The Weekly Wrap-Up: January 25-29, 2016

Way back when, I started this blog to keep people updated on my ministry. Of course, at the time, I was still funding. My ministry description was also a lot different.

Since then, I have occasionally used this blog to talk about my ministry. More often, I use it to sort out my thoughts, give book reviews, or just generally angst about things.

So, to keep with the spirit of what I set out to do, in the full knowledge that most of my ministry involves me sitting at a computer manipulating files, I'm going to start a weekly review of ministry-type things. I may, on occasion, address a specific ministry thing on another day. But, Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will do a Weekly Wrap-Up every Friday, telling you what I worked on in a given week. I'm counting on you to remind me of this next Friday. (And maybe come up with a better name for it.)

Train & Multiply

This was actually a fairly busy week for me. I've been working on the Japanese translation of Train & Multiply, whilst learning the ins and outs of the process. On Wednesday, I learned how to transfer new text from what we call a transfile (translation file) into the InDesign booklet file. This part is actually done pretty quickly. We run a script, Bob's your uncle, everything that the translator changed is now inserted into its proper space in the master file.

Of course, text comes in all shapes and sizes. So my next job was a) to make sure everything that should have transferred did, and b) to make sure there's enough space for all of that text. For example, here's a sentence in English:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Here's the same sentence in Hindi (another language we're working on):

तेज, भूरी लोमडी आलसी कुत्ते के उपर कूद गई।
As you can see, character spacing changes from one language to another. So what fit in a space before may not when you change the language. I have to check the files to make sure we don't have overset text. And I have to do this in 34 booklets (just level one for Japanese) with varying page numbers.

I also keep up correspondence with people interested in using T&M. Every week, we have between 5 and 20 requests for sample material or training. The sample material is easy - they can download it off the website. Training is a little harder to coordinate. We will have two training events in the U.S. this year, but not everyone can make it to Greenwood, Indiana. One individual needs training in Australia and Myanmar, so I'm trying to figure out the logistics, who will be in the area, that sort of thing.

I also keep up the T&M Facebook page. It can be a little tough finding material to post. Once people get the materials, we don't often hear from them very often. That's another things we're working to change.

Finally, we're trying to organize our files. We use Google docs, a website called Trello, and our own shared drive. We don't want to get into the middle of 27 new language projects and realize we have no idea where all of the files are. I like Trello - it's a good organizational tool. But it can be difficult to keep track of the thousands of files we end up with for each individual language project.

Chapel

Every week, we have chapel on Tuesdays and Thursdays, except for the first week of the month when we do a half day of prayer on Wednesday. CROSS-training started again this week, so we've been hearing from our trainees in chapel. I always like hearing their stories. There's a lot more diversity than you might expect from a small midwestern mission agency.

This week, we heard from EunJin and KyoungMin, a Korean couple serving at HQ for a few months. They serve as liasons to the Korea Evangelical Holiness Church, which OMS helped found 109 years ago, and the Korean Evangelical Church of America, which branched from the KEHC and is headquartered in California. (Fun fact: if you encounter a denomination overseas that ends in EHC, it was probably started by the KEHC.) We also heard from Michelle, a Brit going to Mozambique; Heather, who works in HR/Mobi; and Lora, who joined because she married the OMS Kids director.

Other Projects

Every so often, someone will pop into my office to ask me to work on something with or for them. This week, that person has been Foster, and the project was the art installation in the lobby. He wanted to do something different instead of the normal lobby stuff, so he took apart the tree he made for Christmas (probably on my Facebook somewhere) and made art. I've been helping him fill in some missing pieces.

Here's how it started:

Last week, we put up the word "Illuminate" with LED lights underneath. This week, we filled in the shapes with the purple. 

Today, we put the verse on the window. 

All of this serves as an advertisement/reminder about the International Conference this summer in Marion, Indiana, an event to which you are all invited and to which you should all come. 

Bonus

Occasionally, I need to do something that engages a different part of my brain. Or I just need to walk. This week, my distraction was found upstairs in the Development department. Dynamic Women in Missions created a Scrabble board, so Sarah and I took a few minutes to play a game. Of sorts. We don't actually play. We just pick out letters and make words. Like Bananagrams, I guess. This was one of our better efforts:

I hope you enjoyed that snippet of my week! See you on the flip side...

