And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away; and your sin atoned for.”

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” (v. 4-8, ESV)

Whenever I had heard this passage read prior to now in most churches, the reading of the passage stops here, with verse 8. The reading does not continue through the remainder of the chapter. In one case in particular, I can remember being asked to read from this chapter for a Scout Sunday at the church that hosted the troop in which I was a member six or seven years ago. Then, like the other times, the reading stopped abruptly with verse 8.

Verses 1-8 of Isaiah 6 tell a powerful story, one from which Christians today can benefit greatly. The story suggests that, like Isaiah, when we find ourselves in the presence of God, it is right that we do and should feel inadequate. We are all sinners. We do not deserve God or to be in His presence, much less in a position where He has found it in His grace to allow us to even go on breathing in this life, instead of sending us directly to the place where we deserve to be. (See Jonathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.)

We then see (v. 5-7) where Isaiah acknowledges his sin and inadequacy before God, admitting that he is a sinner and that he does not deserve an audience with God, much less His grace. Following Isaiah’s admission, a seraphim flies over to Isaiah and touches a burning coal to his lips, after which Isaiah is pronounced cleansed of his sins. Again, while Isaiah is writing as a Jew under the Old Covenant, his experience is much like that of the Christian under the New Covenant — if we are Christians, our confession of our own inadequacy and sinfulness has been heard, and we are cleansed by the gift of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and the grace of God’s forgiveness and willingness to accept that gift as payment for our sin. Under the New Covenant then, Christians are likewise clean.

Next, in v. 8, God asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”, to which Isaiah responds, “Here am I! Send me.” As I’ve already mentioned, most readings of this text stop here with this verse. The congregation is told that, like Isaiah, it is the job of the Christian to respond to God’s call with a willingness to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), after which everyone stands and sings “Here I Am, Lord“, and services are closed.

While all of this is true — we are to respond to the call of God, and we are to speak His Truth to everyone, and we are to “make disciples” of all that He has predestined to accept His gift of salvation (Romans 8:28-30) — what of those who refuse to accept God? Are we really foolish enough to think that everyone we tell about God will come to Him? Surely we know from experience that this is not so.

In these modern times, we live in a world that seems hell-bent (quite literally!) on rebelling against God. Living in times like these can be quite discouraging. In the last part of the chapter, we find that these times are not much different from those that Isaiah was facing. Indeed, the people were rebellious, refusing to listen to the Truth. Yet Isaiah was told to speak it anyway. Let’s continue the passage:

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I, send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Then I said, “How long, O Lord?”

And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, and the Lord removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains when it is felled.”

The holy seed is its stump. (v. 8-13)

Here, we see a story that is not nearly so happy as the one commonly told along with Isaiah 6 on Sunday mornings in churches throughout modern American Christianity. Isaiah is not only asked to go and speak the Truth to people, he is told to go and speak the Truth to people whom God has willed not to listen to him. Indeed, his speaking of the Truth is meant to bring about their very condemnation (v. 10)!

With this in mind, I think that one very valuable message to take from this passage is this: By the grace of God, those who are in Christ have been cleansed from their sin, and are bound to serve God forever. This service not only involves “living in the light”, or conducting ourselves in the way that God would have us to live, but also speaking the Truths of God — learned through the intentional study of His Word and the continual striving for fellowship with His Spirit, as well as with other believers — to others whom He places in our path. While it is probable that some of those to whom we speak the Truth and demonstrate Godliness will come to God, it is very likely that many will not.

When those who refuse to serve God laugh and joke and scorn the ways of Christ, it is our duty not to be deterred from the task of speaking the Truth in agape — even if the worst should come. Isaiah didn’t, and we shouldn’t either.

This past Wednesday, Dr. James I. “Bud” Robertson, recently retired Virginia Tech history professor and noted “Stonewall” Jackson scholar, gave a keynote talk to a group of Tech alumni in our banquet room at Pamplin Historical Park. I was invited to attend to listen in on the talk, and to provide assistance with Dr. Robertson’s audio/visual needs. Dr. Robertson’s talk focused primarily on whetting the appetites of the audience for an upcoming book that he will soon have published, which highlights some of the “little known facts” of the Late Unpleasantness. The talk was brilliant, and very educational, however, when it came time for him to address questions from the audience, the questions asked — and his responses — caused my ears to really perk up.

