I just got my part-time instructor teaching agreement in the mail.  Two MWF sections of Introduction to Logic.  I'll be making a little more than I did as a TA.

Sarah and I both start school on Aug 20th.  Sarah doesn't have a class schedule yet.

JULY 21st -- AFTER THE DEATHLY HALLOWS!!!!

Sarah and I went to the Harry Potter midnight magic party at the downtown library yesterday night.  We dressed up in cape and cloak, respsectively.  And we were one of the first 250 to arrive, and thus received a pass to check out the book at midnight!

!!!

EDIT: Can you find us in the crowds?  http://www.toledolibrary.org/images/HarryPhotos.html

So,...

IT WAS SO NEAT THAT SNAPE TURNS OUT TO HAVE MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES!!!  WHO WOULD'VE GUESSED THAT???  THAT MAKES HIM, LIKE, TOTALLY THE ULTIMATE DOUBLE-AGENT!!!!!

DUMBLEDORE AS AN INFERI WAS JUST TOO WEIRD!!!

I CANNOT BELIEVE THEY KILLED HERMIONE!!!!!!!  AND JUST WHEN RON WAS ABOUT TO PROPOSE, TOO!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Actually, I haven't finished the book yet.  :)

The person who filled our pulpit on Sunday preached an interesting, strong, and provocative message (our pastors' family is on sabbatical in Japan for a few months, so various people are taking turns in the pulpit and the congregation is stretching itself by exercising pastoral gifts among each other--I love the fact the we can do this; one of the things I love most about our church is how de-centralized it is, in terms of the role of the pastor).

He criticized the Mennonite Church for being too willing to conform to the world by paying our income taxes.  Since we call ourselves a peace church, he said, it is inconsistent for us to pay taxes to the federal government, 50% of which go to fund the nation's military activities.  Our loyalty as Christians should be to the kingdom of God first, and not to the kingdom of this world.  He felt that many Mennonites are not willing to be inconvenienced by criticizing the government and being uncooperative, even though the historic Mennonites in Europe were willing to die rather than do what they believed was a betrayal of their Lord and his Kingdom, by taking up arms or conforming to the state church.

He suggested that Mennonites that emigrated to the U.S. have been so appreciative of the religious freedom they found here, which they & their ancestors did not have in Europe, that they are reluctant to criticize what else the government that provides them with this religious freedom does.

I'm not sure what my considered position on paying taxes is, or will be (and since I have been too poor to pay federal income taxes for the last couple of years, I should probably be looking for other ways in which the principles he put forth in his sermon could be applied to my own life).  I am less confident than I was a year ago that the matter can be settled by citing Romans 13 ("...if taxes, pay taxes...") and Jesus' "Render unto Caesar...", however.

In any case, I think I can safely agree that the Church should not be influenced by fear of losing privileges of religious freedom (such as corporate tax-exempt status, or more serious things).  Just because the law punishes an action doesn't mean that action is wrong.  Christians should be willing to be inconvenienced, or even persecuted, jailed, even killed for our faith. 

I'm glad the pastor did not shy away from preaching the message he brought, although he said it was unpleasant for him to do so.  He did have the advantage of not being a regular member of the congregation.  And I would commend him as exemplary in that he prefaced the sermon by saying that it was his responsibility as pastor to preach what he believed was the truth, and it was our responsibility what we were going to do with it.  He said, further, that one of his fears as pastor would be that someone would do what he said to do just because he said to do it, without thinking it through and becoming convinced in their own minds. 

I think it likely that there have been and will be differences of opinion on this (and other issues relating to the practice of nonviolence) within our congregation, and that is OK.  The church won't split over it.  And it's healthy that we are discussing these issues, and our differences, head on, honestly and non-judgmentally.

As a Christian pacifist, I intend to have a good time on Wednesday watching the fireworks, although I probably won't be singing the national anthem.  One of our other church friends, however, has expressed some concern about the environmental consequences of fireworks displays, so perhaps I should reconsider this issue as well!

All of you enjoy your 4th of July. 

I was a little disappointed with the CNN special last night in which Democratic-party presidential candidates were asked questions related to "Faith and Politics" (which somehow got changed in the onscreen subtitle throughout the night as "Faith Politics"...which is not quite the same thing).  For one thing, my attention was brought to this event through Sojourners, who hosted the forum that was on from 7:00-8:00 ET, and it implied that the focus would be on making poverty a national policy issue.  Jim Wallis, to the extent that he was directly involved, did focus his questions on poverty.  But other people were also choosing questions. 