Death Comes to Pemberley Review

Welcome to the first of the 2016 Bookapalooza! Yes, that's the name. I don't know if I'll actually hit 50 books, but we'll let the chips fall where they may. At the very least, you can see what's on my shelves and read a (hopefully) entertaining account of the tale. Here we go.

Title: Death Comes to Pemberley
Author: P.D. James
Published: 2011

I decided to read this after watching the mini-series of the same name. I watched the mini-series because Matthew Rhys was in it, but I actually liked it, and I wanted more background information. True to form, the book was vastly different from the show, but I still found it to be a fairly enjoyable read.

Death Comes to Pemberley is a sequel of sorts to Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. P&P tells the story of Elizabeth and Darcy, their respective families, and how they eventually married despite social custom. To be perfectly honest, I've never read the whole thing. I tend not to enjoy romance novels. Of course, I also don't really like mystery novels, as I suppose this book would be classified. For the purposes of this review, I'm going to assume you have a passing familiarity with P&P.

The book begins several years after the events of P&P. Four of the Bennett daughters are now married, and Elizabeth and Darcy are the happy parents of two children. It's the day before the Lady Anne ball, and Elizabeth is anticipating the arrival of Mr. and Mrs. Bingley, Henry Alveston, and Colonel Fitzwilliam (now heir to an earldom). Alveston and Fitzwilliam (which is also Darcy's first name, as well as the name of his first child; it's very confusing) have made their interest known concerning the matrimonial state of Georgiana, Darcy's sister. The calm evening comes to an abrupt ending with the unexpected arrival of Lydia Wickham, screaming that her husband and Captain Denny have been murdered. An investigation reveals the two men in the woodland, Wickham holding Denny's body and crying that he's killed his only friend. As a magistrate and brother (by marriage) to a possible murderer, Darcy knows he cannot investigate personally and so calls Sir Selwyn, a neighboring magistrate, to conduct the investigation.

Investigative techniques in the early 1800s were rather less thorough than they are today (and I'm guessing the investigations today are less thorough than television would led us to believe), and so the question of suspicion is rather short. Colonel Fitzwilliam had gone for a ride and so did not have a ready alibi, but he's a gentleman, so it's unthinkable that he would commit murder. The Bidwells, a tenant family in the woodland, consist of two women and a sickly young man, and so they are dismissed from consideration as well. The coroner believes the wounds are consistent with a murder, and as Wickham confessed in front of witnesses (though later recanted), he is the obvious choice. Darcy, though he loathes Wickham for his treatment of Georgiana, has a hard time believing the man capable of murder.

The book is divided into smaller books, spreading the action over a period of roughly six months. It gives a fascinating picture of murder investigations and the impact on society. The inquest is handled locally, with a jury of the same men as always finding that Captain Denny was probably murdered, and likely by Mr. Wickham. The trial is held in London, a social event for the middle class. The outcome could possibly be deduced, though I didn't think it was overly obvious.

I found it a somewhat difficult read at first. It's written in the style of Austen, so a lot of flowery language and overly formal dialogue. The narrator shifts in perspective from Elizabeth to Darcy and remains with Darcy for the majority of the book. It makes sense, he's a man, but I would have appreciated a little more from Elizabeth, especially toward the end.

It's not a traditional mystery, which I appreciated. It's obvious that the time period was meticulously researched, and for the most part, nestles nicely in the background. Occasionally, however, it was clear that the author found something extremely interesting and wanted it to be in the book, but couldn't figure out how to get it in naturally. I understand the impulse. I'm frequently guilty of it myself. That's probably why I noticed it more. There are also quite a few monologues. Most make sense, but especially at the end, some were out of character or just there to spew information.

Overall, I quite enjoyed the book. Readers who enjoyed P&P will find this a worthy sequel, and the author even sneaks in a reference to Emma for the eagle-eyed. I think USA Today was a bit hyperbolic when they called it "incomparably perfect," but it's a good read and worth the time to parse the language. I probably won't keep it in my collection, but I'm glad I read it.

Favorite lines:

"She had wanted him out of their lives, but not that way--dear God, not that way."a

"I take it, Belcher, that your clever scientific colleagues have not yet found a way of distinguishing one man's blood from another's?"

"People should make up their minds whether to live or to die and do one or the other with the least inconvenience to others."

Many Sons Had Father Abraham

I've heard a lot about Abraham lately.

