many babies, many youths, many young men and women were struck down in their prime by a variety of circumstances. Now, fewer babies and young people die and life has been extended into the 80's and 90's for more and more people.
The result? Death has become something that many of us are not familiar with in our youth. The shortness of life is easier to ignore. And when death comes, it is sanitized very often by the intervention of doctors and nurses, morticians and funeral home directors. The reality of death is almost limited to the void that is left by the person being gone. There is little that we personally have to do with our family members who pass on. You can hire someone else to do it.
Of course, not everyone is so arm's length from death. There are those who do hospice care in their homes for their loved ones so that they are in familiar surroundings when the end comes. When I go, I hope that I will be able to do it this way. I don't want to be in a ward in a rented bed. I want to be in my own surroundings with those I love around me to encourage me on. Of course, we don't necessarily get to choose how we will die or where. But if I had my druthers....
I wonder if birth control would be so popular if people didn't think most of their children would make it beyond the first few years of life?
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Headcoverings and Modesty
Some posts by Matt and Sora reminded me of a recent discussion I was involved in concerning the use of headcoverings as a sign of modesty and submission for women in our culture. Is the headcovering meant to be a sign of these things forever and always? Here is a copy of a post from a friend of mine that deals with the question as laid out by Durham and Gillespie:
Let's start with Durham on Scandal:
"Chap 6: Holding forth the difficulty mainly in pracitce, and shewing how far offence ought to have influence on a Christian in his walk."
Durham proceeds in making careful distinctions/qualifications via 3 assertions (I'll be including 2):
1. Necessary duties.
2. Things of light concernment in themselves (the context will evidence a sense of things not inherently necessary)
"1. For no offence whatsoever should men forbear a necessary duty, or commit any thing which is materially sinful. Christ would needs go up to Jerusalem, altho' his Disciples were displeased, and would continue in preaching the Gospel, and in doing what was intrusted to him, altho' the Pharisees were offended, Matt 15. This is clear: For no Evil should be done that Good may come of it, Rom 3.
2. Assert. Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offence, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former Reasons clear; As, 1. If the matter be of light concernment in itself, as how mens Gestures are in their walking, (Suppse in walking softly, or quickly with Cloke or without) Men ought to do or abstain as may prevent the Contruction of Pride, Lightness, etc. or give occasion to others in any of these: Of such sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this sort was women praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign; yet if it be necessary, there is nothing little, as moses will not leave an hoof, Exodus 10, nor Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it that it looked like fauning on an accursed enemy: Of this Sort also are offences in the fasions of Clothes, as some Mens wearing Ribbons, and such like, which being of small Concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by Offence" - Durham's treatise concerning scandal, pg 24; Ch 6 Part 1.
The 1st assertion deals with necessary duties. The 2nd, however, deals with things of another nature (things of light concernement, etc). This fact alone demonstrates how Durham interpreted the nature of the practice, without question. This section should be interpreted as a qualifier in reference to Durham's comments on 1st Corinthians 11 in "The Law Unsealed." Appealing to historical practice in Scotland, or anywhere else is fallacious (in this context); an instance of question begging. The question is not in reference to the practice historically, but in reference to the nature of the historical practice. If this method was not assumed when examining historical accounts, one by consequence would terminate in a thousand superstitious conclusions...perhaps an infinite number of conclusions.
The covering is either necessary inherently, or not. Durham excludes the covering from the category of inherently necessary duties, and squarely places it in a category of a different nature - "Yet in other things......If the matter be of light concernment.....Of such Sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this Sort was womens praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign, etc" Therefore, etc. Durham is clearly dealing with contextually qualified necessities in this section, rather than things inherently necessary.
To avoid the charge of redundancy, there are different applications of necessity. Some duties are necessary inherently, as Durham's 1st assertion clears. Some duties are contextually necessary, as in the instances mentioned in his 2nd assertion...being qualified by the context. Durham judiciously elaborates on this idea a bit further along in the chapter: "If it be indifferent, that is, in the matter thereof, such as may be done, or forborn; as eating or not eating such a meat for such a time, (for altho' no Action is indifferent when it is done, because the Circumstance of the End, Motive and manner, do determine them either to be good or bad, as they are agreeable or disagreeable to the law when they are done; yet some Acitons in themselves are such:)...."
"Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle (see Durham's latter qualifications; see also Rutherford's dispute concerning Scandal - found at the end of 'The Divine Right of Church Government & Excommunication' ).
Gillespie in English Popish Ceremonies:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:
"Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "
"Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."
A few questions:
Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?
A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.
Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?
A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.
Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:
1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')
2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.
The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.
Gillespie further defines:
"And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."
In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
"Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248
Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:
1. Natural signs
2. Customable signs
3. Voluntary signs
None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).
E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).
Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.
The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:
"Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."
Next paragraph:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.
Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).
So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:
1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).
2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).
Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.
Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Some posts by Matt and Sora reminded me of a recent discussion I was involved in concerning the use of headcoverings as a sign of modesty and submission for women in our culture. Is the headcovering meant to be a sign of these things forever and always? Here is a copy of a post from a friend of mine that deals with the question as laid out by Durham and Gillespie:
Let's start with Durham on Scandal:
"Chap 6: Holding forth the difficulty mainly in pracitce, and shewing how far offence ought to have influence on a Christian in his walk."
Durham proceeds in making careful distinctions/qualifications via 3 assertions (I'll be including 2):
1. Necessary duties.
2. Things of light concernment in themselves (the context will evidence a sense of things not inherently necessary)
"1. For no offence whatsoever should men forbear a necessary duty, or commit any thing which is materially sinful. Christ would needs go up to Jerusalem, altho' his Disciples were displeased, and would continue in preaching the Gospel, and in doing what was intrusted to him, altho' the Pharisees were offended, Matt 15. This is clear: For no Evil should be done that Good may come of it, Rom 3.
2. Assert. Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offence, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former Reasons clear; As, 1. If the matter be of light concernment in itself, as how mens Gestures are in their walking, (Suppse in walking softly, or quickly with Cloke or without) Men ought to do or abstain as may prevent the Contruction of Pride, Lightness, etc. or give occasion to others in any of these: Of such sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this sort was women praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign; yet if it be necessary, there is nothing little, as moses will not leave an hoof, Exodus 10, nor Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it that it looked like fauning on an accursed enemy: Of this Sort also are offences in the fasions of Clothes, as some Mens wearing Ribbons, and such like, which being of small Concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by Offence" - Durham's treatise concerning scandal, pg 24; Ch 6 Part 1.
The 1st assertion deals with necessary duties. The 2nd, however, deals with things of another nature (things of light concernement, etc). This fact alone demonstrates how Durham interpreted the nature of the practice, without question. This section should be interpreted as a qualifier in reference to Durham's comments on 1st Corinthians 11 in "The Law Unsealed." Appealing to historical practice in Scotland, or anywhere else is fallacious (in this context); an instance of question begging. The question is not in reference to the practice historically, but in reference to the nature of the historical practice. If this method was not assumed when examining historical accounts, one by consequence would terminate in a thousand superstitious conclusions...perhaps an infinite number of conclusions.
The covering is either necessary inherently, or not. Durham excludes the covering from the category of inherently necessary duties, and squarely places it in a category of a different nature - "Yet in other things......If the matter be of light concernment.....Of such Sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this Sort was womens praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign, etc" Therefore, etc. Durham is clearly dealing with contextually qualified necessities in this section, rather than things inherently necessary.
To avoid the charge of redundancy, there are different applications of necessity. Some duties are necessary inherently, as Durham's 1st assertion clears. Some duties are contextually necessary, as in the instances mentioned in his 2nd assertion...being qualified by the context. Durham judiciously elaborates on this idea a bit further along in the chapter: "If it be indifferent, that is, in the matter thereof, such as may be done, or forborn; as eating or not eating such a meat for such a time, (for altho' no Action is indifferent when it is done, because the Circumstance of the End, Motive and manner, do determine them either to be good or bad, as they are agreeable or disagreeable to the law when they are done; yet some Acitons in themselves are such:)...."
"Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle (see Durham's latter qualifications; see also Rutherford's dispute concerning Scandal - found at the end of 'The Divine Right of Church Government & Excommunication' ).
Gillespie in English Popish Ceremonies:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:
"Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "
"Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."
A few questions:
Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?
A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.
Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?
A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.
Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:
1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')
2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.
The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.
Gillespie further defines:
"And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."
In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
"Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248
Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:
1. Natural signs
2. Customable signs
3. Voluntary signs
None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).
E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).
Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.
The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:
"Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."
Next paragraph:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.
Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).
So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:
1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).
2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).
Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.
Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
The Living Years
Sung by Mike and the Mechanics
The Living Years
Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door
I know that I'm a prisoner
To all my Father held so dear
I know that I'm a hostage
To all his hopes and fears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thought
Stilted conversations
I'm afraid that's all we've got
You say you just don't see it
He says it's perfect sense
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense
We all talk a different language
Talking in defence
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past
We only sacrifice the future
It's the bitterness that lasts
So Don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate
It may have a new perspective
On a different day
And if you don't give up, and don't give in
You may just be OK.
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
I wasn't there that morning
When my Father passed away
I didn't get to tell him
All the things I had to say
I think I caught his spirit
Later that same year
I'm sure I heard his echo
In my baby's new born tears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
Sung by Mike and the Mechanics
The Living Years
Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door
I know that I'm a prisoner
To all my Father held so dear
I know that I'm a hostage
To all his hopes and fears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thought
Stilted conversations
I'm afraid that's all we've got
You say you just don't see it
He says it's perfect sense
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense
We all talk a different language
Talking in defence
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past
We only sacrifice the future
It's the bitterness that lasts
So Don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate
It may have a new perspective
On a different day
And if you don't give up, and don't give in
You may just be OK.
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
I wasn't there that morning
When my Father passed away
I didn't get to tell him
All the things I had to say
I think I caught his spirit
Later that same year
I'm sure I heard his echo
In my baby's new born tears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
Monday, February 24, 2003
Homeland Security
Homeland Security has announced they will soon be implementing new software
which will record every click of your mouse. It is their belief that it
will operate completely transparently and that the average user will not
notice any difference in performance.
Homeland Security has announced they will soon be implementing new software
which will record every click of your mouse. It is their belief that it
will operate completely transparently and that the average user will not
notice any difference in performance.
Rabbit Whisperer?
As I had mentioned in previous posts, my sons Ben and Trahern have decided to go into the rabbit breeding business. So far, their attempts at raising rabbits has been hard on the rabbits. I have never really thought that rabbits were highly intelligent creatures, Bugs Bunny notwithstanding. And so far they have done nothing to change this opinion.
I speak of the suicidal tendency of rabbits to escape their hutches in front of a couple of dogs who, wanting to please their masters, dutifully catch said rabbits and return them to us, albeit in a dead, frozen and poker stiff manner. (The dogs can't seem to understand why we do not leap with delight at seeing the rabbits piled like cordwood at our back doorstep or dismembered on the driveway.)
Last night the boys and I watched a video about Monty something or other, the original Horse Whisperer. It was a very fascinating video about how this man learned the secret body language of horses and then used that to train them to wearing saddles and accepting a rider within hours without traumatizing them. I am wondering if any of you know of a similar video on Rabbit Whispering? We are learning in a trial and error way what rabbits are trying to convey by their body language, but it would be easier on the rabbits and us if we could learn this a bit faster rather than using the trial and error method.
Case in point: The other day Trahern thoughtfully brought his black dwarf mini-lop doe (the most recent replacement for the other bunnies) into the house to hop around and deposit little raisins on my floor for Elodie to find and eat. Elodie was quite enthralled and squawked with delight as she crawled rapidly in the rabbit's wake. After a while she tired of this and found one of her rattles laying on the floor. Picking this up, she began to bang the floor with gusto. The rabbit, demonstrating a distinct lack of intelligence and instinct for survival, was foolish enough to wander into reach of Elodie, who, tiring of banging on the floor, used her rattle to deliver a few hearty whacks on the rabbit's head. The rabbit gave her an indignant and astonished look and then stamped its hind feet in what looked to be a display of extreme chagrin. Next thing we knew, Elodie flew over backwards like a ninepin before a furry black bowling ball. The rabbit took exception to the clubbing and bunted Elodie in the stomach with its head. After we dusted Elodie off and soothed her wails to silence, we found the rabbit sitting in the corner with a smug look on its face.
If I had thought about rabbits before, it was to regard them as soft furry creatures that are kind and gentle. The well-hidden truth is that they resemble the killer rabbit on Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. I had foolishly thought that the bloodthirsty rabbit in that show was merely a playful and silly sketch meant to cause laughter. Little did I know that this was actually a documentary on what rabbits can actually be like. If you want proof that the Fall affected all of creation, and not just the nature of man, then you need look no further than a female rabbit. Female rabbits are famous for their ability to breed rapidly. We have been careful to keep them away from the bucks in order to prevent that ability from being displayed right now. Instead of pregnant rabbits, we now have rabbits with PMS.
