Parenting a One-Year Old is Cake

Posted on September 26, 2008
Filed Under Family | 1 Comment

Yeah, right. And cake is all over the place.

Please Note: Let me not mislead you in thinking that I am highly involved in the parental guidance of my one-year old boy. Not to say I’m negligent but the whole baby department thing is definately where Jolene has been shopping lately, literally and figuratively. It’s her strength. I’ll admit it: at times I feel like a window browser.

Infants. How difficult can they be, right? They are small (I can take them). They toddle and fall when walking (I can get away from them). They don’t even cognate intellectually (for once, I win arguments). All you need to do to parent a one-year old is feed them, wipe their butt, and occupy them with toys. In fact, just throw a little fence around them and a couple of annoying light up gadgets that sing the alphabet in English and Spanish and it’s all good. This is how infants are, I can handle it.

Problem. Christian Daniel Flores doesn’t like corrals. Similar to Daddy, he gets tired of hearing the “uno, dos, tres” song on his talking maracas. When he screams at the top of his lungs, I think he is trying to win an argument. And he’s fast on his legs, a phantom baby that is next to you one moment and gone at the blink of an eye. Consequentially, my language around the house has changed these days. Common phrases used include: ‘I can’t hear you Jolene, what?’ and ‘Christian, get out of there!’ and ‘careful, Dada’s face is not a punching bag.’ But I realize something…

Parenting is complex because the human nature is complex. And this is an amazing thing. Out of all creation we most closely resemble divinity (God, the ultimate complex Being).  Christian’s one-year old mind is fascinated with the world around him. He wants to take as much in as his body will allow. This is why he is fast on his feet, becomes bored easily, and doesn’t appreciate the limitations of the best invention around called a “baby gate.” Though small, he is human and therefore complex. It is apparent that he resembles divinity (although the falleness of his nature is definately there too!)

I look forward to helping Christian discover this world. Jolene and I as his parents guide and control the process, even now. So I’ll live with a little baby proofing around the house. Certain doors are not meant to be opened yet. I’ll be proactive with him to keep his mind engaged, and teach him to avoid boredom. And if he wants to run around, he can eat my dust or catch up.

So parenting isn’t cake. But it is sweet.

           

Popularity: 15%

Share This

Too Good to be True

Posted on July 25, 2008
Filed Under News | Leave a Comment

I’m sure what sounded like a fun idea left them pretty disappointed….

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_E_ehotel25.47b2913.html

Popularity: 33%

Share This

The Infant Church as a Source for Modern Christianity

Posted on May 1, 2008
Filed Under Theology | 1 Comment

There are numerous extant writings form sources referred to traditionally as the ‘apostolic fathers.’ Writing within the first and second centuries C.E., these are individuals who were near the time of Jesus Christ. Some of them are said to have experienced personal training and teaching from the twelve apostles; hence the reference to them as apostolic. These men, such as Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Hermas and others, are among the second generation leaders of the early church. They were men who carried the task of sustaining the church that Jesus Christ began. Today, their writings prove influential within Christendom, consulted in some circles such as the Orthodox Church, in the same manner as the inspired canon of scripture. To justify this level of priority, it is argued that those who lived in the most immediate context of Christ and the twelve apostles display a more accurate form of Christianity.[1]  Is this a correct assumption? Do the apostolic fathers teach us how to know God? Should the modern Christian in 2008, emulate the practices of a believer from the early church because they have a truer, less defiled comprehension of God?

When gathering data about a particular person, culture, movement, etc. from antiquity, it is correct to assume that historians prefer information nearer to the subject under observation. For example, someone who was an employee of the emperor Augustus would perhaps know more intimate detail about him because of proximity.  In assembling certain facts about the ruler, their account would take precedent over a Roman citizen who lived in Alexandria, whose only experience of him was via the imperial tax. The testimony of the former individual would be referred to as a primary source, based upon their experience of the emperor. The degrees of primacy can become even further delineated. Here subjectivity does come into play. The manner someone connects with another is based upon their own conditioning. If the employee were a slave, this would provide us with different information about the emperor than if they were a member of the Senate or a Roman praetor. It is imperative to carefully examine the type of source connected to the subject from the past.

