0141 — Diary of a Believer (001)

I ordered DIARY OF A BELIEVER (by Sheila Gibson) about a week after I first heard about it on Al Maxey’s site.  He did a complimentary review of her book back in July of 2008.  He titled his review “A Quest to Break Free from Religious Mediocrity.”  After reading her book I think a better word than “mediocrity” might be “slavery.”

 

In posts to come I will comment on content from various chapters of her Diary, but this initial post will serve basically as an introduction to material that will be covered later.

 

Sheila is a real person.  She even answers email when you send it, once she rescues it from her SPAM folder!  But even before we traded a few emails I had the sense that the book was written by a “real” person, with real issues, as opposed to having been written by someone who wanted to make a little (a lot of?) money by publishing a book.  Much of that “realness” came from realizing that her story overlapped mine in several areas.  I discovered from her book that we were even at some of the same places, at the same times!  But more than that, I identify with her real frustration and hurt caused by real events in a church where we are called to love one another.

 

I was also impressed by what seems to be her motive in writing the book.  While she names specific names, events, and places, she does not come across at all as vindictive, or as seeking revenge or redress.  Rather the tone of the book is, “While there were horrible things that happened to me, I want to share them with you so that if your life is the same place mine was you can know that there is a way out and that you do not continue to live in fear!”  She documents how, through all of what she experienced, she found what she calls “Radical Love.”  (It is a commentary on our times that love which is full and unconditional must be called “radical” in order to distinguish it from “normal” love!)

 

From Maxey:  “Her name is Sheila G. Gibson, and she was raised within an extremely legalistic wing of the Churches of Christ, an experience that truly challenged her personal well-being repeatedly and on a great many levels. In some ways it is a love story, and in other ways almost a horror story. Yet, ultimately, it is the journal of a courageous young woman whose faith would not be shackled or shattered by the rigid religiosity of the sect within which she was raised. It is a tale of triumph.”

 

And from the back cover of the book:  “The Diary of a Believer is the story of one believer’s quest to break free from spiritual mediocrity in order to discover, know, and love the Lord described within the Holy Scriptures. It chronicles the journey that Sheila Gibson began as a young girl inside a common, traditional, Christian organization known as the Church of Christ. It explores the blueprints of religious patterns often used to seek Christ within that group of believers. It also reveals the disturbing lengths that some brethren will go to to protect those traditional formulas and doctrinal boundaries within the brotherhood.”

 

You can order a copy of the book from Amazon. (AmazonLink)

Posted in Freedom | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

0140 — The Franchise Agreement

It’s (Almost) Friday! The Franchise Agreement

[acknowledgements below]

The other day, we elders were chatting about the possibility of canceling Wednesday night services for part of the summer.  The volunteers in our children’s ministry are worn out, and the school year has gotten so long that the summer is filled with mission trips, VBS, and such. But it was just talk.

But word got out. Word always gets out. A retired elder grabbed me in the hall. He said he’d heard about our discussion. He had a look of sheer panic on his face.

“You know you can’t do that,” he said with the greatest of urgency.

“You mean politically? There’s nothing in the Bible on it, of course, and the church will support the decision, I’m sure,” I replied — naively as it now seems looking back on this fateful conversation.

“No, no,” he shook his head. “You forgot about the franchise agreement! How could you forget about the franchise??”

I assured him that I had no idea what he was talking about, and I thought sure he’d lost his mind. He was, after all, quite elderly.

It must have shown on my face, because he looked me straight in the eyes and said, “I’m not crazy!” He looked deeply embarrassed. “When I retired, I guess I forgot to give a copy  to the next guy. You see, in churches of Christ, the senior elder always keeps a copy of the secret franchise agreement. It has all the rules that you think ought to be in the Bible but aren’t.”

A few days later he drove to my house and handed me an ancient, dusty document, plainly labeled “Franchise Agreement.” And as old as it was, the lettering remained very clear.