A rabbit with PMS is not a pretty sight. The owner may want to demonstrate kindness and consideration to his pet by giving it fresh water and food. But when these does start into "that time of the month" they meet these demonstrations with slavering jaws, terrifying squeals and charges across their pens looking for blood. The bucks don't seem to have this problem which leads me to conclude that the homicidal bunny in the Monty Python movie was a doe who really wanted chocolate and was enraged when she couldn't get any.
Anyhow, if any of you know of any books or videos on rabbit whispering, we would appreciate it if you would direct us to them.
As I had mentioned in previous posts, my sons Ben and Trahern have decided to go into the rabbit breeding business. So far, their attempts at raising rabbits has been hard on the rabbits. I have never really thought that rabbits were highly intelligent creatures, Bugs Bunny notwithstanding. And so far they have done nothing to change this opinion.
I speak of the suicidal tendency of rabbits to escape their hutches in front of a couple of dogs who, wanting to please their masters, dutifully catch said rabbits and return them to us, albeit in a dead, frozen and poker stiff manner. (The dogs can't seem to understand why we do not leap with delight at seeing the rabbits piled like cordwood at our back doorstep or dismembered on the driveway.)
Last night the boys and I watched a video about Monty something or other, the original Horse Whisperer. It was a very fascinating video about how this man learned the secret body language of horses and then used that to train them to wearing saddles and accepting a rider within hours without traumatizing them. I am wondering if any of you know of a similar video on Rabbit Whispering? We are learning in a trial and error way what rabbits are trying to convey by their body language, but it would be easier on the rabbits and us if we could learn this a bit faster rather than using the trial and error method.
Case in point: The other day Trahern thoughtfully brought his black dwarf mini-lop doe (the most recent replacement for the other bunnies) into the house to hop around and deposit little raisins on my floor for Elodie to find and eat. Elodie was quite enthralled and squawked with delight as she crawled rapidly in the rabbit's wake. After a while she tired of this and found one of her rattles laying on the floor. Picking this up, she began to bang the floor with gusto. The rabbit, demonstrating a distinct lack of intelligence and instinct for survival, was foolish enough to wander into reach of Elodie, who, tiring of banging on the floor, used her rattle to deliver a few hearty whacks on the rabbit's head. The rabbit gave her an indignant and astonished look and then stamped its hind feet in what looked to be a display of extreme chagrin. Next thing we knew, Elodie flew over backwards like a ninepin before a furry black bowling ball. The rabbit took exception to the clubbing and bunted Elodie in the stomach with its head. After we dusted Elodie off and soothed her wails to silence, we found the rabbit sitting in the corner with a smug look on its face.
If I had thought about rabbits before, it was to regard them as soft furry creatures that are kind and gentle. The well-hidden truth is that they resemble the killer rabbit on Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. I had foolishly thought that the bloodthirsty rabbit in that show was merely a playful and silly sketch meant to cause laughter. Little did I know that this was actually a documentary on what rabbits can actually be like. If you want proof that the Fall affected all of creation, and not just the nature of man, then you need look no further than a female rabbit. Female rabbits are famous for their ability to breed rapidly. We have been careful to keep them away from the bucks in order to prevent that ability from being displayed right now. Instead of pregnant rabbits, we now have rabbits with PMS.
A rabbit with PMS is not a pretty sight. The owner may want to demonstrate kindness and consideration to his pet by giving it fresh water and food. But when these does start into "that time of the month" they meet these demonstrations with slavering jaws, terrifying squeals and charges across their pens looking for blood. The bucks don't seem to have this problem which leads me to conclude that the homicidal bunny in the Monty Python movie was a doe who really wanted chocolate and was enraged when she couldn't get any.
Anyhow, if any of you know of any books or videos on rabbit whispering, we would appreciate it if you would direct us to them.
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Quilting
I am doing my very first full-blown pieced quilt project for myself. It is a wall hanging on twelve house blocks with a strip of one inch squares in various patterned pieces beneath each row of four houses. If it turns out well, I shall probably do one for my mother's birthday and make one for my daughter Trista, to hang in her livingroom. So far it is going pretty well. I am even thinking that this is easy enough that I may introduce my daughter Hannah to the fine womanly art of quilting.