Now, when examining the apostolic fathers as sources for Christianity, do we obtain an accurate display of how Christ desired his church to exist? The real question that needs to be answered is: how are the apostolic fathers related to the subject, Jesus Christ himself?  There is a difference between knowing him personally and knowing about him through someone else. Therefore, while the apostolic fathers provide us with a representation of early Christian beliefs, they may not in every regard display how the church should live in all eras. These are men who were near the time of Christ but did not personally experience his ministry. Furthermore, many of them come from a context outside of his immediate near eastern culture. It is evident from their writings that they were conditioned by Hellenistic thought. In fact, there are instances when they fuse Greco-Roman mythology with Christianity (1 Clement 20.1-4).[2] All of this would factor into how they interpreted His message and applied it to church practice. It becomes filtered through a second century mind, locale, culture, etc. It is safe to conclude that in relation to Jesus Christ, the apostolic fathers are secondary sources. In relation to the early Christian period, they are primary sources. They provide a modern Christian with a picture of the beliefs and ideas of an early one. Because of their distance from the main source, there may be variances in how they applied Christ’s teaching to their life from someone who heard him firsthand.  It is for this reason, among others, that the process of canonization has united 27 books as the New Testament. While there are noncanonical writings that provide valuable information about Christianity, the standard canon in particular is comprised of primary sources. In other words, these writings come from sources connected directly to Jesus Christ and therefore prove the most reliable for consultation to a Christian existence.

To this end, I conclude that the apostolic fathers are helpful in some areas of church practice. They support the teaching of the canonical writings. However, they should not receive greater weight than a modern exposition of scripture that seeks to interpret to a precise degree the exact, intended meaning of the biblical witness. The early church can be referred to as an infant church. It was a new movement, so that before the first century, no one was referred to as ‘Christian.’ I would gather to say that the church matures throughout history. The infant church established the pertinent doctrines of faith and in subsequent generations, they continued to be developed over time. The doctrine of the Trinity was disputed and tweaked over many years, not over night. The essential Christological distinctions were processed well into the sixth century. All of this to say, that today we have the benefit of our predecessors who labored to develop a true and accurate teaching of God. It took hundreds of years to develop Christian theology and to some degree, it continues to grow and maturate. If we place too much emphasis on the traditions and practices of the early church so that it becomes superimposed upon today’s Christian, it will not lead someone into heresy per se. However, we don’t consult our infants on how to drive a car or run a household. Obviously they are not mature enough to know how to perform such tasks. Similarly, the early church was an infant one. While the apostolic fathers are components of the foundation of Christianity, much has been built in Christ’s church through the centuries resulting in a profoundly deeper understanding of God.  And if God is incomprehensible, humanity will continue to learn about Him indefinitely.

[1] de Jonge, H.J., “On the Origin of the Term ‘Apostolic Fathers,’” Journal of Theological Studies, The. 29 (1978), 503-5.

[2] Hagner, D.A. “The Apostolic Fathers,” Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Developments. eds. Ralph P Martin and Peter H. Davids. (Downers Grove: intervarsity Press, 1997), 85.

Popularity: 51%

Share This

The Lil’ Homies of Romans 11

Posted on April 11, 2008
Filed Under Theology | Leave a Comment

” For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olve tree? For I do not want you, brethren to be uninformed of this mystery - so that you will not be wise in your own estimation - that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved;”   Romans 11:24-26a

Romans is one of the more difficult books of the New Testament. It presents teaching on virtually every facet of what has become Christianity, causing it to be considered by many New Testament scholars a quintessential theological writing for the church. Here in Romans chapter 11, we have a famous text that drives a particularly heated dialogue within evangelical circles regarding the difference between Israel and the church. Now, for many of you reading this post, I have already lost your attention. Perhaps you are unaware that a dialogue even exists on the issue. Maybe you don’t quite understand what I mean by ‘Israel’ and ‘the church.’ Further still, you may be thinking ‘is it relevant for me to even know this information?’  ‘How much work will I be required to do in order to understand the topic anyway?’