The retired elder leaned close and whispered in my ear. “Now it will all make sense. All the gaps, and silences, and peculiarities — now you’ll understand.”

And now, you’ll understand.

cHURCH OF CHRIST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

Agreement made by and between the Holy Trinity, acting through its agents on earth, the editors of the sound periodicals, (”Franchisor” or “Franchisors,” as the usual rules for pluralization don’t really apply) and ___________ church of Christ (”church”).

WITNESSETH THAT

WHEREAS, Franchisors have made their will clear through the Holy Scriptures, such than anyone with common sense and an open heart may understand Franchisors’ commands contained therein; and

WHEREAS, it is nonetheless necessary to lay those commands out in terms that can be even more easily understood; and

WHEREAS, church desires to obtain a franchise so that its status as a sound and faithful congregation within the brotherhood of the saints is established and so that it will be listed in The Churches of Christ in the United States as such – and get all the mailings; and

WHEREAS, Franchisors are willing to grant such a franchise on very specific terms and will pull such franchise immediately if such terms are violated in any particular,

NOW, THEREFORE, the premises considered, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:

(1)              Terminology.

(a)              Capitalization. The church shall not capitalize “church” even when used as a proper noun, as ordinary rules of English do not apply to the Franchisor’s elect. Besides, the denominations capitalize “church,” which makes it wrong because they are going to hell.

(b)              Name: The church shall select a name based on a geographical location, either specifying the name of the town in which it is located or else the part of town in which it is located. It shall not be named after a saint, a major donor, a Christian virtue, or an ordinal number. Hence, “First church of Christ” or “Hope church of Christ” are strictly forbidden, as all churches of Christ mentioned in the New Testament bore a name such as “Ephesus Church of Christ” or “Central church of Christ” or “Eastside church of Christ.”

(c)              Sanctuary. The meeting area is the “auditorium,” as the denominations say “sanctuary” and they are going to hell. “Auditorium” is more appropriate as that is the term used for areas where entertainment occurs.[1]

(d)              Minister. Every member is a “minister,” but the ministers are more so because that’s what we pay them to do.

(e)              Brother/Sister. We don’t use “Mr.” or “Mrs.” because we are family. The members shall call each other “Brother” or “Sister,” as being on a first-name basis would be too familiar.

(f)               Denomination. The church of Christ franchisees do not constitute a “denomination” and shall never refer to themselves as such, as denominations are subsets of the one true church. When churches of Christ form subsets of the one true church, they may not refer to such subset as a “denomination,” as denominations do that, and that makes it wrong because they are going to hell. Rather, they shall deny that the other churches outside their subset are true churches, thus eliminating any and all risk of thinking of themselves as a denomination.

(2)              Location. The church building (the “church” is the people, not the bricks and mortar) shall not be located on Main Street or Church Street. Main Street is forbidden as the land is too expensive. Church Street is forbidden as that’s where the denominations are, and they are going to hell.

(3)              Building standards.

(a)              Kitchens/Fellowship halls. There shall be no kitchen or fellowship halls or anything that someone might even intentionally misconstrue as a kitchen, such as a communion preparation room with a sink. After all, the early church did not have kitchens in their church buildings, as they had no church buildings and met in homes instead.

(b)              Exceptions. However, in some communities, a fellowship hall may be built and owned by the church if not physically connected to the building. Some communities require the land on which the building is situated to be separately subdivided from the land on which the church building is built and that there be no roads connecting the two. For further guidance, contact the nearest agent of the Holy Trinity. Although they frequently disagree with each other, they all know the Franchisor’s will better than you.

(c)              Pews. All seating shall be in pews, arrayed in parallel lines, even though this means many within the church won’t be facing the preacher. This is not entertainment, so you don’t have to be able to see without getting a crick in your neck. Jesus suffered for you, and you shall suffer for Jesus.