I have often wondered why very few women have produced works of art that last for centuries. I don't think women are less creative than men are. Perhaps it is because most of our artwork is of the edible or wearable variety...
I am doing my very first full-blown pieced quilt project for myself. It is a wall hanging on twelve house blocks with a strip of one inch squares in various patterned pieces beneath each row of four houses. If it turns out well, I shall probably do one for my mother's birthday and make one for my daughter Trista, to hang in her livingroom. So far it is going pretty well. I am even thinking that this is easy enough that I may introduce my daughter Hannah to the fine womanly art of quilting.
I have often wondered why very few women have produced works of art that last for centuries. I don't think women are less creative than men are. Perhaps it is because most of our artwork is of the edible or wearable variety...
Parenting Blues
Does any parent out there go to bed at night feeling like they did a good job that day? Or is it just me that makes a habit of going over the day and seeing all the places I have failed and then lamenting over whether or not these children will turn out okay?
The parents of yesteryear seemed so confident in the advice that they gave and the actions they took. Do thus and so and you should get this result. If you get something different, the fault lies with the child and their corrupt nature. Parents today are very tentative and I am one of the tentative hordes. I don't know if this is because the surrounding culture encourages us to look to experts for answers (and there are no expert parents) or because I am daily faced with the realization of what a corrupt sinner I am and I see it in corruption reflected in my children.
I love my children, but I am often left with the feeling that I haven't loved them enough or wisely.
Does any parent out there go to bed at night feeling like they did a good job that day? Or is it just me that makes a habit of going over the day and seeing all the places I have failed and then lamenting over whether or not these children will turn out okay?
The parents of yesteryear seemed so confident in the advice that they gave and the actions they took. Do thus and so and you should get this result. If you get something different, the fault lies with the child and their corrupt nature. Parents today are very tentative and I am one of the tentative hordes. I don't know if this is because the surrounding culture encourages us to look to experts for answers (and there are no expert parents) or because I am daily faced with the realization of what a corrupt sinner I am and I see it in corruption reflected in my children.
I love my children, but I am often left with the feeling that I haven't loved them enough or wisely.
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Disarming
I find it very disarming to read the blogs and details of the homelife of people with whom I may have significant differences in theology. The little details of homelife make them more real and three dimensional and therefore someone I am less likely to let have it with both barrels. I sometimes think that one of the reasons that discussions or debates grow so heated is that it is easy to forget there are people behind the words that are written. We say things to one another that we wouldn't dream of saying in person. The subjective feelings of the recipients of our words are lost in the objectivity of our arguments.
Everybody should blog.
I find it very disarming to read the blogs and details of the homelife of people with whom I may have significant differences in theology. The little details of homelife make them more real and three dimensional and therefore someone I am less likely to let have it with both barrels. I sometimes think that one of the reasons that discussions or debates grow so heated is that it is easy to forget there are people behind the words that are written. We say things to one another that we wouldn't dream of saying in person. The subjective feelings of the recipients of our words are lost in the objectivity of our arguments.
Everybody should blog.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Monday, February 10, 2003
On Covenants and Covenanting
All the intercourse which God holds with men is through the medium of covenant transactions. Soon after the creation of this world, it was put under a federal dispensation, of which man was the head. By this arrangement, nothing was detracted from the glory of the Creator in the exercise of his high prerogative as Legislator; but by it there was an eminent display given of his goodness. The law under which man was created, was a copy of the moral perfections of God. In the superadded form of a covenant which it received, it exhibited a transcript of his gracious character. On that dispensation, under which man was placed in innocency, there are the clearest traces of the goodness of God, as well as of his wisdom, and power, and justice, and holiness. And it was this finishing act of the six days' creation work that made it, in the highest degree, the object of Divine complacential contemplation. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good."
Much that has been said and written in denial of the covenant of works, proceeds from evident ignorance of the nature of such a transaction. Did God, by fair implication, give to our first parents promises of good, to be fulfilled, when they should perform the condition required of them? Life was as certainly promised, as death was threatened, in the covenant of works. A penalty is necessary to law, and therefore, does not change its nature; but in the exercise of purely legislative authority, there is no place for promises or reward. "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." Luke 17:10. Those who have only what was their duty, have merited nothing. Promises on the part of God, to our first parents, exhibited him in another than a merely legislative character. It displayed his benignity in promising to reward man's obedience, and his faithfulness as pledged for the fulfillment of his engagement. The covenant of works was not a mere act of Divine authoritative will to preserve order and subordination in the world, but it was an emanation from the goodness of the Divine nature, in this way discovering itself, mediately for the good of man, and ultimately for the glory of God.