Romans chapter 11 samples the difficult type of subject material found within the epistle as a whole. When teaching the scriptures, I find myself trying to make transitions for my audiences from difficult to simple, irrelevant to practical in the hope that they will actually encounter the text and inevitably God Himself. This week, I had the opportunity to teach from Romans 11 at NCC’s the Life high school group. In my preparation I thought, ‘how in the world am I going to make this interesting and understandable to a group of students who can’t get tacos out of their mind?’ (they drive to Del Taco immediately after church finishes to get the Tuesday special).  There’s always one option: I can discuss how cool olive trees are that they can have other branches grafted onto them, and proceed to demonstrate, defaulting to the over abused and mind numbing object lesson. However, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night knowing that I didn’t provide the answer to the central idea of the text: who is Israel and who is the church? Does God interact with them each differently?

So I dove in, prefacing my lesson with a warning: the content about to be presented may cause your face to float to the floor, in boredom (because I know that for some people, the texture of the carpet can be more interesting than a sermon). But nonetheless, I hyped up my excitement for the material stating: “this lesson is steak and potatoes, not your mama’s milk.”

Within evangelicalism, there are two basic theological systems that define Israel and the church based on their given hermeneutical approach to scripture. For those who interpret the words of scripture more literally, there is the system known as dispensationalism, which views Israel and the church as two separate, distinct entities. Both entities display how God interacts differently with humanity over time. The nation of Israel demonstrates that God connects with humanity over rules and law. With the birth of the church (followers of Christ) God demonstrates that He connects with humanity based upon grace. Thus, there is a clear difference in how God ‘dispenses’ his divinity to man.  

Wow, the carpet looks clean today.

Now, keep in mind I’m speaking to high schoolers here so I’m being broad purposefully. There is more behind dispensationalism than the two distinctions seen between Israel and the church. In fact some have even argued up to 10 dispensations of God’s activity within humanity, each different. So, I equated dispensationalism with those vending machines at the exit of the grocery store, each dispensing a different item. Furthermore, the items are different based upon the buyer’s preference. Different day, different item. I love the gumballs. The flavor only lasts for 2 seconds after I put it in my mouth and then I’m at the machine once again dispensing another item. The last item I retrieved from one of those machines was a ‘lil homies figurine (they portray various Mexican stereotypes and I always want to see if I’ll find one depicting me). So bottom line students, dispensationalism is like the lil’ homies.

The alternative, more traditional theological system that stands opposite of dispensationalism is known as covenant theology which interprets scripture, in certain sections, less literally. There are two basic differences in God’s activity with man, labeled as covenants. Essentially there is a covenant of works before the fall of Adam, and a covenant of grace after the fall.  Adam was created with the condition to abstain from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once he disobeyed, every subsequent activity initiated by God toward humanity is one of grace. So, when it comes to defining Israel and the church by the standards of covenantal theology, there is no difference between them. Israel is the church. As the gospel spreads to Gentiles, they are being added to the church. Today, each of us as a believer in Christ is considered a child of Abraham. Sometimes as Gentile believers, we don’t understand that this means we are in a sense ‘Jewish.’  In fact, in the days of the early church, the Roman government viewed Christianity as a sect of Judaism, not aware of any major difference.

Well, it must be clear now where I stand on the issue.

So why bring up these systems and call them central to teaching Romans 11? Dispensationalism seems to be driving contemporary Christian culture. The dispensation that has yet to occur is the millennial reign of Christ. There is a strong emphasis placed on the revealing of this final dispensation of God. People are told to ‘get right or get left’ (left Behind that is) and ‘Jesus could be waiting to come back just for you to come to faith in Him.’ The hope of the future reign of Christ dominates while His current reign via the cross and resurrection gets shelved.  Salvation is secure. Man is restored with God. Every day we experience the pleasure of sweet grace.  Is there anything better God can offer? Is it the future reign of Christ or the current one that makes us complete? The bottom line is, I told the students borrowing from Hillsong, ‘salvation is here!’

I was awed when the night was over that some of the students followed the material. In fact, one in particular took notes. Impressed, I asked to see them…the heading read “not your mama’s milk.”

Next time I may bring in an olive tree. 