One of the first questions Dr. Robertson received was about the current state of affairs in our nation, and the political and social divisions that have been growing in recent years. Dr. Robertson responded that, “as a historian”, it was his opinion that things in our nation are the “worst they’ve been since it fell apart in the 1850s.”  He was especially concerned at the lack of willingness to compromise in Washington, and his answer placed a certain uneasy air in the room, particularly sensible to those optimists who were present.

The tone having been set, the nature of the questions moved in the direction of prompting Dr. Robertson to cite some reasons for his pessimism about the future. One of the reasons that he gave was a lack of knowledge of (or interest in) history among the young. He explained that he viewed strategies of the public school system, especially the SOLs, as having a major role in this. “How can our children and grand children prepare for the future if they don’t know what’s in their past?” was one question that Dr. Robertson asked rhetorically several times.

Dr. Robertson also made several statements about our entropic culture. “From the time a baby leaves the crib, he’s constantly staring at a screen,” was one of the remarks he made. In Dr. Robertson’s opinion, modern culture over-emphasizes technology and computers and under emphasizes things like history, reading, and penmanship. Modern child rearing techniques was another great concern that Robertson shared. He attributed today’s increasingly rebellious and troubled youth to “parents” who “insist that both must work full time jobs”, which goes against historic precedent. Further, Robertson was concerned that today’s culture fails to understand how marriage should work, resulting in a staggering divorce rate and further contributing to increasingly unprepared and irresponsible young people. Dr. Robertson noted especially a concern that our society is forgetting what love truly is, associating it more with outward feelings of attraction rather than with a focus on emphasizing those truly important things, which have nothing to do with outward appearance.

Many in the crowd looked rather disturbed and uncomfortable as they left the gathering on Wednesday. The Q&A session was certainly not as positive as it could have been. However, I was very encouraged by Dr. Robertson’s responses to the questions that he was given. It is extremely encouraging to know that someone of Dr. Robertson’s knowledge of the past, and of such high public regard, understands that something is dreadfully wrong about the direction our culture and world is headed in. I was also encouraged in my own inclination to support homeschooling rather than government schools, and in my resolve to look for a wife who will value Biblical motherhood and God’s version of femininity, rather than the false version embraced by a misguided and foolish modern culture.

As the Apostle Paul wrote to Titus:

“Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.” (Titus 2:2-8, ESV)

And as King Lemuel was taught by his mother:

“An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. … She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: ‘Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.’ Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.” (Proverbs 31:10, 27-31, ESV)

Now, why not head on over to Amazon.com and support this great historian?

This is a video I made near the end of the morning. The goal was to give a brief overview of the primary functions of the GNOME 3 environment, from launching applications and managing workspaces and favorite applications, to shutting down your computer.

Back when I was running GNOME 2 (notice the past tense!), I wasn’t sure that there was an better, faster way to get things done with a computer. Open source software continually amazes, and just when you start thinking that things can’t get any better, any faster, or any more efficient than they already are…they do! GNOME 3 is certainly not an exception to the rule, and I hope you’ll consider enjoying its benefits as your own needs for technology suggest appropriate.

Kuhn’s attitude towards scientists and their work is often quite cynical. One is led to wonder at the fact that he willingly takes such an attitude, while at the same time being reliant on the profession he is criticizing to make a living. For instance, he asserts that the normal scientist “often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of [his] basic commitments.”² Essentially, he is arguing that scientists side-step or ignore experimental evidence that is contrary to, or might lead them away from, the accepted paradigm. This is a very different attitude toward the scientific process than the scientists themselves like to promote. Kuhn suggests that the present scientific processes seem

an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the [currently accepted] paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others. Instead, normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies.³

Finally, Kuhn warns that an attempt to understand certain facts about how the world operates from a science textbook will most certainly prove misleading, as “a concept of science drawn from them is no more likely to fit the enterprise that produced them than an image of a national culture drawn from a tourist brochure or a language text.”⁴

While I do not claim to be a scientist, or for that matter, to know much about scientific research, discovery, and theory, I cannot help but observe some similarities between Kuhn’s assertions about the hard sciences and my own experiences in the field of history. In the spirit of the liberal arts philosophy by which my undergraduate education has largely been influenced, I should like to present those observations.

