Regular

30 Apr

Such a short, unhelpful post as this one will be is not the way one should begin writing for the Quixotarian. Like I give a what-what.

I don’t have any wisdom here for anyone. I thought I would just make my commentary on something I noticed about the past weeks, because this is the internet, and if I write on the internet, then everyone will be my friend.

As you all know, everyone has recently been very excited about reforming laws that seem to allow dangerous objects to avail to the public. We’ve seen a huge influx of politicians pressing the cause of pressure cooker regulation (not because they would be beneficiaries of the legislation they promote, but rather for the sake of their consciences). 

This is false, but why?

When the Boston Bombings occurred, there was an immediate question facing the leaders who were working on immigration reform. The question was: Should we continue this conversation on immigration reform while something so important and so relevant to our case is happening? There was a moment of pause because the fellows in question were immigrants. There was a genuine –– and right, I think –– concern that with high emotions, the legislators may write an unbalanced bit of legislation.

I’ll give anyone three guesses what the conversation ( and by conversation, I mean pundits yelling at their viewers to OBEY) would have been like if the Boston Bombings weren’t bombings. If the two men in question had used guns instead of pressure cookers, there might have still been pause on the immigration issue. But, guns? The gun conversation would have spilled over right into all of our cereal.

If this had been another shooting, we would have been forcefully roused from our primitive slumber, and pressed to acknowledge the FACT that if he hadn’t had a gun, this whole mess wouldn’t have happened. Also, if you disagree, you would seem to be a country bumpkin who sleeps next to his shotgun.

I don’t think the only way to beat a bad guy with a pressure cooker is a good guy with a pressure cooker, nor am I quite sure where I am on gun regulation. I do know that as I’ve been trying to consider where I am on the issue, I am surprised by the Boston situation for the reasons I’ve just described.

I can’t take a stance on gun reform right now. I still have more thinking to do. However, I do take a stance on mankind. I think we’re bent to evil.

 

It’s kind of unfair to the guns. Guns are our society’s problem, unless terrorism is –– except that a terrorist with a gun isn’t twice as bad as either a terrorist or a gun by itself. A terrorist with a gun is just a terrorist.

Advertisements

Out of Egypt He called His Son, back to Egypt to redeem His People

5 Mar

And the LORD said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all the men who were seeking your life are dead.”  So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt.  And Moses took the staff of God in his hand.  — Exodus 4:19-20

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.”  And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. — Matthew 2:19-21

I’ve been struck before by the innumerable similarities between and foreshadowing of Moses to Jesus.  They struck me even more strongly this morning while reading in Exodus, and were elaborated on in my mind during my drive home this evening.  The phrase that really triggered this string of thoughts was the recording of Moses putting his wife on a donkey to journey, similar to Joseph putting his bride (to-be) on a donkey to journey.  Of course, that’s not a one-to-one translation, but the minutia of the stories can be used to show us the types and foreshadowings of Christ, though I certainly don’t aimed to be the “hyper-typer” who just goes fat-kid-crazy in the theological candy store–irresponsibly and stretching text and hermeneutic and tone and meta-narrative beyond what can be faithfully stated.  With the intro out of the way, let us look at the lesson of what Christ came to do be taught us by what Moses was sent to do.

Before I get to the texts I opened with, I’ll give you a list of some similarities between Christ and Moses:

1) Moses was raised in the royal family and condescended to his people, Israel.  Christ, THE King, did the same.
2) Moses was of the priestly line.  Christ superseded the priestly line of Levi, and is of the line of Melchizedek, is our TRUE Priest.
3) Moses saved his people from the taskmasters who removed the supply of straw, while they still demanded the same production.  Christ redeemed His People from the Pharisees, who added burdens to the backs of Israel, while lifting not a finger in aid to remove them.
4) Moses’ being sent by God was attested to and proved by signs.  Christ works miracles that PROVED the He was sent and WAS God.
5) Infanticide surrounds the births of both men.  The infanticide in both cases served to limit, even castrate (not to be graphic, but I honestly believe this term faithfully describes the situations) and hamstring the Strength of the people of Israel

And now we get to the point that is my purpose of writing this: Moses fled for his life from Egypt from the king, and was called back to redeem Israel; Christ (by carriage of his parents) fled to Egypt from the king who sought His life, and was called back to Israel to finally redeem Israel.

