DISQUS

http://theinflationist.com/stocks/the-anatomy-o... inflationistrocks

definitely worth reading.

To read the "to address" from file you can add -t :
ssmtp -t < msg.txt

I didn't see that you had specified the "to address" on the commandline since it was also in the file.

This brings me back to studying under an Orthodox Jew in college. Because of him, I really looked into the Messianic Jew movement. He was so enlightening about the Scriptures, Old and New, even though he did not believe in the New Testament. He use to say, "How can you say you want to be like Jesus when you don't even know his heritage and identity as a Jew? If you want to understand Jesus better, you need to understand the religion and culture he was in and followed." To him, it was a huge mystery why Christians neglected their own heritage.


This also reminds me of a radio broadcast I heard today. Someone called in asking about Jews and Christians, and who is considered to be Israel now. The host said that there is either Jew nor Greek in Christ and that any Christian is also Jewish in the sense of being in a covenant with God. While I see his point, I very much so disagree. As you said, Jonalyn, there is a "price" that no Christian can really fathom in a way. Being Jew means much more than having a covenant with God.



Good post! And emotional, Savannah and I both were excited when we saw the title! We've always wanted to go to a synagogue, and have toyed with the idea of converting.

In the history of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland otherwise known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland our own laws originate. There has been many conflicts over "pretenders to the throne" in that history. In this case Obama might be considered such a "pretender". It is ironic that Burris needed to show credentials before acceptance into the Senate and Obama has never shown the most rudimentary credentials as a birth certificate to proove his citizenship in this "post 9-11 world". Something about Illinois politics. The only thing that can now be done is to follow the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson on Patriots and blood. Hopefully we can seperate peacefully and without blood. Look up John Titor and 2036. Also look into the analysis of Russian academic Igor Panarin on the disintegration of the United States. Be like the Mormans and store up food and water. Read up on how America has treated others, ie., the Indians, Mexicans and African-Americans. All these acts will come back on us. See how the Rich Wall Street players have depleted the US Treasury and you will realize that both the Democrats and the Republicans have sold "US" out. All one can do is find like minds and band together. This Civil War will truly be a war of civilians. Leave the cities if you can as they will be places to avoid. Obama, even as a pretender to the office will be de facto President and will break all of his promises. A President is only a tool of the Powers "behind the curtain". Open your eyes or remain blind as any 'rendered' citizen. Good luck as America vanishes in the mist on January 20, 2009.

Two things Dale and I have in common: I am an excellent "copy-and-paster" and I rarely to never dance with savannah in public (sometimes in the kitchen while we cook... if she's caught me in a really good mood). Besides that, he seems like a step above myself and many others. Cheers to your great marriage!

"I have seen paradise and ruin. I have known bliss and terror. I have walked with God."


makes me want to pick up the book now.



This quote fits perfectly with the garden session we did. I want to read more and see if she talks of the redemption.

I read this today in my study time - it is Abraham Heschel's book on the prophets and he explaining how we should come to these books to understand them:


"The principle to be kept in mind is to know what we see rather than to see what we know. Rather than blame things for being obscure, we should blame ourselves for being biased and prisoners of self-induced repetitiveness. One must forget many cliches in order to behold a single image."



This just seemed extremely fitting for this series...

I'm glad you are still trying to understand this yourself. This can get so hard to get through with any sense of accomplishment at times.


I think one thing about the idea of submission for the wife is just letting and allowing the husband to be loving towards her. In Genesis, God tells Eve that women will desire their husbands, yet they will rule over them. Jonalyn, in her book, talks about how this was the pivotal point in which man and woman's relationship and community was changed to an imbalance. The man would rule now - no more co-dominion in a sense.



Paul then comes and gives a co-submission idea to all christians. And then, he tells women to submit to their husbands. When you look at the bigger narrative it comes out weird. Man rules and you submit, you are to submit to one another, and then submit to your husband. To me, the biggest difference is there is nothing that points to man ruling anymore for Paul. Yet he asks for the woman to still be submissive. This is practical in the sense of not letting it get to the women's heads. It still reminds them to be submissive, but it asks to be submissive to the husband's love, not his rule.



Sumner puts it as two people constantly undergirding one another. That is what I have found to make the most sense of this all. It is two people constantly putting the other first, and supporting the other.



I am still greatly confused on this passage and issue (as you can probably tell), but it helps greatly to talk about it so that we can find the appropriate way to live it out. Isn't that what all of this is about anyways?