The design of the foregoing remarks, is to show that God is inclined, by his essential graciousness, to connect with his commands promises of reward, as motives to obey. An argument a priori is thus furnished for the proposition under consideration. Abundant facts confirm the same truth. In the whole history of man till the present time, and in that which remains to be filled up until time shall be no more, a single exception shall never be found to that rule of the divine administrations, by which God is exhibited as a God who makes and who keeps covenant with men. The condemnation and punishment of the wicked furnish nothing incongrous with this most interesting view of the Divine character, for they all die under the covenant of works, and suffer its direful penalty; and their sin has this aggravation, that it is committed under a dispensation of new covenant mercy, and against a Savior by whom it is administered. And, while from that very fact, the righteousness of the Divine government, in their sentence and its execution, will be most clearly displayed, there will be, in the salvation of all the redeemed, a most glorious exhibition of the gracious perfections fo the Triune God. "He hath sent redemption unto his people; he hath commended his covenant for ever; holy and reverend is his name."
2. All God's covenant transactions with men since the fall, are based on the covenant of grace. The covenant of works being broken, there was no place left under it for promises. By the violation of his engagement, man lost all claim to the Divine favor. There was before him nothing but a "fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation." It was perfectly clear that if promises be made again to man, it must be under an order of things entirely new, and for which the covenant of works made no provision, Infinite wisdom foresaw and provided for the exigency. Between the eternal FAther and the eternal Son a covenant was made in eternity, which contemplate the wiping away of all the dishonor done to God by the introduction of sin, and the manifestation fo the Divine perfections in restoring to the moral universe the harmony which that foreign and malignant element had disturbed. "I have made a covenant with my chosen." "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." The Son of God undertook, in our nature, to satisfy Divine justice, and to opent up a way through which mercy could be manifested to sinners. By his obedience to the death, he fully performed all the stipulations of the covenant, and provided for the children of men a way of access to God. "In Christ Jesus, ye who were sometimes far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ."
[Taken from Vol. 3 no. 21, October 13, 1995 of the Original Covenanter and Contending Witness. Originally published in 1850.]
All the intercourse which God holds with men is through the medium of covenant transactions. Soon after the creation of this world, it was put under a federal dispensation, of which man was the head. By this arrangement, nothing was detracted from the glory of the Creator in the exercise of his high prerogative as Legislator; but by it there was an eminent display given of his goodness. The law under which man was created, was a copy of the moral perfections of God. In the superadded form of a covenant which it received, it exhibited a transcript of his gracious character. On that dispensation, under which man was placed in innocency, there are the clearest traces of the goodness of God, as well as of his wisdom, and power, and justice, and holiness. And it was this finishing act of the six days' creation work that made it, in the highest degree, the object of Divine complacential contemplation. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good."
Much that has been said and written in denial of the covenant of works, proceeds from evident ignorance of the nature of such a transaction. Did God, by fair implication, give to our first parents promises of good, to be fulfilled, when they should perform the condition required of them? Life was as certainly promised, as death was threatened, in the covenant of works. A penalty is necessary to law, and therefore, does not change its nature; but in the exercise of purely legislative authority, there is no place for promises or reward. "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." Luke 17:10. Those who have only what was their duty, have merited nothing. Promises on the part of God, to our first parents, exhibited him in another than a merely legislative character. It displayed his benignity in promising to reward man's obedience, and his faithfulness as pledged for the fulfillment of his engagement. The covenant of works was not a mere act of Divine authoritative will to preserve order and subordination in the world, but it was an emanation from the goodness of the Divine nature, in this way discovering itself, mediately for the good of man, and ultimately for the glory of God.