The typology of Moses and his mission to Christ and His mission reveals to us the spiritual, perfect, and complete nature of the redemption that Christ was to work for us in His Gospel.

Moses was led by God from his exile in Midian back to Israel’s exile in Egypt to deliver the LORD’s people from Egypt, from slavery, to the promised land o’er Jordan.  Moses was the answer to the crying out and lamentation of God’s people over their bondage.  However, don’t be mistaken–Israel wouldn’t let go of her slavemaster and land of bondage so quickly.  Upon continuing on reading the story of the Exodus, you find that those who disbelieved God, who still longed for their slavery in Egypt-land, continued on in rebellion against the God of their fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob.  Because of their disbelief and faithlessness, they died in the wilderness, for their not taking to heart the mighty works worked before their eyes against their abusers and taskmasters.  They died the death of infidelity and disbelief.  They inherited not the Promised Land of Abraham.

In a nutshell, Moses led physical Israel from literal Egypt to a physical Promised Land, to Jerusalem.

Let’s look at the spiritual nature and completeness of Christ’s leading Exodus from Egypt to Israel:

Jesus was led by God from His exile in Egypt back to Israel to deliver His, the LORD’s People from slavery to the Promised Land o’er (and through) Death.  Jesus was the answer to and fulfillment of the LORD’s promises to redeem Israel from their death and bondage to sin.  Don’t be mistaken–Jesus wasn’t the savior and redeemer that everyone in Israel was looking for.  A lot of those who were of Abraham by flesh would not let go of their slavery to the Law and to their own “righteousness” so easily.  They still longed for their sin, proving themselves to have never been of their fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, and much less of their God.  It is because of their disbelief and their lack of spiritual eyes through faith that they thought that they had already arrived in the Promised Land.  Rather, they died the death of infidelity and disbelief, wandering around in the desert, drinking sand while thinking it milk, and eating dust without the sweetness of honey.  They inherited not the Promised Land of Abraham.

To simplify, Christ led spiritual Israel from a figurative Egypt–literal Jerusalem–to a spiritual and true Promised Land, to Zion.

My writing fails to truly convey the glory of what Christ has done for us.  The Children of Abraham are not those by mere flesh and blood, but are by spirit, by Christ’s Flesh and Blood.  The Israel we look forward to does NOT find it’s completion in a city built by David or a temple built by Solomon, but in a City built by God, and in the indwelling of HIS Spirit in us so that WE are made temples, temples which Christ serves as our TRUE Priest!

 

It’s easy, just take a right at the second light!

10 Apr

Often the map quest directions for life I make or the way I hope things turn out is often not how things actually go. Instead of taking a right at the second stoplight like I wanted I’m instead greeted with a construction barrier and the dreaded and the incredibly ambiguous detour sign pointing us towards the unknown. Confession: I have a really hard time with detour signs, I like a plan, and I like sticking to it, detours make this guy anxious. Here’s where I’m going with the metaphor, I’m happy and thankful when I’m trucking down life’s road with everything going according to plan. When I get to turn right at the second stoplight just like I thought I would I’m always eager to confess God is sovereign, it’s easy right? But when I have to detour, I’m not always so eager. I become stressed, anxious and “question” Gods plan. But here’s the thing, whether I’m taking a right at the light or making a detour, he’s just as sovereign. Why should my reaction to the detour sign be any different than when I’m on “the plan?” Both are just as safe, both are just as correct, but due to my sinful self I only trust the one I understand, I only trust the one I came up with. So irregardless of how “on track” I am, God is just as sovereign, although I don’t expect that my sinful self will give up anytime soon and let me just have complete peace and trust. Unfortunately I will still want to take a right at the second light. But perhaps a better summary of my problem is I’m under the faulty impression I’m actually driving the car???

“If you don’t know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.” -Yogi Berra

The Cross

29 Mar

The place we run from when ashamed by our sin is the same place to where we are brought to find our sin and shame completely wiped away.

Jesus, keep me near the cross,
There a precious fountain—
Free to all, a healing stream—
Flows from Calv’ry’s mountain.