Yes, I want to hear myself lin! I agree with Dale that it is kind of alarming. I am very interested in what you have to say.


I think it is greatly important that you, Dale, mentioned how love is a human need. I'm married to a pretty determined woman and she wants me to respect her as much as love her. And, while I want respect from her, the most humbling and close time I have ever had with her was when she offered a fierce, unconditional love to me.



Also it has always been in the back of my mind that if I truly love my wife it would have to include respect, and if she truly respected me it would involve love. Obviously we can think of scenarios where you can respect without loving and maybe even love without respecting (that seems much harder), but that seems rare and very hard to do.



These are not needs or roles that Paul are commanding. Hopefully in the last installment you will give a good summary so that I can fully understand your interpretation if this passage. It still seems to be vague at points (not necessarily your fault, it just may take time to soak in). I look forward to the close of this extensive study. I may have many more questions by the end.

You are right, the wife is never called the body. It is an assumption because it seems the text points to that conclusion, but not necessarily.


From what I remember of Sumner, she sees the head/body imagery as a metaphor for the one flesh relationship in marriage. You may not be making that step, and deciding that we need to take one more step back and not even assume that there is a connection in metaphor to head and body (?). There is definitely metaphors going on with the idea of a total person, and that may be something worth looking into to flesh out more openly.



I'm liking this study though. It is just hard, for some reason, for me to get in this mindset recently. But I do think you are making important insights, I really do.

Man and Woman working together is the essence of marriage. One flesh doing whatever it can to live. Somewhere else someone mentioned how if we focused on love, we wouldn't really be having this conversation. I agree. Love, in the agape sense, means submission to or being under another. I loved how you mentioned in a post about how opening the door for a women was originally meant to be a sign of love and respect for the life of the other. To me, that is my goal in all of life, especially with my wife.


I haven't spent much time lately on this debate mainly because I came to the conclusion that it comes down to Savannah and I loving each other in anyway needed and putting the other first. Looking at your exegesis of this passage sustains this for me. I am to act as a savior to my wife, and she is to come and undergird me. I am doing all I can to help Savannah start a photography business and likewise she is encouraging me and supporting me going back to school. We are both willing to put our own dreams aside for the other as long as the other doesn't give up their dreams. It's fun, humbling, vulnerable, and Christ-honoring.



I look forward to your love and respect post. I have some thoughts about it already.

Someone has been reading his Sumner...


I think Sumner nailed it when she suggested this head/body language as a metaphor of one flesh. However, one thing I would like to see (which may have been talked about and I just missed it) would be why husbands get "head" and wives get to be "body". It is kind of nick-picky but still something worth noting.



I also think it is interesting how we do not view the head/body language to mean the views of men and women in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (I think this is the right time period. I need to brush up on my studies...). Women were sensual ones, which was very taboo in those times. Men, on the other hand, were the spiritual and contemplative ones. Now it is the exact opposite! It is just interesting to me since that kind of interpretation is not so likely to be held anytime soon, yet could easily be taken to mean that if desired.



Just something that popped into my head.

This is a key post for me. The best part was the reference to Acts 19. I have read about Artemis and the whole cultural background multiple times but for some reason I at least do not remember Acts 19 being mentioned. Without this reference the argument has little weight I think, but it is strong to see in Acts the Ephesians being so proud of Artemis as theirs.


Good post.

I agree with Ted on the Ikea idea, but I'm not sure how much furniture assembly experience you may have (like Greg's humor... some assembly is required).


Since I'm not sure about the space you have or where exactly your taste is lying between the midcentury modern, shabby chic and Mexican rustic, I'll just give you names of some of the places I like for furniture and accessories (in no particular order):



West Elm

Restoration Hardware

Z Gallerie

Crate & Barrel

BoConcept

BluDot

Pottery Barn



I also found a website that you might find useful for ideas:

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny



Best of luck in getting settled in!

Yeah, I was the "W/T" confused culprit. Glad to see your dad has the same clarity with your TV appearances that I do.


Not having TiVo in my hotel really sucks. It's hard to plan insomnia so I can see the show live (pre-recorded).



Which brings me to another point. Why does Joe have to tell me the show is taped? I prefer to think that that's the way Alison would look if I were to randomly run into her at 3 AM. What's next? Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist???



And lastly, for Toddrod, my computer generated word for this entry is "inirjzys", which when I tried to pronounce it, sounded like "inner Jesus". Just thought you'd get a kick out of that one.