My daily Bible reading took me through Abraham's story. 

The sermon on Sunday was all about Father Abraham.

And chapel today was about Abraham's journey from Harran.

I've heard this story a thousand times. 

But maybe I should be paying attention so I can learn something new.

There's a lot to learn from Abraham. First, there's his life of faith. We really don't know what he was doing for the first 75 years of his life. But I have to imagine that he had to at least be a little attuned to God's will and voice in order to listen so readily when God told him to do something so incredible at such a late stage in life.

But then Abraham (or Abram still at this point) makes conscious decisions to be stupid. He told at least two rulers that Sarai was his sister. And don't give me that crap about it being technically true. Those are the kinds of lies we reassure ourselves are okay to tell because technically, they're true. Technically, you're still being an ass.

And then there's the whole business with Lot. Abram was incredibly fair and patient with Lot, even as Lot picked up all of Abram's worst habits and few of his good ones. And Abram still rescued Lot, and even made an amazing friend out of the deal!

One of the things I like most about Abram is that he wasn't afraid to ask God questions. When God made the covenant, Abram was all about the details. He knew he was getting a sweet deal, and he made sure it was legally binding.

And then there's Ishmael. I, personally, believe that Abram was totally just being a man here. Should he have consulted God about what Sarai proposed? Absolutely. But he didn't. Because he's a man, and a nubile young woman was being offered to him on a platter. Or in a tent, but whatever. He's a man. And he totally copped out when it turned out that this was a really bad idea. (Shocking.) He couldn't help but love the kid, but I think he also later recognized that Ishmael was a constant reminder that he hadn't fully trusted God. (I think this is why he doesn't argue when God calls Isaac his only son.)

God wanted the legal business to go both ways. So He tells Abraham to undergo circumcision. Now, on Sunday, my pastor totally threw parents and the internet under the bus on what exactly this meant. I'm certainly not going into detail, either. But at 99 years of age, Abraham had to do a little snip-snip procedure. Later, when reading the story of Dinah, we learn that Schechem and all his friends were still in such pain three days after undergoing the same procedure that they didn't notice Simeon and Levi hacking them into even more pieces. (Sorry.) There's a reason it's done to children only a few days old now.

After God reminds Abraham again of the promised child, He tells Abraham that he's going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. And Abraham pleads not once, not twice, but six times for mercy if a few faithful can be found. I don't know if Abraham thinks Lot has been preaching or what, but I do know that only four people walked away from Sodom and only three made it to the mountains. Most people would consider one question to be pressing his luck, but this mattered so much to Abraham that he presumed to speak before the Lord six times to ask if He was sure this was a good idea.

Finally, at 100 years of age, God fulfilled his promise through Isaac. Abraham waited more than 20 years for the fulfillment of this promise. Did he wait well? Not always. But he did wait. Sometimes, God waits a really long time before giving us our heart's desire. Sometimes, as in the case of Abraham becoming a great nation, we never see the results of a promise. But we still have to have faith that it's going to happen.

There's one more reason to admire Abraham. He had enjoyed several years with his child, teaching him trades and telling Isaac that he was a fulfillment of God's promise. And then one night, God told Abraham to take his only son, whom he loved, and sacrifice him as a burnt offering. The Bible moves on in the story to the next morning, but I've always wondered what the rest of that night was like for Abraham. Did he question it? Did he consider disobedience? I don't know. But the next morning, he took Isaac, the boy who God had promised would be the start of a great nation, and they traveled to the place of the sacrifice. Hebrews tells us that Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead, but there is still a huge amount of faith that goes into this? Even if he did kill Isaac, and God raised him from the dead, Abraham would still have to live with the fact that he'd killed his son. That's huge.

But of course, Abraham passed the test. Whatever mistakes he'd made, he ultimately trusted God more than anything. And maybe that's the lesson to be learned. No matter how much we think we have things under control, our first impulse should be to trust God and inquire of Him what our next step should be. 

Project Runway and the Secret Underbelly of Missions

(I started writing this last year, before the Christmas video went out. Try to enjoy it in the manner in which it was intended.)

For reasons known to me and a few others, I've been binge-watching episodes of Project Runway.

Don't get me wrong, I like the show. When it first aired, it was something new and a little edgy. It gave us a peek behind the curtain of fashion design, and while I had never known that that was something I wanted, I realized pretty quickly that it was fairly entertaining television.