The design of the foregoing remarks, is to show that God is inclined, by his essential graciousness, to connect with his commands promises of reward, as motives to obey. An argument a priori is thus furnished for the proposition under consideration. Abundant facts confirm the same truth. In the whole history of man till the present time, and in that which remains to be filled up until time shall be no more, a single exception shall never be found to that rule of the divine administrations, by which God is exhibited as a God who makes and who keeps covenant with men. The condemnation and punishment of the wicked furnish nothing incongrous with this most interesting view of the Divine character, for they all die under the covenant of works, and suffer its direful penalty; and their sin has this aggravation, that it is committed under a dispensation of new covenant mercy, and against a Savior by whom it is administered. And, while from that very fact, the righteousness of the Divine government, in their sentence and its execution, will be most clearly displayed, there will be, in the salvation of all the redeemed, a most glorious exhibition of the gracious perfections fo the Triune God. "He hath sent redemption unto his people; he hath commended his covenant for ever; holy and reverend is his name."
2. All God's covenant transactions with men since the fall, are based on the covenant of grace. The covenant of works being broken, there was no place left under it for promises. By the violation of his engagement, man lost all claim to the Divine favor. There was before him nothing but a "fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation." It was perfectly clear that if promises be made again to man, it must be under an order of things entirely new, and for which the covenant of works made no provision, Infinite wisdom foresaw and provided for the exigency. Between the eternal FAther and the eternal Son a covenant was made in eternity, which contemplate the wiping away of all the dishonor done to God by the introduction of sin, and the manifestation fo the Divine perfections in restoring to the moral universe the harmony which that foreign and malignant element had disturbed. "I have made a covenant with my chosen." "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." The Son of God undertook, in our nature, to satisfy Divine justice, and to opent up a way through which mercy could be manifested to sinners. By his obedience to the death, he fully performed all the stipulations of the covenant, and provided for the children of men a way of access to God. "In Christ Jesus, ye who were sometimes far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ."
[Taken from Vol. 3 no. 21, October 13, 1995 of the Original Covenanter and Contending Witness. Originally published in 1850.]
Sweet Elodie...
Is now trying desperately hard to walk. She is eight months old now and such a tiny, petite little mite, that she looks too little to accomplish such feats of daring do. However, we caught her after she had crawled up four steps on our stairs the other day. She was quite pleased with herself and chuckled until we took her off. Then the chuckles became shrieks to be put back DOWN on the stairs. She can't say a word, but despite that manages to convey her meanings quite clearly.
It is true that crawling does cause a huge spurt in learning in babies. The act of coordinating the movement on both sides of the body forces both hemispheres of the brain to work together. This, in turn, causes a quantum leap in their ability to learn stuff. And Elodie is just a shining example of this in my own biased opinion.
Is now trying desperately hard to walk. She is eight months old now and such a tiny, petite little mite, that she looks too little to accomplish such feats of daring do. However, we caught her after she had crawled up four steps on our stairs the other day. She was quite pleased with herself and chuckled until we took her off. Then the chuckles became shrieks to be put back DOWN on the stairs. She can't say a word, but despite that manages to convey her meanings quite clearly.
It is true that crawling does cause a huge spurt in learning in babies. The act of coordinating the movement on both sides of the body forces both hemispheres of the brain to work together. This, in turn, causes a quantum leap in their ability to learn stuff. And Elodie is just a shining example of this in my own biased opinion.
Biting my Nails...
Well, my paper on Energy Therapy is now in the hands of my elders, awaiting their verdict. I was told to "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." My moods alternate between both extremes of despair and wild hope. Yesterday at church, one of the men there who is studying apologetics and philosophy, and who is able to stymie all his profs with Van Tillian precision, gave me his verdict on my paper -- thumbs up! There was one little point that he had a question by, but as it wasn't something that I hold as my position, it isn't really a problem. He echoed what several others have said -- there needs to be a book written on this topic from a Reformed Christian perspective. Several others, whose opinions I respect, have also said that my thesis looks pretty good.
I spoke with my kinesionics trainer the other day and told him some of what was in my paper. He wants a copy because he has had to deal with much of the same thing. But what was really, really, really exciting and gratifying to me is that he wants me to come and teach this stuff on his next course! He also recommended that I write a book on the topic as well!
So, here I am, seriously considering the possibility of writing a Christian apologetic on the lawful use of energy therapies in healing, once I have the elders' blessing on what I have done thus far. Most of the writings from Christians that deal with the topic fall into the category of "New Age Paranoists" because many of these therapies were developed in non-Christian countries and have pantheistic ideas attached to them. But some of the methods are indeed valid, and indifferent means of healing that I believe can be utilized safely and effectively if done in the context of the correct worldview (Reformed Calvinism).