If scientists form paradigms that facilitate the discovery of experimental results and the formation of theories that are convenient for study at a given time, historians conduct research and derive conclusions based on what is convenient to study and conclude at a given time. Certainly, the political, social, and religious atmosphere of the time period in question stands largely to influence what is determined “convenient” for the two respective fields. For instance, when the political climate shifts to favor environmentalism, scientific study will form paradigms that suggest that, without significant lifestyle changes, the human race will harm the earth, possibly so severely that it will contribute to its own destruction. In history, when the political and social climate focuses its attention significantly on issues of race and gender, the historian will conduct his work in such a way as to select sources and make assertions about how far society has progressed in those areas over time, and how far it has yet still to progress to reach the desired apex. Similarly, when society seeks to glorify militarism, the historian is likely to select sources and draw conclusions that proclaim the glory and aggressive bravery of years gone by.

If Kuhn argues that the scientist is selective of the experiments he conducts—and even the results he observes and reports, based on the paradigm within which he operates, the historian is likewise selective of the studies and research he conducts—and the findings he reports, based on the sociol-cultural environment in which he operates. Indeed, the historical record is so diverse that it is possible to make convincing arguments for virtually any notion about history one desires. During a time of war, there is evidence to justify almost any cause the historian desires. America was victorious during World War II, and so today students around the world are taught of the wartime atrocities committed by the losing nations, Japan and Germany, because America was victorious, and so it is popular to glorify the United States and her allies at the cost of the losing powers. If the Allied Powers had lost that conflict, it is doubtless that today schoolchildren around the world would learn of the undesirable conditions of the Japanese Relocation Camps, and the wartime atrocities of her own soldiers and nuclear weapons technology.

Before reading Kuhn, I might have been tempted to look on my own field with cynicism, while risking being convinced that the hard sciences are more solid and reliable. But, with Kuhn’s convincing assertions in mind, I am more aware than ever of the diversity of evidence available to both fields. If Kuhn is correct, and historians and scientists alike conduct their research, select evidence, and form conclusions based on what is convenient and popular, I wonder if their fields are not so different after all.

Sources

1Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Ill.), x.

2Ibid., 5.

3Ibid., 24.

4Ibid., 1.

While virtually every time I intentionally seek God through His Word is fruitful in some way, there are days when the “manna feast” is so abundant that I am awe-struck: completely dumb-founded by God’s glory, goodness, and the all-sufficiency of His Word as food for His people. Today was one of those days. There are those who are skeptical that the Word of God is all-sufficient, providing guidance and instruction for every aspect of the life of a Christian. However, I am convinced that the more a person, experiencing God’s spiritual regeneration, spends time with Him in prayer, and spends time in the study of Scripture, the more they become rightfully convinced of the contrary: For the Christian, Scripture is all-sufficient.

My time in the Word today has left me so full that I could not help seeking, with His help, to allow some of that fullness to overflow onto this page, in hopes that what will be shared might contribute to a similar abundance of comfort, joy, and fullness in Him in you as well.

My readings today seemed to emphasize two great Truths. I’ll focus on one of them today, in the interest of length, and Lord willing, offer some thoughts on the second tomorrow.

God’s faithfulness to His promises is uncompromising. He unreservedly seeks His best for His people, and His ability and willingness to protect them is unquestionable.

This reminder began as I read Proverbs 25, an awesome chapter of Solomon’s wisdom. In verses 21-22, we read, “If he that hateth thee be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt lay coals upon his head, and the Lord shall recompense thee.”

