Author Archives: MzEllen

•

I covered this topic in another post...but I wanted to relate it to the diet topic...

"The map is not the territory."

I have a shelf-full of diet and fitness books. Some of them are very good...some of them are not. Many of them say the same thing, only with a different author, different name, only slightly different stuff.

From Atkins...it's only a little way to South Beach...to The Glucose Revolution...to Sugar Busters.

Next verse...same as the first.

I have another one on the way - I hope this one is different.

"The map is not the territory."

Pain Free Running... to Marathons for Beginners... to Running for Pleasure and Fitness.

"The map is not the territory."

All of these books do nothing if I never get off the couch. They do nothing if I hang onto my chips and cheese...and oreos.

"The map is not the territory."

I keep a diet and exercise log.  Having all of those lines to write my consumption in does NOTHING if I don't fill them in!  Having boxes to check won't make me healthier if I don't practice the territory that the map tells me to explore.

"The map is not the territory."

I custom wrote my log, with columns for whether or not my food is peanut-free.  The answer is not to look at the "map" and add more "map" (another column).  The answer is to live the territory.

• 2 Comments

•

Yes...the "in peace" is necessary, to protect from accusations that freedom to practice a religion in peace leaves the idea open for abuse and violence. ANY idea is open for abuse; that's a fact of life in a fallen world.  That does not mean the idea is bad...it means people are bad.

That said, if a person chooses to practice their religion in the way that they believe most honors God and if that way is not proven to be inherently harmful to others,  they should be allowed to practice in peace.

we have a student in our class (I'll call her Maria - NOT her real name) who is a Jehovah's Witness.   Today is Maria's birthday.  And yet...even though Maria tells us that "we don't celebrate birthdays", our lead teacher had us bake a cake in cooking class and the students sang happy birthday (led by another staff).   As a Christian, I have a real issue with a public school employee directly choosing to introduce into a specific student's school day an action that is in direct contradiction to a parent's  religious conviction.

* there are times when the entire class participates in a "thing" that is contrary to a religious conviction - this is the opposite of what I am talking about.  At Christmas time we went to Meijer Garden to see Christmas trees.  Maria stayed home rather than participate in an event for the entire class.  Today, Maria was the reason for the celebration.  I have had people of other religions in classes before and they are pretty understanding of the class as a whole - students have eaten birthday cake and Christmas candy, yet not taken part in the "party scene".

A run down on situations I have run into:

  • Valentine's - some do, some don't.  A student who has parents who teach them that giving valentine's is glorifying humans rather than God should not be pressured to give valentine's
  • Going out for pizza - last year I had a Muslim student; just try taking a class out for pizza and finding a place that can assure us that pork has never touched either the pizza or the equipment it was prepared with.
  • Christmas - we have a young man who REALLY wants to be in choir.  He loves to sing, but the main feature of the school choir is a Christmas concert.
  • sex ed - we have an "opt-out" clause that allows a parent to review the curriculum and opt their student out of sex ed that teaches that which the parent does not want taught.
  • Harry Potter (and like that).  There were two second grade students at a school that I worked at several years ago whose parents wanted them to leave the classroom when Harry Potter was being read.  The teacher not only refused to design an alternate lesson plan (which could have been as simple as having them go with another class to P.E.), she also made it clear to the class what was happening, opening up the boys for ridicule.

If a school cannot make a case that NOT celebrating a birthday, NOT eating pork is harmful, NOT singing in the Christmas concert is harmful, NOT reading Harry Potter is harmful...then leave the students alone.

• 17 Comments

•

 

Thirteen Verses about the Father and the Son

  1. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 7:3) - all verses are from the ESV
  2. Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ (John 8:54)
  3. yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)
  4. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28)
  5. so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:10-11)
  6. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3:17)
  7. but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb. 1:2)
  8. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:21-23)
  9. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26)
  10. Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, (John 10:25)
  11. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)
  12. but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (Heb 3:6)
  13. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:4)

•

Chapter 3.—What Augustin Requests from His Readers. The Errors of Readers Dull of
Comprehension Not to Be Ascribed to the Author. (from "On the Trinity")

"(...)6. I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some
parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I
have. But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated
into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, whilst I am compelled
to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject (...)