In the meantime, I am trying to be circumspect in what I actually post here so that I don't get into too much trouble. Sometimes it is hard to restrain myself...
Well, my paper on Energy Therapy is now in the hands of my elders, awaiting their verdict. I was told to "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." My moods alternate between both extremes of despair and wild hope. Yesterday at church, one of the men there who is studying apologetics and philosophy, and who is able to stymie all his profs with Van Tillian precision, gave me his verdict on my paper -- thumbs up! There was one little point that he had a question by, but as it wasn't something that I hold as my position, it isn't really a problem. He echoed what several others have said -- there needs to be a book written on this topic from a Reformed Christian perspective. Several others, whose opinions I respect, have also said that my thesis looks pretty good.
I spoke with my kinesionics trainer the other day and told him some of what was in my paper. He wants a copy because he has had to deal with much of the same thing. But what was really, really, really exciting and gratifying to me is that he wants me to come and teach this stuff on his next course! He also recommended that I write a book on the topic as well!
So, here I am, seriously considering the possibility of writing a Christian apologetic on the lawful use of energy therapies in healing, once I have the elders' blessing on what I have done thus far. Most of the writings from Christians that deal with the topic fall into the category of "New Age Paranoists" because many of these therapies were developed in non-Christian countries and have pantheistic ideas attached to them. But some of the methods are indeed valid, and indifferent means of healing that I believe can be utilized safely and effectively if done in the context of the correct worldview (Reformed Calvinism).
In the meantime, I am trying to be circumspect in what I actually post here so that I don't get into too much trouble. Sometimes it is hard to restrain myself...
Saturday, February 01, 2003
Snapshot
A small piece of heaven came my way today. I lay on the floor mattress that Garnet uses and nursed baby Elodie while watching the wind chase the clouds across the sky through my bedroom window. It was a rare moment of peace. A rare experience of quiet contentment.
Last night Marc took all but the two youngest to see The Two Towers. I had the house to myself with the exception of 3 year old Garnet and Baby Elodie. I hated it. As much as I think I would enjoy the lack of chaos that not having the children here would bring, as soon as I have it, I hate it. The children are noisy, messy, and too exhuberant for my nerves some of the time. But it is much tougher not having them here. The house feels like an empty and lifeless shell without them.
How will I handle the future when they are grown and gone? Will they live close enough to visit me often? Will grandchildren over run me? I hope so.
I am also thankful that I still have another 18 years or so of child guiding ahead of me with Elodie. When I first fell pregnant with her, I was so bummed. I had already started to plan for a life free of diapers and potty training and no more homeschooling. But now I wonder how I ever lived life without her.
Nathanael is 16 and will be leaving in a few years. I really really like my son. He is growing into a fine young man that I am proud of. One of the most pleasant things in my life is being able to visit with him and share jokes, stories, stuff we are discovering, and just plain old companionship. I hope I won't be one of those jealous interfering mothers-in-law when and if he gets married. And I hope his future bride doesn't take me in dislike.
[Sigh] Why can't time stand still?
A small piece of heaven came my way today. I lay on the floor mattress that Garnet uses and nursed baby Elodie while watching the wind chase the clouds across the sky through my bedroom window. It was a rare moment of peace. A rare experience of quiet contentment.
Last night Marc took all but the two youngest to see The Two Towers. I had the house to myself with the exception of 3 year old Garnet and Baby Elodie. I hated it. As much as I think I would enjoy the lack of chaos that not having the children here would bring, as soon as I have it, I hate it. The children are noisy, messy, and too exhuberant for my nerves some of the time. But it is much tougher not having them here. The house feels like an empty and lifeless shell without them.
How will I handle the future when they are grown and gone? Will they live close enough to visit me often? Will grandchildren over run me? I hope so.
I am also thankful that I still have another 18 years or so of child guiding ahead of me with Elodie. When I first fell pregnant with her, I was so bummed. I had already started to plan for a life free of diapers and potty training and no more homeschooling. But now I wonder how I ever lived life without her.
Nathanael is 16 and will be leaving in a few years. I really really like my son. He is growing into a fine young man that I am proud of. One of the most pleasant things in my life is being able to visit with him and share jokes, stories, stuff we are discovering, and just plain old companionship. I hope I won't be one of those jealous interfering mothers-in-law when and if he gets married. And I hope his future bride doesn't take me in dislike.
[Sigh] Why can't time stand still?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)