The Inconvenience of Sunday

22 Mar

I was perusing CNN this morning which is part of my before 8am routine and an article caught my eye simply because it had the word “Christians” in the title. Generally articles with that terrible “C” word in the title are articles I avoid given my current location on the world wide web, as they are generally treated in the lowliest of manners. Buuuut feeling adventurous this morning I click using the left mouse button. The article was about Tebow and his move from Denver to the Jets, a topic on which my interest moves towards zero in an exponential fashion. What caught my attention was a info-statement (if you will), about a pastor the author of the article had interviewed, as seen below.

“Mackey’s church meets Tuesday nights, not Sunday mornings, because Mackey believes Sunday is a day for people to do Colorado things – skiing, hiking and Broncos games.”

Firstly let me get right out and say I am deeply saddened by the implication of this statement, it’s a statement and a thought that is rooted in some not so great stuff, aka sin. But before the rant (im not really ranting) begins let me qualify what I am NOT ranting about. I don’t really have a problem with meeting on Tuesday for worship, I don’t think there is a thou shalt for worshiping on Sundays contained within scripture. But here is what saddens me, the church’s justification for moving Sunday was so they could conveniently hike, ski, and watch Denver football. Devoting a whole day to the worship of their God was evidently too inconvenient, Tuesday night was evidently much better. So to start I don’t want this to come across as a finger pointing, “look what those people did” kind of a thing, although I’m not going to lie, my self righteousness flared up there for a moment after reading the above statement. But here is what I want to bring as a challenge from this article based on the sinfulness I find in my own heart, how often do we treat Sunday like Tuesday night? For myself I can think of a plethora of Sundays I wiggled out of applying my entire energy to the worship and praise of God and fellowship with the saints. I chose to treat the day like its Tuesday night. My sinful selfishness continually turns Sunday into a day I rest in myself rather than in Christ. So I don’t want a haughty condemnation to come fourth from this challenge, I want instead to point and push towards the only thing that can ultimately change my heart with respect to worship on Sunday, that being Christ. I pray that our mindset on the Sabbath (Sunday for us) will be renewed and refreshed, and that our focus may be on Christ and Christ alone. I don’t want to turn Sunday into Tuesday night in my heart. Not that Tuesday nights are so bad, I mean there are new episodes of Southland, that makes for a decent evening.

href=”http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/denver-christians-mourn-tebows-departure-say-theyll-root-from-afar/”>;;Original Article from CNN

Original Article from CNN

Coincidentally this just got posted, and is much better than what you see above.
Doug Wilson Quote/Post

The Disney Relationship: Origins

22 Nov

The Introduction

Firstly, I’m going to paraphrase a story I read in the Steve Jobs biography the other day. Don’t worry, I’m not about to bore you with a whole post on my delight over the death of Mobile Flash Player or anything like that, (although that was a joyous occasion), I just want you to read this short story and consciously consider your first reaction as you read through it.

The Story

“Steve Job’s father (adoptive) was in the Navy in WW2. After the war ended he made a bet with his buddies he could find a wife in two weeks. By the end of that two-week period he had not only met but married Steve’s mom and together they settled down and began a life. In fact they were still together over 40 years later when Steve’s father died.”

The Questions

I’m going to try to do some guesswork and I’m not going to push it as exceptionally insightful, just my best shot. But you probably are thinking how it’s weird that someone could choose to get married based on a seemingly arbitrary decision. And how could they have even considered getting married after only having known the other person for two weeks? I mean it’s crazy right? And yeah it is a little I suppose, but what I’m trying to get at is this, when it comes to happiness in a marriage, what do we believe about why we will be happy? Will it be there because I feel this overwhelming love for this person? Is it going to be there because the person I marry is going to be that perfect person, “the one?” The above story I bet is not the “ideal” situation which you would want to meet your future spouse, me either, at least not in all respects. But I wanted to use this story to get us to begin to examine and bring to light deep-rooted ideals that we hold, whether consciously or otherwise, about marriage and love. We have a highly ingrained picture of love, but is it the correct picture? Is the picture we hold up when thinking about getting married and why we will be happy the right picture? Will we experience authentic happiness with our spouse? How can it be that two people who got married on the pretext of a bet be happy together? Of course these kinds of questions will eventually lead to more questions like, what should be our model for love? Does our ingrained ideas about romance and happiness jive with the type of love and forgiveness we find in Christ, or even should it?