It's also on cable, so I only watched when I was at my parent's house or, lately, when they have full episodes online.

Project Runway has become something of a behemoth. A version of it has aired in more than 20 countries. It has launched the careers of a few famous people and given some less famous people 15 minutes of fame. The show has gone through a few iterations, but the basic idea is the same: several aspiring fashion designers compete to win various challenges and ultimately to win a chance to launch their own line of fashion.

Season 14 began airing in August 2015. I've sort of paid more attention this year, partly because of the aforementioned reasons, but also because they found some truly ... interesting ... designers this year. Seriously, I don't like competition shows because a lot of people lose, and then they get very emotional. But I have actively cheered when some of these designers got cut. They are terrible people.

Anyway, I was talking about one of the episodes with a coworker, and she told me I should write a blog post about it because it is reflective of some things in the mission world we tend to ignore.

So here goes.

First, a recap of the episode.

It started pretty normally. Heidi Klum (the host) and Tim Gunn (the mentor) were preparing to present the new challenge to the designers. But first, they divided the group into two teams. Team challenge! Sometimes these go well. Sometimes not.

Anyway, there was some tension because instead of choosing teams strategically, everyone just chose their friends and roommates, leaving the one girl who has won two challenges already (and thus is known to the judges and obvi a contender) to be chosen last. Naturally, they had split into a girls team and a boys+1girl team.

Then they played paintball. I know, it doesn't make sense. But that's what happened. The twist for the challenge was that they had to create six outfits that would form a complete collection out of their jumpsuits from paintball. They also had supplemental material. That's important for later.

Right away, the guys (who I will call the blue team) started talking through their plan. There was a little dissension about what it would be, but Swapnil (who I name because his name rocks) made a very reasonable and calm argument for the 1950s. Everyone agreed. But they didn't stop there. They figured out everyone's strengths (not everyone had to create an outfit - they just had to have six, and everyone had to participate in some manner). They asked each person what they wanted to create, and then they talked about how it would fit into the collection. They decided to mostly use the jumpsuits, but asked one designer to create a common textile print that everyone could use. It took more time (they had two days), but they had a very cohesive collection, and it allowed them to focus on the design.

In contrast, the girls (the purple team). They hated the paintball jumpsuits. They hated the colors. They hated the supplemental fabric. So they decided to go for some kind of tie-dye theme. Well, four did. The other two, when they suggested coming up with a theme first, were drowned out and shot down. The purple team ruined their jumpsuit fabric. And yet, even then, they didn't sit down together to figure out a plan. They decided that everyone would design something, and then they would figure out what the common element was later. Except they wasted so much time that most of them did not have a complete outfit ready by the time their models showed up for a fitting.

Then the runway show. Blue team nailed it. The looks were fun, flirty, included a pant option, they were fashion-forward, and best of all, they fit together without being matchy-matchy. There was a gown that was just beautiful - I would wear it.

Purple team, however, was a mess. I believe the words 'amateur hour' were used. They had used a ton of the supplemental fabric instead of focusing on the jumpsuits. The colors were reminiscent of Barney the Dinosaur or an Easter egg hunt. Some outfits were obviously unfinished.

Blue team won, gown guy won, but everyone got the credit. They were a true team, even though only one person will ultimately win the game.

Purple team lost. And then it became obvious that the only thing they had collaborated on (well, four of them) was who to blame. And sure enough, it was the girl who had been picked last.

The judges were not impressed. At all. And they made that very clear. The girl they kicked out had made some weird caftan-type dress, but I'm firmly convinced that they gave her the boot mainly for her attitude. She did not take responsibility for anything that went wrong.

Auf wiedersehen indeed.

So. What does this have to do with missions?

Honestly, it's a lesson that is not unique to missions. It's something that could happen anywhere. But I used that title as clickbait. I'm sorry. I'll do my best to tie this to missions.

All too often, missionaries look a lot like the purple team. We all start with pretty much the same thing, and while we hopefully don't hate it, we do have a lot of different ways of spreading the news.

Missionaries are, somewhat out of necessity, but also by nature, independent people. What other type of person leaves home to go somewhere unfamiliar in order to tell possibly hostile people about Jesus? It attracts a very specific type of person.