Yeah, everyone knows that. Didn't you see that Dateline NBC series, "To Catch a Pied-à-terre?"

Good answer. I have thought about this question since I saw it posted (I've been behind). I was thinking about it in a similar way you were. My first reaction was about how the Trinity was effected and changed. "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" is really a moment where we see Father and Son being severed not in essence or being, but in support and relation.


I think if anyone would doubt Jesus' agony or difficulty with the cross should be pointed to Gethsemane. That is my favorite scene in the Passion of the Christ because it seems to really show Jesus struggling with a pain beyond the physical. To read that Jesus asked the Father to change the situation if at all possible is remarkable I think. I'm sure others have mentioned all of this, but its my take, which is a late arrival.

Thank you in advance for clarifying the whole Wednesday night/Thursday morning thing.


I would have been highly disappointed at 3AM Tuesday night/Wednesday morning if I thought I missed your performance, but realized you meant the next day.



I wonder if I'm the only one that's made that mistake...

Why did I think that when your blog said that you'd be on Red Eye "Tuesday, July 8: Red Eye (FNC, 3am)," that you really meant Wednesday? I thought I was missing something when you weren't on last night / this morning.

Question: Now that you've got three vlogs under your belt, how do you think Alison Rosen, "Body Language Expert," would critique your performances?

This seems like another crazy book. This made me think about how Savannah is more "risky" and a bigger "adventurer" than I am in many ways. If you see her on a four wheeler, she will push it to the max, while I can't handle that. I would rather spend the day having adventure through hiking and exploring, then screaming through the woods on a four wheeler. I wouldn't mind either, but I like and feel more comfortable with the former. To me, adventure is gender nuetral as you said, although I think society and its views of man's physical difference has made men more prone to take on adventure in the ways that Wagner is probably talking about.


And this all they are really doing: taking the current cultural stance on masculinity as objectively true. Moreover, they like to nickpick history and focus on the warrior-types throughout the years and forget that men were doing pretty much every trade - minstrels, tailors, jewlers, cooks, etc. They will always be plagued with the critique of being too narrow.

That is a funny comment, Paul!


Dale,



Your comments are helpful as usual. I hope you do not think I meant we should not name names when the situation warrants it (I myself did that). However, it is always good to treat them honestly (which I think we have done for the most part). These means not only be honest towards them but also understand they are trying to be honest as well. I hope that makes sense.



In regards to Christ-likeness and what that means to people, if anyone sees that as a hanging out with the same people Jesus did, or to be homeless as Jesus is, then they have missed it. Your Fruits of the Spirit expirement is a good example of this. We define most of them as feminine but Scriptures encourages us all to this. And right there, we find that it transcends gender specifications. So if you think that "Christ-likeness" is too subjective nowadays, then we need to either find a new term or redeem it.



I am skeptical of your statement about the Hebrew Scriptures being written when they did not have a detailed view of the soul. The 5 levels of the soul found in the Zohar are much older than the Zohar. Many scholars say that by the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. this teaching was around. The traditional view is that it was revealed to Moses at Sinai along with the rest of the Oral Teachings (I don't know what to think of that myself, but it is quite old I know). I am no authority on this subject though and I am sure you have a creditable source to say that.



Here are lyrics to a song called, "More of a Man" by Andy Gullahorn. This sums up maybe more of what we are getting at here:



I took my gradndad's twenty-two

When I was in the second grade

I shot a deer right in the heart

Rubbed his blood upon my face



The summer when I turned 16

I got up each day before the dawn

Was building barns and bailing hay

Worked harder than the day was long



Now I'm 30 and I have three kids

I watch dora the explorer in the morning

I feel sad truth sinking in

Maybe I was more of a man back then



I used to be daily fair

Chicken fried steak and barbeque

I had Dr. Pepper every meal

And ice cream when the day was through



Now I'm watching my cholesterol

My metabolism is obviously slowly

Now it's salad once again

Maybe I was more of a man back then



I used to watch Jean-Claude Van Damme

Killing guys on the silver screen

Now every night I put the kdis to bed

And watch Gilmore Girls on DVD



Surely I was more



So I suck in my protruding gut

on our monthly dinner night

You're saying something about the kids

As I watch these young men pass me by



I remember I was just like them

I was lonely but I called it independent

And if lonesome is what manly is

Maybe I was more of a man back then

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



I think these lyrics show the juvenile concept of masculinity that Eldredge and others portray. If we are honest, being a man is not about being "manly," hairy, strong, or being able to kill a deer. It is not about ability or virtues such as responsibility, humility, gratitude, or love. At most, it may be a unique nuance that men have in expressing these virtues, but I am skeptical of that even.



