Sponsorship Needed - see paragraph 2! My next race will be the 1st Annual Kirtland AFB Top 3 Fundraiser 5K. This volunteer organization is made up of the top 3 enlisted ranks in the Air Force, and does volunteer work to benefit the entire enlisted population. They offer scholarships, put on programs such as Supper and Stripes (a dinner where volunteers sew new ranks on junior enlisted members' uniforms for free), and encourage professionalism for enlisted members. The race itself is a 5K that meanders through the streets of a former base housing area.
This is my first race that I've run that needs sponsorship. They have a specific goal in mind, but I won't put that out here because I don't know how many runners they have; that will impact what they need per runner. If you are interested in sponsoring me, please e-mail me and let me know. Once you do, I can get you further information on how to get those funds through me to the Kirtland AFB Top 3.
Recently, one of my Facebook friends posted a link to an article entitled "How Do Christians Become Conservative?" I believe that this article was significantly flawed; I hope those friends will take the time to read this and think about what it says. Know my heart in this; it's not a me vs. them, conservative vs. liberal thing, it's about truth. As a Christian, I want to ensure that claims made about my Savior are accurate; after all, if we're supposed to follow His example, shouldn't we make sure we know what that is?
The article was written by a man named Mike Lux. In this article, he goes through great pains to show how Jesus was actually a progressive (a term liberals like to use for themselves to avoid the negative connotations associated with liberalism). I found his theology questionable, being based in large part on taking quotes out of context. Over the course of this entry (and at least one more to come), I'd like to show where this is misguided. I have no personal vendetta against Mr. Lux, nor do I derive any pleasure at showing where his arguments break down; this is not about him or me.
(Regular readers of my occasional posts here will know that I either post short items or long items; this isn't going to be short. Quotes below are from Mr. Lux, unless otherwise noted.)
First off, I want to address his view of Scripture.
I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn't going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I'll be there with a lot of my favorite people.
I focused here on the Jesus of the Gospels (principally Matthew, Mark and Luke - the Gospel of John is almost all focused on mystical spiritualism).…
Judeo-Christian scripture is a rich and complicated work of literature. Written over the course of (at least) several hundred years by dozens of different authors, there are a variety of perspectives and many times outright contradictions in the theology and the politics of the writing (if it's all inspired word for word by God, He seems to have changed his mind a lot).
This, then, is an unbeliever trying to tell believers what Scripture says. He obviously does not believe 2 Timothy 3:16, which states “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness…” Either all of the Bible is true, or none of It is; if It is not entirely true, how do we know which portions are and which portions aren't? Why base your faith or arguments in a flawed book?
Given this view of the Bible, it almost makes sense why his arguments are so selective. There are portions of the Bible that can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say. A serious study of the Scriptures must consider the many different contexts; the context within the surrounding verses, the context with Scripture even in different books of the Bible, and the context of the culture in which the statements were made.
The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his.
This is true; however, it wasn't just His followers for whom He was concerned regarding spiritual well-being. In fact, one verse that is frequently taken out of context is Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.
When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
Wow! How non-judgemental! I've lost count of how many times I've heard this being used by someone to justify why a Christian shouldn't point out their sin to them. There's just one problem with this - I (just as they do) conveniently left out the last part, which changes things just a bit.
“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus. “Go, and from now on do not sin any more.” (emphasis mine)
Jesus didn't condemn her (a point lost on some Christians, that's for sure); but, He did not ignore her sin! He gave her forgiveness and a charge to change her behavior. This is certainly only one example (and not even one Mr. Lux made), but it's illustrative of how omitting something can change the meaning of Scripture.
With that example, let's dive into Mr. Lux's use of that technique.
In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed.
He's speaking of Luke 6:20-26. “Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours.” (v. 20b) However, compare this with Matthew's account in Matthew 5:3 - “Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.” So, is Jesus talking about poverty, or is He talking about pride? Balanced against the remainder of Scripture, both Old and New Testament, I believe He's talking about pride. Realizing that one is a sinner and needs forgiveness requires a humility that's unnatural for us humans. Generally speaking, those who are wealthy tend to rely on their wealth, rather than the saving grace that Jesus offers.
I'll grant him that yes, Luke 6:24-25 do appear to say what he says they do when taken out of context. There are other Scriptures that speak to the difficulty someone who has riches can have following the Lord.
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good but One - God. You know the commandments: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not defraud; honor your father and mother.”
He said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these from my youth.”
Then, looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: Go, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” But he was stunned at this demand, and he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.