Unfortunately, that type of person tends to be a "Let's Go." There are four types of these "Let" people. (I checked.) They are: Let's Go, Let's Be Careful, Let's Stay Together, and Let Me Help You. They fit into the four basic personality types, the four humors, Meyers-Briggs, whatever you want to call it. People tend to have a dominant type, and then a supporting type. Some naturally work together, and some are in a bit of conflict.

Let's Go people tend to have great ideas and a lot of enthusiasm. They want to start now and worry about details later. And that's okay - to a point. Because if your organization is made up entirely of Let's Go individuals, then you will soon find yourself with a prospering business that has to shut down because someone forgot to pay taxes. Or you'll own a piece of property in an economically diminished neighborhood that can't be rezoned because no one read the fine print.

Not to name specific examples of ministries I know.

One of the things I look for in any new business, mission, or investment is sustainability. And all too often, sustainability gets obscured by vision. We see what could be. We have a goal, and we have an amazing idea for how to achieve that goal. But if we don't talk to each other about that goal, if we don't agree on a means, if we go into something with a built-in out, the vision is going to be just that - a figment of the imagination that never had legs to carry it to fruition.

There are a lot of things we can take from this particular episode of Project Runway. We can realize that the best team contains a combination of the four types of "Let" people. We can realize that a plan doesn't have to take forever to create, so we can still meet a deadline. We can realize that trying to find meaning in something after the fact usually ends up in a big fat goose egg. And we can realize that experience and wise counsel are worth their weight in gold.

Don't fall into the trap of Let's Go. Or don't only have those people on your team. Build a solid foundation, and the rest will follow. I'm pretty sure Jesus said something to that effect.

Incidental #1, the girl who was picked last won the entire season. Would I wear what she created? Some of it. Did she deserve it? Yes.

Incidental #2, I'm a Let's Be Careful. But my supporting type is Let's Go. Naturally, I think this is the best type. Also, I don't really care if everyone gets along. Helpers are good, though.

Incidental #3, I am fully aware that there is a bit of bias in this post. As I come from a specific type, I find other types difficult to deal with. And just now, I read an article about what exhausts each personality type? Mine?

INTJ – Improvisation

INTJs are the ultimate planners – they ruthlessly map out how they’re going to behave in future situations and glean energy from determining the best of all possible approaches. Though they are capable of improvising when need be, the INTJ will rapidly lose energy if they must act without deliberating for a significant period of time. They are big-picture thinkers, and they need to put everything into perspective before they feel completely comfortable taking action.

Birthday Thoughts

So last Saturday, I celebrated my 30th birthday. I have been on this plant for 30 years. Three decades. 10,950 days. 282,000 hours.

In other words, a long flipping time.

I know there are some who would say that's not very long. And I suppose, relatively speaking, it's really not that long.

But it feels long to me.

I've done a lot so far in my life. I've traveled, I've studied, I've made friends, lost friends, had a few different jobs. There are a lot of things I haven't done. I've never been married, for one. I can't decide if I want that to change.

Obviously, I can't see into the future. I don't know what the next three decades holds, or even if I get three more decades. But I do know that I don't want birthdays to become just another day. They signify an achievement. By the grace of God, I've survived another year on this little round ball, and at times, I've even enjoyed it.

So if you ever hear me say that I won't be celebrating my birthday, remind me of this post.

And at some point, there had better be a surprise birthday party. 

Love Your Enemies

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV)

I don't know many people outside of TV shows who have real, personal enemies. Most of us have people who annoy us, sure, but would we go so far as to call them an enemy? And yeah, we have distant enemies - people who want to destroy us for ideological, religious, or cultural reasons. But the majority of us will never encounter these people face-to-face.

I have a tendency to ignore these verses. As time goes by, however, I'm realizing more and more why that is a really bad idea.

In many ways, this is the most radical thing Jesus ever said. And he said it at a time when Israel had a lot of enemies, and most of them lived right there with them.

I like Jesus' "you have heard" statements. There was a glut of fancy sayings going around at the time. I liken it to the Calormenes in The Chronicles of Narnia, especially in The Horse and His Boy. They were constantly sprinkling 'wise' sayings into their overly formal speech, all in an effort to convince everyone that they knew more than they really did. In reality, it was borrowed wisdom. Even now, every political speech borrows rhetoric from someone who said it better before who borrowed it from someone who probably borrowed a bastardized version of someone else's words. The Pharisees were famous for their little creeds and rules. People really had heard these things before, probably ad nauseum. 