(d)              Number of pews. You shall install far more pews than you need, as the Franchisor will surely give us increase if we show faith through buying too many pews. The church shall rope off the back pews until the Franchisor gives the increase. The members shall sit in the roped off areas anyway.

(e)              Padding. Pews shall not be padded. This is not an entertainment venue. Jesus didn’t have padding when he was hung on the cross. We are supposed to suffer with him at church.

(f)               Baptistry. The church building shall contain a baptistry, which shall include a heater. If the preacher is aware that someone intends to be baptized on Sunday, he shall turn the heater on the Saturday night before, as it takes many hours to heat up that much water. However, if he in unaware of any such plans, he should leave the baptistery water cold, as it’s expensive to heat the water. Should someone come forward to be baptized unexpectedly, they’ll be baptized in a bone-chilling grave of water. Fortunately, this is rarely a problem.

(4)              Décor.

(a)              There shall be no windows in the auditorium.

(b)              There may be a steeple provided it is of modest dimensions and has no cross. However, steeples are well known to be denominational, and the erection of such an icon may cause people to think of you as a denomination, and they are going to hell.

(c)              There may be no stained or colored glass. There shall be a Jordan River scene behind the baptistery. Stained glass and crosses are forbidden because they are used by the denominations, and the denominations are going to hell. Moreover, the early church didn’t have stained glass and crosses. They used the symbol for a fish. There shall be no fish symbols as they are Pentecostal. And insurance salesmen put them on the back of their cars, and you wouldn’t want anyone to think that you sell insurance.

(d)              Each church shall have two wooden placards behind the pulpit, one for today’s hymn numbers and one for last week’s attendance and contribution figures. The numbers shall be white on dark brown or black. If you run out of 7’s, you may use an upside down 2.

(e)              There shall be a tract rack in the foyer. It shall contain at least one stack of tracts urging the continued use of Jacobean English when praying to God. It shall contain another tract wondering why people no longer pray as they should. And it shall have three stacks of tracts explaining why we are Christians only but not the only Christians. And a series of tracts explaining why the denominations are all going to hell.

(5)              Services. There shall be three services per week, Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. It’s understood that the scriptures do not require the night services, but they’re still required.

(a)              Churches with fewer than the requisite minimum number of services shall lose their franchises.

(b)              Even though the evening services aren’t required, they shall not be canceled for Christmas, New Years, the Super Bowl, or bowl games, as the Franchisor uses these as tests of our faith, and we wouldn’t want the Franchisor to think we love football more than him.

(6)              Sermon. Each sermon shall be followed by an invitation, as this is the First Century pattern.

(7)              Music: All singing in the church building shall be a cappella. Instrumental accompaniment is allowed for weddings if prerecorded, as the Franchisor really only objects to the presence of instruments, except during the worship hour, when even recordings of the instrument are not allowed. And at any other time. Except weddings, as the elders have daughters.

(a)              Special music. Solos, quartets, and other special music are strictly forbidden as the Franchisor has told us to sing to “one another.” However, alto leads are quite permissible, as churches of Christ sing traditional music and do not resort to entertainment.

(b)              Entertaining. Music shall not be entertaining, as this is what the denominations do, and they are going to hell. Rather, song leading shall be at 30 beats per minute or less, to make certain that the music is devoid of entertainment value. Get your entertainment at home.

(c)              Instruments. The singing of worshipful songs at home or in the car shall not be accompanied by instrumental music, as it’s worship whether it occurs during the assembly or outside the assembly.

(d)              Exception. If the Freed Hardeman chorus passes through town, they may not sing apart from the congregation during the assembly, as this would be a choir, which is sinful form of worship used by the denominations, which are going to hell. However, they may sing after the closing prayer, as this is no longer worship but entertainment.

(8)              Communion. Communion shall be served weekly. By “weekly” we mean, of course, twice weekly.

(a)              The first serving shall be at the morning service.