Popularity: 55%

Share This

Little Danny Christian

Posted on February 16, 2008
Filed Under Family | 1 Comment

Christian loves the morning as the camera tells.
christain_001.jpg

Popularity: 75%

Share This

And So I Repost Relevant Discussions

Posted on February 6, 2008
Filed Under News | Leave a Comment

Lately, everyone has been commenting on my lack of blog entries. So, in order to accomodate demand, I figured I’d cheat and select a couple of discussions I wrote that also address topics that have recently resufaced into my mind at the provoking of other people. Anyway, both posts are great discussions for fodder.

Popularity: 78%

Share This

What Bridge Should I Take?

Posted on February 6, 2008
Filed Under Theology | Leave a Comment

There is constant discourse between prominent Christian leaders regarding the best philosophy to practice in shepherding a flock. When working with a unique text like the Bible, the revelation of God, practicing ministers encounter difficulties that are not always apparent to the average lay person. On the one hand, the needs of culture require preaching and ministry to be relevant in order for people to grasp biblical concepts. On the other hand, the Bible is an ancient text compiled over hundreds of years, containing information and cultural markers specific to the periods in which the various books were written. With the combination of these two ingredients, there is a chasm that ensues between the message of the ancient text and the contemporary audience. The problem facing ministers today is to figure out how to connect the message of the text to a modern audience, resulting in differing approaches to bridge the gap.

The philosophy of ministry for the emerging church movement is that the essential message of the text changes to meet the contemporary needs of culture, that is, the text becomes valid based upon the of the current audience. Others, though not completely as radical as the emergent leaders, argue that the message should not completely be changed, only so much as is relevant to culture. In other words, the message is sensitive to seekers. Still within another camp, are those who believe that the message of the ancient text never changes. It must be ‘recontextualized’ and interpreted into our modern culture even if contemporary audiences do not personally relate to the content. This final philosophy of ministry leads to methods that involve the most amount of labor. It first requires the ability to accurately interpret the ancient text. This includes work in ancient language, history, and theology, in order to exegete or ‘to lead out’ the message of the text. In completing this work, an individual is capable of discovering the objectively oriented truths about God revealed within the ancient culture. The next step calls for an exercise in anthropology in which a minister determines the pedagogical structure of an intended audience and interprets the message within these parameters, not compromising the essential value of the exegetical information. The result is a sampling of homiletics in its truest form: a preacher that connects his audience to the message of God.
Is there another method that will truly do the same? I find that the methods of emerging churches and seeker sensitive ministries are pragmatic and somewhat simplistic by nature. It is much easier to understand an ancient message if I can fit it into my own worldview. What really occurs in this transaction is truth defined subjectively, based upon how personal needs merit it to be known. Not only is this an easier way to encounter ‘truth,’ there are virtually no incorrect metaphysical answers because they lie within the individual. To me, this is the same as the Kantian secular humanism that lead to the subsequent ‘God is dead’ controversy. Is there a contradiction in using the same philosophy to argue that he is not dead? All of this to say, that I find myself as a young minister, faced with the pressures of trying to please my audience for the sake of relevance. While I certainly desire to connect with people, I desperately want more that they would meet the true God I know and love. The other bridges my colleagues might take are not built well and are in danger of collapsing during travel.

Popularity: 77%

Share This

Do You Hear It? Look Over There! That Book Is Talking!

Posted on February 6, 2008
Filed Under Reading | Leave a Comment

One of the crucial doctrinal positions that challenged the Catholic Church in the Protestant Reformation was the affirmation of sola scriptura, that ‘scripture alone’ is the authority for knowledge and practice of the Christian faith. However, important as it is, the doctrine is often misunderstood by many Protestants. In its practical usage, the primacy of scripture outweighs papal authority. Yet it was not the intent of the reformers in this teaching that authority should be completely removed from the pope. While I do not personally subscribe to the Ex Cathedra authority of the papal office, I do think that church leaders play an important role in connecting audiences with the knowledge of God.