As I read this, I was reminded of similar words from Paul in Romans 12. There is no doubt that Paul knew his Scripture! “Recompense no man evil for evil: procure things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as in you is, have peace with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him: if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with goodness.” (Romans 12:17-20)

Together, the consistency of these two passages reminded me that we are not to seek sufficiency in ourselves, but instead, to place all trust in God. Self-sufficiency would suggest that we should take vengeance ourselves on those who do us wrong, or on those who hate us. Self-sufficiency suggests that we cannot trust that anyone can handle our problems, or settle our score but us. Self-sufficiency leads us to hate and destroy others, rather than to love them.

God-sufficiency says instead: Let God handle the situation. Give place to God’s wrath (Romans 12:19). After all, He is the stronger, abler party, and His power to convict is much greater than any act of self-vengeance we might dream up. So, instead, we should respond to our enemies with love. We are to feed them when they are hungry, provide them drink when they thirst, and give them clothes when theirs are tattered (Luke 6:29; Matthew 5:40; Matthew 25:31-46). When we do this, we have the assurance, given us by Paul’s admonition in his letter to the Romans, and by Solomon’s words in the Proverb, that God will handle the vengeance Himself. Our love for our enemy, as evidenced by the fruits of generosity it produces, allows God to repay by “heap[ing] coals of fire on his head.” After all, vengeance is His (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19).

This theme came up again when I turned to my reading in the Psalms for the day. In Psalm 70, David is in trouble. He’s in a bad situation, and his enemies are troubling him. But, he refuses to place his trust in his own strength, and seek to be triumphant by his own power. Instead, he turns his trust to God, knowing that if his enemy is to be rightfully defeated, his defeat must come at God’s hands alone. Let’s read:

O God, haste thee to deliver me:
     make haste to help me, O Lord.
Let them be confounded and put to shame,
     that seek my soul:
let them be turned backward and put to rebuke,
     that desire mine hurt.
Let them be turned back for a reward of their shame
     who say, Aha, aha.
But let those that seek thee,
     be joyful and glad in thee,
and let all that love thy salvation,
     say always, God be praised.
Now I am poor and needy:
     O God, make haste to me:
thou art my helper and my deliverer:
     O Lord, make no tarrying.

We need not doubt that God will be faithful in His promises to protect and guard those He loves. For “we know that all things work together for the best unto them that love God, even to them that are called of his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

Finally, I think one of the awesome things about the Old Testament Scriptures (and a good reason why we, under the New Covenant, should still spend time in the study of God’s work under the Old Covenant) is that the Old Testament is filled with examples of God’s faithfulness to His Word, His ability to fulfill His promises to His people, and His ability to defend them from the evil of their enemies. My reading in the Old Testament today was Joshua 21. Towards the end of the chapter, I was reminded, once again, of God’s all-fulfilling faithfulness to those He loves:

So the Lord gave unto Israel all the land, which he had sworn to give unto their fathers: and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. Also the Lord gave them rest round about according to all that he had sworn unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them: for the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed nothing of all the good things, which the Lord had said unto the house of Israel, but all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43-45)

Brothers and sisters, don’t doubt the faithfulness of God. What He has said He will do, He will do. When He promises He will protect you from evil, with your trust, He will do it. Find rest in the fullness and sufficiency of His Word, and of these promises!

In the preface of his work, The Powers to Lead, author Joseph S. Nye, Jr. offers up the following definition of power: “Power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants.” I highlighted that statement when I read it, because it struck me, not in a positive way, but in a negative one. Such an outlook on power seems to necessitate such selfishness on the part of the beholder, an attitude that not only suggests that a powerful person must think himself right, but that he must want to make certain his righteousness so badly that he will “affect others,” manipulating them to give him what he desires most.

Humility has been a trait that I have actively sought in my friends, one that I greatly cherish in them, and something that I desire to see more greatly manifested in my own life. Nye’s work is effective in presenting an assessment of what makes a great earthly heroic leader. He suggests that to be a great earthly leader, one must maintain an effective balance of hard and soft power in order to manipulate subordinates to achieve the goals that are set before them – the goals of the leader. This seems a reasonable suggestion in a world filled with selfish desires and an over-abundance of people who seek, more than anything else, to fulfill some so-called American Dream of financial prosperity and physical gratification and comfort. Indeed, what better leader than one who can successfully manipulate followers into believing that his dream is their dream, that if they do things his way, their own desires will be satisfied, and that uncompromising service to his every whim will produce the greatest profit, the greatest pleasure, not only for the leader, but for each person who serves him as well.