(b)              The second serving shall be at the Sunday night service. The second time is only for those Providentially hindered, not that we believe the Franchisor actually hinders people from attending church as the Franchisor cannot tempt and He hasn’t done anything since the First Century. Those who are self-hindered and call it Providentially hindered shall be served with the entire congregation, meaning the faithful who come back, which shall be no more than 75% of the church; but those who’ve already been served shall not partake of it a second time, but as we are family, we will watch while those who were Providentially hindered are served, even though this is really uncomfortable for everyone. Taking communion twice in one day would be sin because it’s just not done that way.

(c)              “Bread” or “loaf” means unleavened bread, as this is what was served at Passover, and the first Lord’s Supper was a part of a Passover meal. “Fruit of the vine” means unfermented grape juice, as the Passover meal included multiple cups of wine, but the Franchisor didn’t mean for that to happen anymore, as the Old Covenant was hung on the cross.

(d)              Communion shall be served from a table at the front of the building by male members of the congregation in good standing. The men shall walk in a straight line and otherwise treat the occasion with the same sobriety as a funeral. Smiling is impermissible during communion. Women may not pass the elements, as this would require them to stand, and standing parts are solely for men, as serving a meal is inappropriate for women and might cause them to think they may speak.

(e)              Each offering shall be separated from the Lord’s Supper by the incantation “separate and apart from the Lord’s Supper.” This is because people might otherwise think that Jesus passed a collection plate at the original Lord’s Supper, but he did not, as the original Lord’s Supper was held on a Thursday night.

(f)               The Lord’s Supper shall never be taken on a Thursday night, as there is no Biblical example authorizing the same.

(g)              Each communion service shall be preceded by a brief talk. The talk shall include a statement that we are opposed to transubstantiation and consubstantiation, because if you don’t say so each week, someone will wonder if you’ve secretly converted to Catholicism or Lutheranism. Besides, any unbeliever in the crowd will surely be concerned to know our position on this issue.

(9)              Sermons: The preacher shall preach twice on Sunday and teach on Sunday morning and Wednesday night, because that’s what we’re paying him for. Sermons on baptism, the five steps of salvation, or divorce shall be on Sunday night. That’s just the way it is.

(10)          Contribution. The contribution shall be as each member is prospered, which shall be weekly. If a member is paid monthly, he is still prospered weekly, because it would look bad not to give a check every week.

(a)              Funds given to the church treasury shall only be used for matters under the jurisdiction of the elders or overseen by another eldership. Except for an orphanage or college.

(b)              Campus ministries shall be overseen by a board because ministries to students aren’t part of the jurisdiction of an eldership.

(c)              Campus ministries shall not be overseen by a board because ministries to students are part of the jurisdiction of an eldership.

(d)              Subparagraphs (b) and (c) are salvation issues, and a breach will trigger a loss of franchise.

(11)          Prayer. There shall be an opening prayer, a main prayer, a prayer before each element of the communion, and a closing prayer. In each prayer the church shall pray for forgiveness of sins and that their worship has been done decently and in order, with the understanding that the Franchisor is a patient, compassionate God who forgives. However, it is understood that the prayers of other franchised churches will not be heard so that they will lose their franchises should they make any mistake at all in their worship.

(a)              Posture for prayer. The Bible teaches that the Jews and early church sometimes prostrated themselves before the Franchisor or prayed looking into heaven with hands raised. Paul commands us to lift holy hands to the Franchisor. As these practices are Pentecostal, we will pray seated, with eyes closed and heads bowed. There shall be no variation.

(b)              Words to be used. Each main prayer shall include a request that the Franchisor “give the preacher a ready recollection.” Each closing prayer shall include a request that the Franchisors “guide, guard, and direct us.” Of course, we mean that the Franchisors shall do these things in a Providential manner, without any miracle or violation of the laws of nature, meaning that we’re actually just hoping that the preacher remembers on his own and that we get through the week on our own. We are blessed to let the Franchisor know our desires even if we don’t expect him to do anything about it.