The first question the moderator(1) asked John Edwards(2) was about whether he was a six-day creationist or an evolutionist, and whether or not he thought faith could be reconciled with evolution.  Now, how likely is it that anyone who actually cares about this question enough to let it influence their vote is actually going to be voting Democrat in a presidential election?  (I would expect this probability to be nil, but I could be mistaken.)

Later, one of the panelists asked Edwards about his prayer life.  In particular, she asked how he tells whether the voice he hears is his own voice, or God's voice.  ...pause...  (Does she hear voices when she prays, I mean as a regular thing?  ...  Is this normal? ... Or do we just expect this sort of thing to happen to important political figures?) 

I think every single candidate (the three on the Sojourners forum, and the four Catholics on the Paula Zahn show the following hour) opined: "The question is not whether or not God is on our side [i.e., in the war], but whether or not we are on God's side."  This sentence (which may be a quote from Lincoln, but is definitely said in the first chapter of Jim Wallis' book) has apparently now ascendended to the status of "important phrase which if not said by a presidential candidate will mean bad poll numbers". 

These points are just passing amusements, really.  The deeper issue is that it is not possible to find out any substantive information about what a presidential candidate will do if elected in any fifteen-minute nationally televised time-allotment.  And then all anyone is going to remember are the sound bytes (probably the most idiosyncratic, embarassing, and uninformative moments of the talk) which the news media proceed to play over and over and over, and discuss to the exclusion of everything else that was said.  I don't know why I expected anything else. 

Television is just not a good source of information anymore.

Maybe I should stick to listening for voices when I pray.  Maybe one of them will be John Edwards' or Hilary Clinton's.

-----

(1) The moderator was not Jim Wallis, and I'm not entirely sure whether she was working for Sojourners or not, but some of the questions had been submitted from the internet.

(2) The question of the relationship of this candidate to the Reformed American revivalist has not been asked, as far as I know....

Who Decides What? - an adventure in bad song lyrics

Important Disclaimers - The following post contains theological content which is intended to be humorous.  I however have a twisted sense of humor when it comes to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.  Some may find this offensive, despite my best intentions.  Also, I should point out that I do not self-identify as a Calvinist, and v.8 of the song below is supposed to express one of my main reasons why.

So, I have a sister who just graduated from a conservative Presbyterian seminary (which, oddly enough, is not an oxymoronic statement), and we were visiting just before Memorial Day weekend.  In the course of this visit, she mentioned that she had a song she wanted me to listen to, which she described roughly as "the Calvinist version of 'I Have Decided to Follow Jesus'". 

"What, like, 'Jesus Has Decided to Pull Me Along Behind Him'?", I asked?

I turned out not to be that, but my imagination quickly sped into overdrive, and the following piece of tongue-in-cheek theological humor/criticism (which may be in bad taste) resulted.  (See above disclaimer).

I give you my own Calvinist version of "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus":

A Calvinist Version of "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus"
(Can you identify T-U-L-I-P in five of the eight verses?)

v.1
I have de-ci-ded to fol-low Je-sus, I have de-ci-ded to fol-low Je-sus,
I have de-ci-ded to fol-low Je-sus,
No turn-ing back, no turning back.

v.2
Je-sus, he chose me, to drag be-hind him; Je-sus, he chose me, to drag be-hind him;
Je-sus, he chose me, to drag be-hind him;
No go-ing back, no go-ing back.

v.3
I was im-mobile 'til Je-sus moved me, I was im-mobile 'til Je-sus moved me,
I was im-mobile 'til Je-sus moved me,
No stop-ping now, no stop-ping now.

v.4
He had no rea-son to choose to pull me, he had no rea-son to choose to pull me,
He had no reason to choose to pull me,
I don't de-serve none of His love.

v.5
Jesus, he died once to save all sin-ners, Jesus, he died once to save all sin-ners,
Jesus, he died once to save all sin-ners,
but only some, he drags along.

v.6
I can-not stop Him from pul-ling me now, I can-not stop Him from pul-ling me now,
I can-not stop Him from pul-ling me now,
I can't resist, I can't resist.

v.7
Jesus, he won't e're give up on me now, Jesus, he won't e're give up on me now,
Jesus, he won't e're give up on me now,
With his strong grace I'll persevere

v.8
Do you feel Je-sus is pull-ing you now?  Do you feel Je-sus is pull-ing you now?
Do you feel Je-sus is pull-ing you now?
No? That's too bad.  No? That's too bad.