Jesus loved this person who wanted to follow Him. However, He knew the hindrance that these possessions would have on this man's ability to focus on following Christ. Jesus didn't condemn him for having these possessions and riches; rather, He told him how he should use them. Caring for the poor and needy is an outcome of one's relationship with Christ; in fact, James 1:27 says “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress…” There are several other places where rich people are told to use their acquired wealth to help the poor; they're not condemned for earning it, just directed to use it in a different way. Again, this fruit comes from the seed of a relationship with Christ.
(On a side note - this is not a governmental edict. Isn't it “progressives” who accuse conservatives of trying to make America into a theocracy? Of trying to make God's law into man's law? Where's the “separation of church and state” argument, Mr. Lux?)
For today, let's look at one more of the claims from the original article.
He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.
This is true. However, did He chase these bankers and merchants from the temple because they were wealthy? Of course not - this claim shows his ignorance of how these things worked. Originally, the Jews were supposed to bring a spotless lamb or dove to the temple for a sacrifice, or certain amounts of grain or other produce for an offering. As the Jews branched into pursuits other than agriculture and farming, and as they became more busy (sound familiar?), a cottage industry sprang up with people who would sell spotless lambs and doves and measures of produce that the people could purchase, then offer to the priests to take care of their responsibilities.
Scripture doesn't condemn this aspect; and, as with pretty much any business, a little profit goes a long way to ensuring the business can continue. However, greed soon set in, and these vendors were not selling what they claimed to sell. Some of the animals were not spotless. False weights were used to charge people more than what they rightfully should have been charged. This was the reason Jesus went through the temple like a bull in a china shop, and the only time we see Him being physically violent. What was His problem? “Is it not written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves!” (Mark 11:17) “Den of thieves” was not class warfare; it was an accurate description of those selling 2 ounces of product for the price of 3, and those passing off blemished animals as spotless. This story (recorded nearly word-for-word by three of the Gospels) is about people scamming others, using their desire to worship God for their own monetary gain.
There will be (at least) a part 2; I still haven't addressed his claim that Matthew 25 shows how to get to heaven (hint: don't be rich), nor have I addressed the (red herring, IMO) of limited socialism within the early church, as described in the book of Acts. It will be linked below once it's written.
This past year has been a year of change for my fitness and health. Nearly a year ago, I began a military training class at 211 pounds. Over the course of the 6-week class, I got down to 195. I lost another 4 pounds a month later when I had some wisdom teeth removed. In September, I injured my back, and put those 4 pounds back on. Through the winter holidays, I put on another 3 pounds. I lost a few pounds, but I was stuck between 195 and 197. In April, I did a two-week liquid diet (protein shakes and soups), which broke me out of that rut, and took me down to 186. As of this morning, I'm now down to 184, and the liquid diet has shrunk my appetite so that I'm eating at most half of what I used to at each meal.
Over the course of this year, during the periods of training, my focus has been on short-term goals - lose 1-2 lbs/wk. I've been thinking about what I wanted to select as a “high-water mark” - a weight that I do not want to ever be over again. I'm not planning on making any major changes in my training and diet, and I'm sure that my weight loss will slow. I've selected 175 as my first high-water mark, and set as a goal being that weight by my birthday, September 14th. That will put me at 3 lbs/month loss; along with running speed work and endurance, and body-weight-resistance strength training, I believe that's a reasonable rate of loss.
I also have performance-related goals for my running. By July 1st, I want to be able to do 1.5 miles in 14 minutes. (That's a requirement of my employer.) As long-term goals yet without dates, I'd like to do a 5K in 30 minutes, then a 10K in 60 minutes. All 3 goals involve running approximately the same pace, just for a longer period of time straight.
Why am I making this public? Well, first, I'm excited about the progress I've made; I'm in better shape than I've been in 10 years. Second, by making it public, it makes it a lot tougher for me to change them (to make them easier, anyway). So, to summarize, my fitness goals as they currently stand:
Friday, February 5, 2010
10:04 pm
Daniel J. Summers
The results are below, but first, the set up…
January 5th, 2010 was the first day back to work for me after the new year. I decided to put the radio on 91.5, which is our local Family Life Radio station. They were advertising a 30-Day Challenge - listen only to that radio station for 30 days. At the time, I didn't commit to it, but I thought “Eh, I'll give it a shot.” I only drive about 10 minutes one way to work, but driving home at lunch and back, then home for good in the afternoon, we start getting into some real time. At these times, they are generally playing music, or the DJs are discussing the topic of the day. A few weeks in, I befriended Dan Rosecrans, the local morning host, on Facebook. (He just recently got a national show on Sundays, playing praise music; congratulations, Dan!)