(c)              Language. The Franchisor prefers 17th Century English to modern English. He/They shall be referred to as “Thee,” “Thou, etc. End verbs with “eth” when appropriate by the grammatical rules of Jacobean English. Otherwise, the Franchisor might not hear your prayers – or might even get angry at your lack of respect.

(12)          Clothing. It’s understood that we must give our best to the Franchisor and so we will dress in coats and ties and formalwear, but not too formal, even if we have better. The Franchisor has relaxed this rule on Sunday nights and even more so on Wednesdays, because the Franchisor is a loving Franchisor who keeps up with the times – except on Sunday morning when we worship exactly like the First Century church. Women may not wear pants on Sunday morning, but the Franchisor has relented on this rule for other services. Culottes remain a question requiring further guidance, as we often can’t really tell a dress from culottes.

(a)              Women are not required to wear a veil, hat, or other headcovering, except in some churches. This is not a fellowship issue, as it only involves worship, where the Franchisor tolerates some differences of opinion, but not always. For further guidance, check with the Franchisor’s agents on earth, who disagree with each other but have a direct pipeline to the Franchisor and so know the Franchisor’s will better than you do.

(b)              No sandals. After all, that doesn’t fit the First Century pattern. Even if they’re your best sandals. Except for women, who have greater rights than men when it comes to fashion.

(13)          Elders. The church shall have a plurality of elders. This is obvious from the fact that the scriptures always speak of elders in the plural. Therefore, if you have only one qualified man, you shall have no elders and shall instead by overseen by unqualified men.

(a)              In the absence of elders, the church shall be governed by the men’s business meeting, as this is plainly taught in the scriptures. Women are not allowed to have authority over men, and therefore may not even be present, as men are easily intimidated by their wives. If women were allowed to speak, men might find their arguments persuasive, which would undercut male spiritual leadership. Better to make bad decisions than to accept input.

(b)              Should a subject come up where the women have special knowledge or expertise, they should not be called, as this might appear weak. Rather, the men should make the best decision they can without talking to the women, as this is the essence of spiritual leadership. They can fix their mistakes at the next meeting after their wives straighten them out in private.

(c)              The elders are charged by scripture with protecting the flock from false doctrine. This is done by requiring the preacher to teach only sound and faithful teachings. The preacher, having been to preacher school, knows more about what is sound and faithful than the elders. Therefore, whatever the preacher preaches is okay.

(14)          Deacons. Deacons shall be appointed in all churches, or else the church will not be scripturally organized and it will lose its franchise.

(a)              Deacons need not have jobs and there is no job that only a deacon can do. Therefore, only men may be deacons, and they must be married and have multiple children, as only such men have the life experience essential to the job.

(b)              Even though the Bible does not tell us what deacons are to do, we shall insist that all programs be headed by a deacon, as that is required to be scripturally organized. However, a minister may head a program, so long as a token deacon is over him, even if the deacon has no experience or skills appropriate to the job.

(c)              Women may lead programs involving children, provided the programs aren’t listed as such in the church directory.

(15)          Membership. If someone converts a couple who has been unscripturally divorced and remarried, and they are baptized, the elders must either permit them to become members or not. Either way, the church will split. Therefore, such couples should not be converted or else should be encouraged to attend somewhere else.

(16)          Smoking. Smoking is a sin, as our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, of course, no longer lives in our bodies other than through the word of the Franchisor, but the principle still applies. Smoking between class and worship shall be outdoors on the side porch. An ashtray is provided for your convenience.

(17)          Priests. We believe in the priesthood of believers. Each member is empowered by the Franchisor to interpret scripture for himself. Those who interpret scripture differently from the elders shall be asked to leave. The elders shall interpret the scriptures as instructed by the preacher, as he’s been to preacher school. Even though anyone can understand the scriptures if they have common sense and an open heart, it really helps to have been to preacher school, as preachers learn things there we never would have figured out from just reading the Bible.