Interestingly enough, however, as so often happens, what they heard was not what was originally said. They heard, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But where does that even come from? Well, the first part comes from Leviticus 19. In the midst of God's instructions to the people of Israel was an admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself." Cool. Makes sense. But what about the rest of it?

See, the Pharisees had this nasty habit of "fixing" what they considered to be ambiguous instructions. For example, let's say God had told the people of Israel not to sit in a particular style of chair for longer than two hours. It's a good rule because any longer, and that style would screw up your back. But how to enforce something like that? Well, you tell people that that style of chair is evil, an abomination in God's eyes. Also, anyone who would own a chair like that is evil. So, we ban the chair. All because of an instruction designed to help people's posture. (Yeah, it's an extreme example, but it works.)

So, God told people to love their neighbors. Makes sense. People who live together should get along. But the opposite of love is hate. And if doing one thing is good, then following it to its natural conclusion is better, right? It's natural to have a beef with someone who is against you. Even David prayed for God to kill his enemies.

(You're about to tell me that David also smashed babies' heads against rocks. I'm fully aware. Do I completely understand it? No. But I understand some of it. Continue reading.)

The Israelites lived according to the law. The whole world lived according to the law. The law is black and white. Do this. Do not do that. And according to the law, God is perfect. Man is not. It is entirely within God's character to instruct Joshua to wipe out the people of Canaan. They had no interest in following the law, and God knew that if they were left alive, they would corrupt his chosen people. (And guess what happened.)

The problem comes when you realize that man cannot in any way, shape, or form keep the entire law. It's impossible. We saw it time and again with Israel. They'd toe the line for a little while and then BAM - back to pursuing the world.

And then Jesus comes along with his "you heard" statements. "Look, you tried it this way," he says. "It ain't working. So let's do it the way it should be and could have been if you'd listened from the start."

And the way it should be? Grace.

Here's the thing about enemies. They are people. They see the sun, feel the rain, they live in the same world as you and I. They are human. And humans were created in the image of God. God loves them. So why can't we?

I will tell you right now, it won't make one bit of difference to most of our enemies if we love them or not. They won't care that we're praying for them. In fact, that may make them hate us even more. It might even make your friends hate you. I got into a Facebook discussion about the refugee crisis last year, and I found myself making the statement that even if I got a grenade in exchange for bread, I still had to offer it. It was a shattering realization. I had to decide if I actually believed that.

Love your enemy. The most terrifying enemy I can think of right now is ISIS. If they ever came after me or my family, could I show them love? Could I pray for them, knowing that they killed a family member or raped a daughter?

I believe there are such things as righteous wars. I believe there are certain people who are so dangerous to others that they should be stopped at whatever personal cost.

But it can't be done out of hatred. And that's why the second part of that verse is key. We're to pray for those who persecute us.

Why? Do those people stop persecuting us if we start praying for them? Does God change his mind and rescue us from certain death? It probably won't make any difference to the people doing the persecuting whether we pray for them or not. And God doesn't change his mind. Whatever needs to happen will happen.

But prayer isn't for the benefit of others. I like the way C.S. Lewis put it: "I pray because I can’t help myself. I pray because I’m helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time- waking and sleeping. It doesn’t change God- it changes me."

We pray for those who persecute us because it helps us in turn to love them.

At the end of those verses, Jesus told us to be perfect. Another translation is to be holy. Complete sanctification. (There's a debate among Christians about whether or not it's possible to be completely sanctified in this life. Personally, I believe it is. Jesus told us to be holy by being like him, and if it wasn't possible, I don't think he would have said it. Do I think anyone has ever actually achieved this? No. But the point is to try.) Part of being perfect is reaching the point where, through Jesus Christ, we can love our enemies.


I'm still thinking on this one. Part of the point of this blog is to work out what I'm thinking by writing it down. I'm not saying it's completely theologically or doctrinally sound. But it's where my head is right now. I invite productive discourse. 

2016 Goal

I have at least one goal sort of figured out for this year:

Read 50 books (at least) that are in my apartment as of this moment that I either have not read or merely skimmed or haven't read in a long time. These can be fiction, non-fiction, short, long, whatever, as long as it's currently in my apartment.

I'll review the books on here, like I posted the photos four years ago. I need a name for this goal.

I'll let you ruminate on that.