They also have talk programs. At work, I generally listen to podcasts or music from my computer, as I can't just tell people “Leave me alone - I'm listening to my radio program!” At my wife's suggestion, I subscribed to Intentional Living. They were doing a series of “If I Could Do It All Over Again” shows on different topic. Those weren't really doing much for me, and I asked my wife about her experience. She suggested I wait it out, as it was a show that she really enjoyed. She was right; I now wholeheartedly recommend it. I also, through driving my oldest son to scouts, heard Focus on the Family's daily broadcast. I wasn't new to FOTF at all, but I heard part of a show that interested me, and subscribed to their podcast as well. Their feed has about 4 months of recent episodes, and they have been hitting home runs every week! So, even when I wasn't listening to FLR, I was listening to a few of their shows, in a way where I wouldn't miss any of it.
The results…
The first week, it actually seemed like more things were going wrong than right. Work was stressful, home was stressful, and I wasn't handling it well in either place. Over the next few weeks, though, I began to have peace. The problems didn't go away, but I now have peace within them. More challenges have been thrown at me, and I'm not going to air a dirty laundry list, but in all of it, I have a peace about everything that is going on. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm not trying to work through the problems and make them better; but, when I do what I believe God is telling me to do, I don't have to stress about the results - those are His problems now.
Even now, just shortly removed from them, I can see where some of these challenges (even those in the first week) have worked together for good, to help me address struggles that I've had as long as I can remember. 2010 is going to be an outstanding year, and FLR is a resource I'm going to keep.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
10:16 pm
Daniel J. Summers
(OK - that's counting years I missed it. Not missing it this year…)
This year, Sanctity of Human Life Sunday has been expanded to Sanctity of Human Life Week, beginning 17 Jan 10. The image you see to the left will be my profile picture on Facebook for the duration of this week. These days, with medical technology being what it is, the argument against abortion is really quite simple. Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, ultrasound was in its infancy (pardon the pun). We had no clue, comparatively, to what goes on inside a womb the way we do today. Most babies' hearts are beating before their mothers realizes they are pregnant. All the activity that goes on in there is amazing, and 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds have opened up this world to us.
What's the difference if the baby is drinking through a tube or through its mouth? We don't euthanize preemies that have to have feeding tubes; and even after birth, the mother has the responsibility of feeding her baby. There are periods during pregnancy now when, depending on what the mother wants, she can either have a preemie (who, though challenged, will probably make it), or an abortion. Is that the “choice” that the pro-choice crowd is for? Why is it that, during this most precarious time, when they need protecting the most, people feel entitled to snuff out that life? There's a reason that I call my abortion category “Prenatal Murder” - that's exactly what it is.
And the numbers - these numbers are staggering! Current Red Cross estimates put the Haiti earthquake casualty count at 45,000-50,000. Around the world, there are 1,206,000 abortions a month; divide that by 30, you get 40,200 a day. In the United States alone, we're running at 1,206,200 a year, which means we take about two weeks to kill that many babies just in this country.
There's a Haiti-a-day going on in the wombs of women around the world. These precious babies' voices are too soft to be heard - will you speak up for them?
Monday, January 4, 2010
11:17 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Time for another history lesson; nobody learned from Y2K. Today is January 5, 2010, which is the last year of the first decade of the 21st century. The reason, of course, is very simple - the first year of the Gregorian calendar is 1, not 0. The first year was 1, so the first decade was from 1-10. The tenth decade was 91-100. The second millennium was from 1001-2000, so the “new millennium” did not begin until 2001.
This is different, of course, from birthdays. When one is born, your age is 0; your “first birthday” comes one year after your birth (at the completion of that year). So, when you turn 10, you've completed a decade. Your cars' odometer is the same; it starts at 0, so when it rolls 100,000, you've completed your first 100,000 miles. With years starting with 1, we haven't completed the last year of this decade.
Feel free to buy the hype if you want, but now you'll be doing it with full knowledge of the facts; just because the tens digit changes doesn't mean it's a new decade. Just think - if you get your facts straight, you can have a huge party 359 days from now to celebrate The New Decade!
Friday, October 9, 2009
12:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This week has been the 2009 Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. I've been “live-photo-blogging” the event when I go, and uploading the pictures to Facebook. The album is public - even if you're not on Facebook, you can still view the album.
The final live photos will probably be Sunday morning during the farewell mass ascension, from 0700-0900 MDT. Hope you enjoy them!
Friday, September 11, 2009
9:12 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Note - This tribute is part of Project 2996, a blogosphere-wide effort to ensure that none of the Americans whose lives were taken on September 11, 2001 are forgotten. See the entire list at their site, linked in the previous sentence.