(18)          Preparing to worship. When the worshippers enter the auditorium, they shall sit quietly, as this indicates true reverence. Talking shall take place in a less sanctified location. Even though the auditorium is not holy, being a mere expedient, it can be made unholy by talking too loudly, eating, drinking, or otherwise indulging the flesh. However, these behaviors are permitted in the foyer, as the Franchisor doesn’t mind that.

(19)          Women. Women may not ask questions during the worship, which is public, as they should ask their husbands at home. They may, however, ask the preacher questions in the foyer afterwards.

(a)              They may also ask questions and make comments in class, as classes are private.

(b)              Women may teach men in private; however, they may not teach men in class, as classes are public.

(20)          Salvation. We are Christians only but not the only Christians. We should express how insulted we feel when people say we think we’re the only ones going to heaven. It’s not true, and the jokes based on that premise are definitely not funny. But the denominations are all going to hell. Because they aren’t churches of Christ. They even capitalize “Church.”

(a)              As salvation depends on how worship is conducted and how the church is organized, if this church violates any of these rules, the members must leave, even if it means taking communion alone at home and meeting in a building with a kitchen.

(b)              If this church fellowships another church that violates any of these rules, it will lose its franchise, and the members must leave.

(c)              If the preacher sits on a board with a man who is part of a church that violates any of these rules, or with a man who sits on another board with man who is part of a church that has lost its franchise, this church will lose its franchise. And all its members must leave.

(d)              If anyone missed three services in a row, after being twice warned, the church shall withdraw fellowship. He probably won’t care anyway, so send him a card advising him he is no longer on the roll. There’s no need to visit in person or call.

(21)          Silence. All silences in this contract shall be construed as prohibitions, except when the silence is regarding an aid or an expedient. But not when the aid or expedient is a separate act of worship. To determine what is and isn’t an “act of worship,” see the Franchisor’s agents on earth, latest issue. If they disagree on a point, remember that we are a priesthood of believers, all with the right to interpret the Franchisor’ will and that elders have no jurisdiction outside of their congregations to bind their will. But editors, as the Franchisor’s agents on earth, have no such limits and may condemn and damn as they see fit, as God’s agents on earth.

(22)          Meetings. There shall be an annual week-long “gospel meeting.” This is for the purpose of saving the lost. Therefore it’s critical that other franchise churches in town attend your meeting, even though they aren’t lost. This is called “supporting the meeting,” which will need support because the lost won’t be there.

(23)          Innovations. All innovations are wrong. All innovations requiring the expenditure of money are especially wrong, even requiring the church to split. Hence, the church shall divide over the introduction of fellowship halls, buses, support for missionaries through the church treasury, support for orphanages through the church treasury, etc. Certain innovations prior to 1950 are permissible, such as the Sunday school, multiple cups, sound systems, and the American Standard Version.

(24)          Translations. The King James Version shall be used in all public and private reading of Franchisor’s holy word. The American Standard Version, being more than a 100 years old, is acceptable if you can find a copy. All other versions are liberal, being written by the denominations, which are going to hell.

(25)          Identity. The church shall have a name found in scripture. Any of the many names for the church found in scripture are acceptable. If it’s “church of Christ.”

(a)              We are the continuation of the church of Christ founded at Pentecost with the first gospel sermon preached by Peter. We have continually existed ever since, and the denominations are all digressions from the one, true church of Christ founded on that day.

(b)              We are part of the Restoration Movement, so called because the great leaders of the 19th Century restored First Century Christianity. Even though it had never been lost and so didn’t really need restoring. Which is why we never talk about it.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals.


[1]WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University: “the area of a theater or concert hall where the audience sits.”