•

This is an "NLP" term that I have heard in reference to Christianity. It took me a while to understand it, but I'm getting there.

"The map is not the territory."

What does this mean? To me, it means that it doesn't really matter how long you look at the map, the map is not a substitute for experiencing the territory.

I can show you a google map of Lake Tahoe. I can even link to a satellite photo.

I can show you this:

and I can show you this: (I like this one from the air, because you can clearly see the airstrip and I had seen a little plane landing there)...

But are the maps and the photos identical to feeling the sun on your face and the sound of the skis and taste of the snow when you fall face first into the snowbank?  Is looking at the satellite image the same as listening to the wind in the trees and feeling it in your face as you move down the (bunny) hill?
We would all agree...yes. Of course. Reading is not the same as living.

"The map is not the territory."

In the same way, reading is not the same as doing. I had never been on downhill skis before. I read instructions and I read websites and I listened to descriptions and directions.

But that "map" is not the territory either. Reading and listening is not the same as having somebody ski in front of you, showing you, guiding you, reminding you of everything you had heard and read, encouraging you to "do as I do".

"The map is not the territory."

Here is where I apply it to a Christian walk. "The map is not the territory." Scripture can be compared to the map

(and please, don't attempt any accusation that I'm lessening the authority of Scripture by making it into a mere "map"...for more reading about my views of Scripture, see

Anyway..."The map is not the territory".

Scripture is the revelation of God, the Written Word, God's Word to His bride. **Somewhat** akin to reading love letters when you could be in your sweetie's arms.  (But only "somewhat" because the Spirit indwells us to teach us what the Word is telling us.)

The Bible is like the map and life is like the territory.

The Bible tells us how to life and the Spirit teaches us how to apply it (like the stuff I read about skiing and my friend telling me how to apply it.  And (like the one who showed me "how to") Scripture also tells us about examples to follow.

At the top of the list (In Scripture) is Christ - to be "Christ-like" is what we strive for.

1 Peter 2:21
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

We also Scripture telling us about human examples to follow.

Philippians 3:17
Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

1 Thessalonians 1:7
so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

2 Thessalonians 3:9
It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.

1 Timothy 4:12
Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

James 5:10
As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 5:3
not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

These are examples to imitate.

2 Thessalonians 3:7
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,

Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

(side note:  the Greek word is transliterated "mimeomai" - like mimic...mime.)

We might call those we "imitate" as examples "role models"- although that role is more encompassing in a personal relationship.  Scripture says to consider the outcomes of our leaders lives...and imitate their faith.

We are told to find examples...consider the outcomes...and imitate.

• 1 Comment

•

Or...

Adventures in changing your mind...

The book I'm reading first is "NLP: The New Technology of Achievement"

Chapter 1: "Changing Your Mind"

- point: we cannot NOT change. We are constantly changing, whether we are trying (and liking) a new food, moving away from an unhealthy friend or habit, or learning a new hobby.

The book says, "Pain is a sign that it is time to change."

My thought: every pain, no matter how small or minor, is like a corner in the road. You can keep going (and maybe practicing a better technique for "driving"), or you can choose to take one of the directions that the corner might take you. Choose a direction; there are many!

The Diet Connection:

Do I like the way my body feels when I treat it right? How do I feel when I do NOT treat it right?

- Nightshade plants. I know that I can eat 3 (three) french fries and my hips tighten up and hurt. I can choose to eat them or not - but over the years it has become easier for my brain to connect the pain to the eating of this food-family (potatoes are the worst for me)

- I am beginning the process with peanuts and possibly a couple of other foods. Do I like peanut butter (or certain foods with peanut butter) enough to put up with the coughing? Or am I willing to teach my brain to connect the pain of the cough and breathing difficulties with the eating of peanuts?

- and the rest of the diet...how does my body feel when I am eating and exercising right? Am I willing to keep a detailed food and beverage log for a time so that I can connect the feelings with the actions? (My "gut" tells me that if I spend a day without drinking "enough" water, I feel lethargic and night)

•

a sign in a store...

~~~~~~~~~~

Am I allergic to peanuts? Or merely "intolerant'?

I'm leaning toward allergic (given the shortness of breath leading to the dreaded cough).