I guess that is all for now; sorry for the length.

I'm way too late in the conversation to add much more but I'll say a couple of things I've been thinking as I read the post, article, and these comments.


"New Masculinity" seems to make a very bold statement that I think is impossible to justify: what we believe to be masculine in this age and in this culture is what true, God-given masculinity is.



Regardless of how much history Eldredge and others look back on, we still have to trust that they are not using their 21st century lens to view history. Moreover, that they can even know how every culture viewed masculinity.



If we decide to go to the Bible to find masculinity, we find too many odd balls to really make sense of it (not to mention women who exemplify the exact same characteristics with vigor). The only thing the Bible is completely clear about when it comes masculinity is its physical characteristics.



What this leads to is something I think we may need to come to grips with. The more we chase after masculinity and feminity the more it alludes us. Too many of us have gotten into to the trap of so many thinkers before us such as Kant, Leibniz, Hegel, and many more who thought they could make sense of things by making them into concepts. Unfortunately, as soon as we do that it stops being real, true things we are dealing with (only Ideals or substances after that).



The more I have chased masculinity the more I have realized what it is not, and, unlike most things, this does not get me any closer to what it is. I truly believe if we spend more time chasing after Christ-likeness we will become the greatest we can be, whether masculine or feminine.



The truth is that God made us as we are, and I doubt he tries to do so by measuring us to some standard of masculinity or femininity. There is neither male nor female in Christ; there are only redeemed human beings trying to get closer to God.



I am not saying we should do away with masculinity or femininity though. I just think we should not be so quick to make a measuring stick out of these "concepts". Scripture does not once encourage me to be more masculine, only more holy. I have a feeling masculinity will find its way out when we do that.



And with all this said, Eldredge and Driscoll are great men who try to follow God as much as the rest of us. While we all may not agree with them, I encourage us all to be understanding towards them. I'm not saying that any hasn't been understanding, but just encouraging all of us to keep our heads and hearts in one accord.



I hope I did not come in too late or make too much of a ruckus.

lorijo,


I think what we need to understand is why we don't feel at home here. We do not belong, as Lewis said, but this doesn't mean that we did not belong or will not belong again on earth.



Abraham Heschel had this to say about prayer and I think it is very pertinent to this conversation:



"The true motivation for prayer is not, as has been said, the sense of being at home in the universe, but rather the sense of not being at home in the universe. . . On the contrary, the experience of not being at home in the world s a motivation for prayer. That experience gains intensity in the amazing awareness that God himself is not at home in the universe. He is not at home in a universe where His will is defied and where His kingship is denied. God is in exile; the world is corrupt. The universe itself is not at home. To pray means to bring God back into the world, to establish His kingship for a second at least. To pray means to expand His presence."



Heschel hits a very deep nerve in this whole discussion. The universe itself is not at home because it is not as it should be. Heschel says later that "Man's sin is in his failure to live what he is. Being master of the earth, man forgets that he is servant of God." So I think it is important to realize we do not feel at home in this world, God is in exile, and the world itself does not feel at home. That is what the New Earth is about. To bring back the rightful relationship's between God, man, and universe so that it is home once again. Adam and Eve were made to enjoy earth, and I believe our human nature has not changed in the respect of where we feel at home. Just my two cents; this discussion reminded me of Heschel's words.



Has anyone read that N.T. Wright book? It seems it could have some huge effects on Christian culture.

Great article! I've been wanting to get that book. As you mentioned, we like to think Jesus and his disciples were Greeks talking with Plato or, as Derek Webb puts it, white middle-class republicans. They were Messianic Jews in a way, but ultimately they were Jewish. For instance, the first shall be last and the last shall be first is from the Midrash (Oral Teaching). Who said it first, I have no idea (my guess is the Midrash but I haven't studied when it was), but I don't think that matters much. It is extremely important to view the Judeo-Christian story as a unit and not separate, which is a big tendency. Christians should know their Jewish heritage, Jesus knew his and his disciples too.


Moreover, you are right to say being in heaven forever is not Jewish. The Jewish tradition is all about making the world a holy place for God to enter. When Wright hit on the fact that after death, God remakes a heaven and earth were he can dwell with us. The Jews are not about otherworldliness; they are all about this world. God made us to dwell on earth, this is our home.