In asserting the doctrine of sola scriptura, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that scripture speaks itself, that is, simply reading scripture is enough to produce a comprehensive knowledge of God. In this instance, scripture would be impenetrable by any outside commentary, teaching, philosophy, and theology man uses to explain its content. If this were true, then when we attend church on Sunday, we should fully expect a supernatural experience where a Bible lifts off of the ground, opens before our very eyes, and begins to speak audibly the words from its pages. It sounds silly, yet I commonly hear pastors instruct their audiences to expect the scripture to speak itself. It is heard in statements like, ‘if you want a deeper relationship with God, all you have to do is read the Bible’ or ‘if I simply read the Bible alone and spend less time trying to commentate on it, people will be changed.’

Does this indicate that essentially, there is no need for an interpretation of the text? Carrying out the logical conclusion of these statements should lead a pastor to remove himself from the pulpit because he is an outside source from the Bible. On the contrary, preaching serves as the point of connection between an audience and God, mediated through the person interpreting the ancient text. In fact, the more primary doctrine of inspiration teaches that God uses man to reveal information about Himself; and as a result, we are left with the verbum engraphon or the inscripturated word of God. All of this to say, that there is a high level of importance from outside knowledge in bringing an individual to the biblical text. In the discipline of apologetics for example, we use metaphysics to explain the existence of God which does not necessitate the usage of scripture for validation, instead calling upon principles of logic. Protestants should not shy away from church tradition, history, philosophy, or systematic theology. All of these disciplines are requisites for a more in depth knowledge of God though bridled by the scope of scripture. In fact, pastors can powerfully use the text to speak more specifically to practical issues with the addition of outside sources. In referring an audience to particularly helpful commentaries, devotionals, textbooks, etc. they are leading people to become more concrete in their knowledge, i.e. materials that instruct on prayer life, preferable Bible translations, what to look for in a church, etc.

If we are to understand the teaching of sola scriptura, we need to avoid the temptation of believing that the Bible is exhaustive in its presentation of divinity. There are many topics where the Bible is silent. When we use philosophy in these areas, are we creating our own truth? Absolutely not. The point is, that in order to be more particular to the situations people face in their lives, pastors glean from numerous sources. This is required for leadership. My fear is that when church leaders become too particular with their audience, citing extra biblical knowledge, opinions, etc. they are categorized as unbiblical, judgmental, or even ungodly. But I conclude that if an individual takes into account the wealth of knowledge available (which I must point out all exist because God caused them to) with the biblical account as guide, they will experience the fullness of life and the valid meaning of sola scriptura.

Popularity: 78%

Share This

HERE COMES THE STRESS

Posted on August 22, 2007
Filed Under Family | Leave a Comment

Major Stressors Spontaneously Mentioned by First Time Fathers in an Open-Ended Question*

Reported Major Stressors F %
Financial responsibility 6 20.0
Rigorous schedule/time management 4 13.3
Not knowing what child wants/Child only wanting mother at times 4 13.3
Lack of sleep 3 10.0
Not being able to be home with child because of work 2 6.7
Not enough time 2 6.7
Being a good father (teaching child well) 2 6.7
Finding child care/Worries about child-care providers 2 6.7
Concerns for child’s well-being 2 6.7
Worries about child’s future 1 3.3
Lack of sexual relations 1 3.3
Cleaning up after child 1 3.3

*Journal of Perinatal Educ. 2005 Spring; 14(2): 19–25

 On top of a new job and moving into a house, good Lord, supposedly I’m in for it! Actually, if this were my stress rating list, it would be more accurate with the order reversed! Am I seriously going to clean up after this kid?

Popularity: 100%

Share This

My Back Was Turned

Posted on August 22, 2007
Filed Under Faith | Leave a Comment

Based on MARK 14:32-42

Finding the beloved disciple during the trial: (while Christ is in the Praetorium)

“I’m actually glad you’re here. You don’t seem like you’re threatening. I don’t care if you do want to turn me in to the religious leaders. I’ve been alone for a while…and lost in my thoughts. I seem to have lost track of time. I wonder, how long have I been sitting here? I must look horrible. You would too if you’d gone as long as I have without sleep. I know it’s only been hours but it seems like an eternity since I’ve slept. I don’t think I’ll be able to sleep for a while. My thoughts are too loud. I can’t stop thinking. I keep replaying what happened over and over in my head. Can I ask you a question? How do you keep from turning your back on God?