It is a crisp late summer morning. A couple is parting ways at an airport. While that's not an altogether uncommon sight, for Neil and Ellen Mariani, it would be the last time they would see one another. Neil was 59 years old; 4 of those years he had spent serving his country in the United States Air Force, and many more years working for HP Hood Dairy, from where he had retired. An avid photographer, he was known for his ever-present Minolta camera - he even developed his own film!
His step-daughter was engaged to be married on September 15, 2001, and he had decided to go out to California to attend the wedding. He made this decision at the last minute, so he and Ellen had different flights; Ellen had a layover in Chicago, while Neil had the cross-country UA 175 flight. Ellen wrote a letter to her husband after the wedding, and rather than put it in my words, I'll put in hers.
DEAR NEIL…
I, as your wife, have searched for sane answers to what happened on that beautiful, sunny, warm Tuesday, September 11, 2001. You, Neil, were so tanned and fit, happy to be leaving with me before dawn for Boston's Logan Airport. You and I were traveling on separate planes to the California wedding of my daughter, Gina, your step-daughter. You decided to go out for the wedding at the very last minute, and to help pay for the ticket, we held garage sales together.
Neil, I will never forget when we said goodbye at Boston Airport. Neil, you as a gentleman were always carrying heavy items for me, and that morning, you carried inside the terminal two large boxes full of toys for our grand-kids that were to be there for the wedding as flower girl and ring bearer.
You kissed me at the curb and said goodbye. Then you kissed me again inside and said “See you, Ellen. I'll arrive three minutes after your plane lands,” and walked away. But suddenly, you came back, gave me a third kiss and a big hug. It was then I noticed you seemed nervous. I thought it was because you were not used to flying. You then said goodbye for the third time, then left. I looked back to catch a last glance at you, Neil, but you were gone and out of sight.
Neil, you never made it to California for Gina's wedding that September 15, 2001. I left two hours before you and had a scheduled layover in Chicago. It was there that I found out what had happened to you. Your plane, United Airlines Flight 175, had crashed into the second tower of the World Trade Center. You, my husband, were gone in a ball of fire. The September 15th wedding of Gina's went on in defiance of what had happened on September 11th.
Now as I stood as a new widow of four days, Gina asked me to give her away to be married. I wore two yellow roses, and made a toast in remembrance of you.
Neil, you are the perfect example of the type of American that makes this country great. Thank you for being the man that you were - America is a poorer place without you here.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
5:58 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I completed my second 10K this morning, running the inaugural Dam to Dam Run to benefit Brent's Place. Brent's Place is a set of apartments in Denver, Colorado, meticulously maintained to prevent infection, where families with children with severe medical conditions (cancer, transplants, etc.) can live together during important times in their life. I had never heard of them before signing up for the race, and hadn't really heard about them until the start of the race. It was nice to know that most of my registration fee goes to helping these folks do their great work.
On the performance side, I beat my Chunky Monkey (CM hereafter) time by 3:22. This was especially exciting because the CM course was pretty much flat, and this course was more like a cross-country course. I ran sub-12 minute miles at this distance for the first time. It wasn't an easy run, but I was exhilarated when I turned the corner towards the finish line and saw the clock.
Starbucks, Keva Juice, and Great Harvest Bread were three of the sponsors of the event. I felt better after this one than I did after CM, and the water, bread, 1/2 pint of chocolate milk, and bold coffee really hit the spot. Plus, during the awards ceremony, they picked some runners at random to give a door prize. When they called out 102, it took me a second to realize that was me! :) I got a pair of sport socks that are themed from Brent's Place - a picture of them is at the end of this post.
Up next, I'm still undecided. The next Athlete's Edge run is a trail run - not quite sure I'm ready for that, but not unsure either. We'll have to see how that goes.
Verse of the Day
“Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,” –
Colossians 3:12(ESV)
This year, Sanctity of Human Life Sunday has been expanded to Sanctity of Human Life Week, beginning 17 Jan 10. The image you see to the left will be my profile picture on Facebook for the duration of this week. These days, with medical technology being what it is, the argument against abortion is really quite simple. Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, ultrasound was in its infancy (pardon the pun). We had no clue, comparatively, to what goes on inside a womb the way we do today. Most babies' hearts are beating before their mothers realizes they are pregnant. All the activity that goes on in there is amazing, and 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds have opened up this world to us.
It is a crisp late summer morning. A couple is parting ways at an airport. While that's not an altogether uncommon sight, for Neil and Ellen Mariani, it would be the last time they would see one another. Neil was 59 years old; 4 of those years he had spent serving his country in the United States Air Force, and many more years working for