~~~~~~~~~~

Plans for NEXT weekend...

But I still am not sure I've fully recovered from the last (and first) time I went skiing...
~~~~~~~~~~

Take a note:

If you're going to rob a C-store...don't throw off your jacket (to change your clothing description).  If you throw off your jacket...

be especially sure not to leave your W-2 in the pocket.

• 12 Comments

•

I'm finding that I don't like the word "subordinationism". There are better words to describe the belief that we're talking about. However...that appears to be the "word of the day".

Craig Keener (an egalitarian) wrote a rather long article: "Is subordination within the Trinity really heresy? A study of John 5:18 in context."
In the opening page he writes:

Nor, in fact, do Christological views coincide as closely with views on gender roles as some of the advocates of either position claim. Thus, for example, I frequently talk with Christians who espouse a complementarian view of gender roles while expressing surprise that anyone would deny the full equality in all respects of the Father and the Son. By contrast, I and some other scholars I know who support a very broad range of women's ministry affirm the Son's subordination to the Father. To be sure, that subordination may be voluntary, and we do not draw from it the same conclusions many of our complementarian colleagues do; but the fact remains that one's view on gender roles does not enable one to predict one's view of relations within the Trinity, or vice-versa. I do see evidence for the Son's subordination to the Father in rank; I also believe that evangelicals who differ on the matter should do so charitably. (emphasis mine)

The article begins at John 5:18

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV) (emphasis mine)

(A) Does Jesus Claim "Equality"? (5:18)

Jesus is "God the Son", but He is also acting as an agent for the Father. Keener makes the point that when we say that Christ as claiming equality with the Father in this passage, we are following the logic of Christ's enemies, not the actual words of Christ. Yes...clearly Christ is communicating His deity in this passage, but equality of roles with the Father? Keener believes not:

But while Jesus claims deity at various points in this gospel (e.g., 8:58; 20:2829), he also denies equality of rank with his Father. This is particularly clear in his response to those who think he has claimed such equality (5:19-30). Jesus does this by calling attention to his role as Son and agent. (emphasis mine).

In verses 19-23 we see the following points

  • Jesus is following the example of His Father
  • Jesus is saying that He can do nothing of His own accord
  • Jesus has been given authority by His Father

Nowhere in this passage does Christ claim equality - He claims Sonship, with delegated authority and obedience.

(B) Jesus as God Son

Keener brings up a point that I had not heard of or thought of. Jesus was obediently following His Father's example. In the Jewish culture, how did a son learn his trade? By following his father's example - apprenticeship.

Nevertheless, this part of the discourse is framed with Jesus' claim not to act "from himself," or on his own initiative or authority (5:19, 30),25 fitting the Jewish conception of the agent who carries out his commission? Jesus elsewhere emphasizes that he does nothing "from himself" (5:30; 7:17-18, 28; 8:28, 42; 14:10), as the Spirit does not (16:13), and that the disciples cannot produce anything profitable from themselves (15:5).

(c) Jesus as God's Agent

In this section, Keener touches on the argument that yes-Christ was subordinate for the duration of His incarnation. But Keener points out that since Christ was "sent", that the submission started (at least) a little while before His birth.

Also, as a "representative agent" He carried the full authority of the Sender. This was in accordance with the time;

Agency represented commission and authorization, the sense of the concept which provides a broad conceptual background for early Christian agency. In many cases, at least in our later sources, the agent's own legal status was comparatively low. Indeed, under rabbinic rulings, even slaves were permitted to fill the position.32 Yet agents bore representative authority, because they acted on the authority of the one who sent them. Thus perhaps the most common rabbinic maxim concerning a person's agent is that "he is equivalent to the person himself."33 In the broader Mediterranean world envoys or messengers were backed by the full authority of those they represented. (...)

Even when one sent one's son (Mark 12:6), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender. Although the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus' functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity's required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (e.g., Tohn 5:23; 6:29).

(and I'm just a third of the way through the article...)

We have the framework for Christ's submission, obedience, subordination, and agency for the duration of His ministry while He walked this planet - and (at least a little) prior to.
Still...that does not provide proof that this submission is eternal.

Next up: section II: 1 Corinthians 15:28.