I thought I knew the answer. But if I did, I wouldn’t be sitting here like this. You know, when he first talked to me, I was sitting. I was sitting in a boat with my father Zebedee and my brother James untangling my fishing net. People were beginning to talk about Jesus because of John. They were saying he would bring us freedom. James and I wanted more. We wanted to be close to God. When he invited me, I got up to follow him. I can still hear my father’s voice when he yelled out to us from behind: “Boys, where are you going?’ ‘John, what about the catch?’ But I was determined; nothing was going to hold me back. I wanted to see if this man would lead us closer to God. He noticed what we did to follow him. He saw the zeal in our eyes.

I don’t know how you zealous you are, but I give everything 110% of my effort. Zeal leads to accomplishment. Maybe Jesus liked that about me. He did many things for people everywhere he went. The world is not large enough to contain the books that could be written about the things he’s done. I wanted to be like him, known for how hard I worked to help people. He nicknamed my brother and me the ‘sons of thunder’ because of our zeal. When he first called us that I thought ‘sons of thunder…he must have heard my father’s stomach after lunch.’ We always wanted to be right next to Jesus’ side, one brother on his right and the other on the left. Jesus surrounded by thunder. What a picture of glory! I don’t think the others liked that picture too much. When he asked us, we told him that we would be able to drink from his cup. We could go and do anything he wanted us to. There was no way that I was ever going to leave him. And he especially loves me. I’d never felt closer to God. Yet, why did I abandon him?

We were tired. It was pretty late. I’m sure that having full stomachs didn’t help. It was nice to have everyone together for the meal even though Judas left early. It seemed natural that we went to Gethsemane afterwards. It was a place we often went to be together as a group away from the crowds of Jerusalem. I wondered if something big was about to happen when he lead Peter, my brother, and I away from the rest of the group to be alone with him. I felt special because the last time he pulled the three of us aside, his face started glowing and his clothes were white. This time, when we left the others behind, there was a difference in his walk. He didn’t seem confident but weary. His feet looked heavy, like they were hard to pick up when he stepped. I could see sweat on his forehead shining in the moonlight. I wasn’t expecting what he said next, “my soul is so distressed, I want to die.” I didn’t understand. It had been a good night. He left us to be lookouts and pray. I was tired but anything he wanted I was going to give him.

This is what I can’t get out of my head: After he went a little ways off, he fell to the ground, like someone does when they get hit in the heart with an arrow. At the time, I thought he was really tired but then I overheard part of his prayer. He sounded desperate. I’ve never heard him call God ‘Abba’ before like a boy calls out to his Father when he needs help. Then he asked Him to take his cup from him. Cup…now I know what it means. I wish I would have figured it out then. Instead I was sleeping. He came back over to us three times to find us sleeping. He tried to get us to stay awake with him, but our eyes were heavy, they just wouldn’t stay open. It’s no excuse. He told us to keep watch and pray, but we didn’t listen. I could barely even think let alone pray because I was so tired. How do you keep from turning your back on God when your body won’t let you do otherwise?

If I could go back I’d go to his side. I want to be close to Him. I guess it doesn’t show because I’m sitting here. Even when I had the opportunity I couldn’t stay awake with him when he asked me to. I wish I understood what was about to happen because maybe I would have fought harder to keep watch over the master and to pray. And when they came and arrested him, my back was turned, running away. We all did. But I had already turned my back when I rolled over to sleep. So I haven’t slept since. I don’t want to fall asleep again. I keep thinking about the part of his prayer I overheard in between dozing: ‘Not my will but yours.’ How can I keep from turning my back on God? I need to give Him control of my life, even now. You know, don’t let God find you asleep because if He does, that means he doesn’t control your life. I’m ashamed. I told him I could drink from his cup, the one he desperately wanted God to take from him. But instead I allowed him to be surrounded by his enemies. I could have been arrested with him. Excuse me, I need to go and get a drink.”

Popularity: 100%

Share This


Recently


Categories


Archives



Social Networks




Books

Photos


Calendar

Close
E-mail It