These concerns and evaluations seem reasonable for current and aspiring worldly leaders, and, as Nye discusses, for worldly leaders such as Jim Jones who put up a facade, at least temporarily, that his aspirations were spiritual. However, as a Christian who has learned through my spiritual walk to devalue things of this world, it was inevitable that Nye’s book would challenge me to assess how worldly leadership compares and contrasts with spiritual or religious leadership. While Christians make much of the notion of servant leadership, or the idea of serving God and His creation and the people who comprise it as a way to point others to His service, as I read Nye’s book, my own cynical nature prompted me to question this notion, and to consider whether so-called servant leadership is simply a disguised form of the worldly leadership Nye discusses.

I began by forming a conception of what true servant leadership is, and then applying examples of Christian leaders to that conception to attempt to resolve my quandary. My definition of a servant leader is someone whose life can be summarized in a single word: humility. They are not prideful, are confused in situations where significant credit is given to them for some accomplishment. Their lives are lived in a way that will not draw attention to themselves, but rather to the God (and His people) that they spend their lives serving. Such a life of service should point others to the one true God, and not ultimately to the person rendering the service.

One who is cynical might suggest, as I have considered, whether this idea of servant leadership is genuine, and really different from the worldly leadership assessed by Nye. It might be suggested that this humility and service is really not to any god, but rather to one’s own personal conception of what is true, to one’s own selfish and culturally-influenced determinations about what is right and wrong, good and evil, black and white, and that this supposed humble service to this self-constructed God is merely an attempt to manipulate the hearts and minds of current and potential followers to a conclusion that this person’s life of service is what is necessary for the satisfaction of their own desires, and will produce for them the greatest profit and the greatest pleasure.

We might think such a supposition easily reinforced by human examples. Consider the Pope, esteemed in at least one sect of Christianity to be the living, breathing representative of Christ on earth. In other sects, he may not be considered a representative of God on earth, but he may in fact be considered one of the greatest Christians on earth. He lives in a jewel-encrusted city, is followed by millions, and commands the attention of kings and rulers the world over. He holds infallible power. All he need do is speak and he commands the actions and sentiments of every pronounced and proclaimed true Catholic in the world. Indeed, he provides a convenient target for the challenge that servant leadership is merely a guise for worldly leadership. However, the consideration must be made: does he exemplify the traits given of a servant leader above? Does he, in the power of his infallible position, exemplify the traits of all Christian servant leaders as described by Paul in his letter to the Christians in Philippi:

[Let] nothing be done through contention or vainglory, but that in meekness of mind every man esteem others better than himself. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of other men. Let the same mind be in you that was even in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God: but he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man. He humbled himself, and became obedient unto the death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:3-8)

The answer, after honest consideration, would seem to be a vehement no.

But what about another example of a Christian, one who is constantly experiencing a conviction of how his every sin is a displeasure to the God who loves Him, who indeed is regenerating his spirit and mind daily to shape it so that it will focus more on the things of God, and less on the things of the world. What about him who is driven to his knees by the mildest of sins, driven to repentance before Christ, who seeks fellowship with other Christians, and so loves the man who has not been given the gift of regeneration that he is driven to dependence on God to live in such a way that others may see the glory of God through his brokenness and service to God and his fellow man?

Yes, the man in this example lives a completely different way than the man in the earlier example. He does not exalt himself before men, but humbles himself before God. He does not seek to manipulate the hearts and minds of men to satisfy his own whims and desires – he is far too busy fighting to submit his own desires to Christ to do this, and he further is sufficiently aware of the destructive and depraved nature of his own thoughts and desires that his sincerest advice to a fellow man would be not to fall for the same sinful desires himself. This is a picture of the true servant leader, and his leadership is empowered not by his own charisma, the traditional authority of his post, the laws and rules he writes, or his manipulations, but by the power of God working in his life. His leadership is very different from the worldly leadership that yearns for the affections and appreciation of men, that thirsts for his own service and exaltation, that hungers “to affect others to get the outcomes one wants.”