The Abrupt and Open Ended Conclusion

Anyways I’m not actually going to answer any of these questions in this post, that would take longer than I am capable of concentrating and I really just wanted to get the brain juices flowing. I want plenty of time for us to really examine what we believe about happiness, love, marriage, and relationships. But I don’t just want to look at what we belive but where did we get these ideas from? What is the origin of our beliefs on love? Ultimately I hope that in the midst of this question hurricane that answers we reach to the smaller questions will point us towards a conclusion about the overarching question; what do we believe about why we will be happy in marriage? Anyways be thinking, and hopefully by next time the title should make a little more sense, but that’s all for now.

 

“So this is love,

So this is what makes life divine”

-Cinderella

The Quixotarian

4 Nov

There are echoes of what man was meant to be everywhere: myths, legends, fairy tales, movies, etc…  Man has it implanted within his soul, his spirit, his very being these ideals that he was meant to fulfill.  To borrow language from some men who, in some ways, met these ideals, I would say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable concepts of perfection.  That He has place within a yearning for the relaxation of that tension in which all of creation is suspended.  This relaxation is the realization of some original plan, some original beauty–a return to some Eden, that equilibrium.

Indeed, Scripture itself speaks of such an endowment.  I’m referring to Solomon and Paul, of course.  It is this endowment that renders all men without excuse (Romans 1).

Q:  So what does this mean?

A:  That because man can conceive a story in which the Knight slays the Dragon and rescues the Princess, we will be held responsible for the Truth that Christ ACTUALLY came and defeated that enemy Death, sacrificing Himself in order to save His Bride when we stand before Him, our LORD, Savior, and Judge.

Therefore, one can discern that this blog will, in some fashion, concern the Gospel, but how exactly?  The aspect of the Gospel of its affecting EVERYTHING!  There is not one thing that remains to be placed by the Father under the feet of Christ!

I have used the example of how all of our didactic stories which teach ideals are reflections of that inward groaning for the redemption of everything (as well as the reflection of that inward conviction that we are, in fact, that obstacle to the success of that Mission), to illustrate and explain the genesis of “The Quixotarian.”

The name owes its creation to the wordsmithery and creativity of Jeff after I told him of my appreciation of the word “quixotic.”  Its definition being (to the credit of Merriam-Webster):
“Foolishly impractical especially in pursuit of ideals; especially; marked by rash lofty romantic ideals or extravagant chivalrous
action”

I personally think it noble for one to be such, to be a Quixotarian, when, as I have already explained, those ideals are actually due to and reflective of the Gospel that Christ came to save for Himself a People.

Since the Gospel swallows up all, expect this blog to speak on anything and everything:  philosophy (Jeff), theology (all), music (all), art, literature, technology (Kep), politics, C.S. Lewis, Doug Wilson, the stars, and so on and so forth…. Time escapes me to list everything that is fair game for us to discuss, as nothing escapes Christ’s Footprint.  To display how the Gospel permeates ALL areas of existence, and to let you know whose thoughts you’ll be reading, I’ll introduce the contributing authors/writers:  Ryan is a graphic designer/artist (I hope he doesn’t mind my linking to his website, which you should check it as he’s got some excellent work: Ryan D. Harrison Design); Josh Kepley, or “Kep” for all our intents and purposes, is our patron saint of electrical engineering and technology, and his corresponding holiday is, well, I forgot his birthday, but I call it “La Dia de San Joshua (Yoshua)”;  Matt McMichen, though he may simply be denoted by “McMichen,” is an accountant out yonder in Austin, TX with PWC;  Jeffrey Robertson is the house philosopher and a teacher at Auburn Classical Academy of Literature, Logic, History, and the Gospel through all of them;  last and least is myself, Wesley Sims, and am a student of Building Science, somewhat of a Chestertonian, and a recipient of much Grace through the camaraderie of each of these gentlemen and fellow saints.

As far as the content is concerned, if you’re Christian, do not worry–we won’t speak on anything “secular.”  It is impossible for those in Christ to do so (see the whole of the Reformation, and the Bible).  It’s not cheating; it’s actually inescapable.  It may be in the form of linked articles, prose, poetry, commentary, or your run-of-the-mill blogging style, perhaps even our own philosophical theories on Beauty and the Aesthetic (one can only hope).

But if you are one who does not consider yourself to be a member of the Church, you should not worry either.  We won’t speak of anything that isn’t of interest to you–we’ll just, prayerfully, speak with much more substance than those who do not enjoy the freedom of Christ.