Well, it appears that the mischief has begun again.  Many of you doubtless remember last year, when so many women got involved in a “game” in which they posted their bra colors on Facebook, for the whole world to see.  Dyllan Shaw, a friend of mine, took the initiative and posted a note regarding this unfortunate activity.  I’m going to do it this year.

Yes, things have gotten going again to raise so-called “awareness” about breast cancer.  Women are apparently being encouraged to post what are apparently sexually explicit and suggestive status messages regarding the placement of their handbags.  If only the suggestion that results from the wording used in these messages were so innocent!

Those of you so-called “christian” “ladies” who have done this — and you know who you are — I am ashamed of you, shocked, and appalled.  You are better than this.  You are above this.  Please, start acting like it.

As a young man, I struggle daily to combat sin and to live a life that is pleasing to my Father.  Your activity — no matter how innocent its real meaning might be — sends a false, suggestive meaning that does not edify your brothers or your sisters in Christ.  If you truly want to raise breast cancer awareness, please do it with modesty, maturity, and decency.  Lead (and live) by example.  I plead with you in love as a brother who cares for you as a child of God — don’t provoke your brothers (or your sisters) to sin.

If you aren’t a harlot, please stop acting like one.

With love in Christ from a fellow stranger and pilgrim on the earth,

- Adam

——————–

“Then said he to his disciples, It cannot be avoided, but that offences will come, but woe be to him by whom they come. It is better for him that a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea, then that he should offend one of these little ones.” (Luke 17:1-2)

“Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12)

‎”Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9)

——————–

Brothers in Christ who value purity above pleasing men (and women) (Galatians 1:10), please feel free to repost this letter, edit it as you see fit, and sign it.  It’s time to be Godly men and take a stand for what is right, no matter the cost.  God bless.

Several weeks ago, I made contact with the Lansings, who I’ve mentioned in several of my previous posts, for Christian accountability.  I won’t write about specifics here, but one suggestion that I was given was that my presence on Facebook seems to have been a loophole for Satan in my life.  I responded by voluntarily turning over my password to be reset by my friend Ben, who agreed not to let me back into Facebook until he felt comfortable that my presence there would bless God.

What has been incredible about my absence from Facebook has been that it has not only honored God by making it more difficult for Satan to succeed in tempting me in the one area, but it has also kept him out of a number of other areas of sin in my life that I was not even fully aware of when I was on Facebook before — but now they are exposed and Satan has been set on the run.  The other great thing about taking a Facebook sabbatical is that I have learned how much time I had been spending there before.  While certainly not all the time spent there could be considered time in service to the flesh, it is certainly true that a significant portion of it was.  It has been nice to have the time freed up for study of the Word, Park projects, and yes, even some academic work.

Those of you who have been following my postings here also know that, when away from college, I attend house church.  I’ve been noticing over the last year that, when I am away from that close community of fellowship when I’m attending college, despite the fact that I have been active in a local institutional church, my spirit yearns for more.  So, again on the advice of my friend, Ben Lansing, I contacted Steve Atkerson, president of the New Testament Reformation Fellowship (NTRF), which provides materials to those who are considering experiencing the New Testament format of worship, and asked if he was aware of any local fellowship groups in the Bridgewater / Harrisonburg area.

Steve responded and informed me that he did, indeed, have some contacts in the area, and that he would be happy to forward along my contact information to them with my permission.  Granting it, it surprised me that in just a few short hours, I had an email awaiting me in my inbox from Jeff Fisher.  Jeff informed me that he’d received my message from Steve, and that my timing was “in the Spirit,” because the fellowship group he hosts in his home once a month was meeting the very next day!  Excited, I rearranged my schedule to free up the following evening, and couldn’t wait to attend the meeting.

And so, at 6:30pm this evening, I pulled into the driveway of a Harrisonburg barber for my first Valley fellowship experience.  I met Jeff, his wife, and her parents, as well as the other families in the group.  The format of the meeting was much the same of what I was already familiar: beginning with a full meal and proceeding to time of sharing in the Word.  Around 8:30 Jeff drew the meeting to a close, but assured everyone that they were welcome to remain and fellowship with one another for longer, if they chose.

The workings and timings of God are incredible.  Not only has He been teaching me to give Him more faithful and obedient service in my absence from Facebook, but He also brought me into fellowship with a great group of folks here in the Valley — and did it within 24 hours of their meeting.  How awesome is this God we serve.  Even through the most simple of things, through all trials, struggles, and even easy times, our God truly works all things for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28).  Let Him be praised and glorified through the grateful obedience of His servants!

I spent a great deal of my early life living with an abusive alcoholic stepfather, and my mind had been trained to panic at the scent of beer and other alcoholic beverages.  It was ingrained in me how harmful alcohol could be, and I vowed to be a tee-totaler when I grew up.  I most certainly wanted to ensure that I could do my best to avoid the rowdy, violent, and debaucherous harlotries that come with most college parties.

When I came to Bridgewater, I was very disappointed, because, though it claimed to be a dry campus, it seemed that little was done to enforce those regulations.  However, recent events have reminded me that, imperfect though it may be, an officially “dry campus” still does much to maintain a habitable, respectable campus community.

For those of you who don’t know, Bridgewater College is located about seven miles south of James Madison University, one of Virginia’s most notorious party schools.  Don’t believe me?

This past weekend, JMU hosted one of its infamous “block parties,” usually held twice a year, once in the fall and again in the spring.  The revolting behavior (drunkenness, unrestrained lust, harlotrous dressing, and worldly music) is so well-respected by adult-aged “children” across the State that students come from universities far and wide to attend these affairs.  The result is that thousands of drunken college students fill the streets surrounding JMU student housing units, requiring the city of Harrisonburg to call on outside police forces from surrounding communities, as well as the Virginia State Police, to monitor the events.

The most recent event, which apparently kicked off on Thursday evening and ran well into the afternoon on Saturday, resulted in unsurmountable vandalism to buildings and vehicles.  According to police officers and fire fighters, drunken students on second- and third-story porches were passing out, falling to the ground below.  Dumpsters were set on fire.

When police attempted to move in and enforce some semblance of order, students welcomed them by throwing beer bottles at them, and fights broke out.  The police responded by firing tear gas into the crowd to disperse it, on the grounds that the party was an unlawful assembly, declaring it a civil disturbance.  Riots broke out, resulting in more unnecessary harm to people and assets.

What I find disturbing about all of this is the fact that JMU seems content to allow these events with minimal to no objection.  Now, this would be fine if it were a private school where all members of the community were in accord with the activities, and situated in a location where the consequences of these types of events couldn’t threaten the safety of community citizens.  However, this school is publicly funded by the tax dollars of the very citizens whose property was destroyed and whose safety was threatened.  It is funded by law-abiding citizens who also pay taxes to support the public servants who were called on to clean up the mess its incapable, irresponsible, animal students created.  The same public servants whose ranks include a father I spoke with at church this morning whose duty and service as a firefighter was exploited by these disgusting hoodlums whose actions separated him from his family until 3am this morning.  And JMU students wonder why they are looked on with scorn by the respectable citizens of Harrisonburg.  You don’t hear any Bridgewater College students talking about that sort of reaction from Bridgewater citizens.  And no wonder.  The latter school maintains a respectable environment where depravity exists but must be searched for (and yes, I’ll admit the campus was a little quieter this weekend).  The former maintains an environment notorious for its drive for instant gratification and pursuit of worldly passions and lust, and where respectability doubtless exists, but where seeking it is a challenge.

If you want to see what your State tax dollars funded, take a look at the video clips below.  (And you thought you were supporting education.  Think again.)

No, I don’t condemn any and everyone who enjoys a drink every now and again.  I can’t even say that today I will hold to my earlier vow of tee-totaling.  The responsible and respectable use of alcohol by the self-disciplined is to be respected, and not condemned.  This, however, is ridiculous.  And you and I paid for it.

WHSV News 3 Story

Clips Captured by Party-Goers (warning–language)