 

Posted: 12 Mar 2009 05:00 PM PDT by Jay Guin

Posted in Humor | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

0139 — Do you have DOGMA? (Part 2)

0139 – Do YOU have DOGMA? (Part 2)

Note:  Part 1 was posted 7/14/2009.  THIS part, Part 2, includes the first posting, for continuity, but then concludes the posting below, i.e., if you read the 7/14/2009 posting when it was published you may think the below is a duplicate, but only the first part below is a duplicate – the bottom part is new!

Well, do you?  Have DOGMA, that is?

What is dogma, anyway?  Is it bad or good?  Well, I suspect that the answer is:  It depends.

What is dogma?

Merriam-Webster thinks it is:

1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>

c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

(Oh, by the way:  I’m going somewhere with this.  The point of the post is not DOGMA; but the DOGMA discussion gets us where we can discuss the real point !)

I’ve normally associated the word “dogma” with definition 2 above, and that most often with respect to the Roman Catholic church, which has raised official church dogma to a very exalted position.  I’ve pointed that out to people before, and commented about how we need to be using only the inspired scriptures as our guide to Faith and Practice, and not teachings passed down by men, and subsequently deified.  Talk about trying to see around the beam in my own eye!

Continuing that analogy, I think I HAVE begun to see around that beam a little bit.  I wish I could say I’ve removed the beam, but I don’t know that I can say that yet.  I’ll wait awhile before claiming that.  I have begun to see dogma in my own life, particularly the “1.a” type from the dictionary definition.

When one has grown up hearing people state that “we believe such-and-such” because it’s in the Bible, one does not associate those statements with dogma.  Rather, they are the simple truth.  After all, if it’s “in the Bible” it can’t be dogma, right?

But what if it’s “in the Bible” only if the reader assumes certain “rules” for reading the Bible… for interpreting the Bible?  In other words, I may read the Bible and not see a particular teaching, only to have another person who uses his set of “rules” when he reads, and comes to the unambiguous (to him) decision that indeed the Bible DOES teach “such and such!”

One “rule” that I have been told is “in the Bible” is:  The Law of Silence.  Have you ever heard that one?  It goes like this:  “If the Bible doesn’t say anything about some practice, that means it is forbidden.”   And not to poke fun at anyone (it’s too serious to handle that way), but I have very close friends who, as near as I can tell, believe that rule (The Law of Silence) was written in the Foreward to the Bible, by Inspiration!  I have come to believe that this “Law” is not a law at all.  So I am immediately suspect by those who DO believe it is a Law.  Do they ask WHY I don’t believe in this rule/law?  No.  They’re not too interested in understanding the Bible study that brought me to this point.  (In a nutshell, in case you are wondering:  Jesus did several things while walking the earth that were not “authorized” by the Bible, i.e., the Bible was silent on various religious practices, but He practiced them.  And we are told He did no sin.  My conclusion:  there is no such law as The Law of Silence.  Usually we don’t even get that far in the discussion though because they have concluded that I do not observe the right DOGMA.  [They would never state it in those terms, of course!])

What began as “type 1a” dogma has progressed to the “type 2” dogma, but when I look at [some of] it now, what I see is “type 1c” dogma.

OK, so I’m belaboring the point.  Let’s move on.

I’m working around to introducing you to a document that I just became aware of a couple of weeks ago.  I simply haven’t had the time to read it all yet, but I’m impressed with what I’ve read so far.

The author has clearly dealt with “dogma” in the churches he grew up in.  He writes,

“In practice, we have a tendency to question not just the credentials, but even the moral character of anyone who would write on the wrong side of our topics (where wrong means the opposite view to one’s own).”

That is clearly the result I observe personally, too.  In fact, a group of men whom I should be able to confide in at church, to discuss theological issues with, to share my struggles and studies with, have told me, “Don’t send us any more of those emails which express ideas that don’t hew to the party line of the church!”

Now I have to be honest and say that “hew to the party line of the church” was not a direct quote.  That is what I translated their words to in my mind, however, when I heard them.  What they actually meant was, “Don’t share material with us unless the ideas expressed are all Biblical.”  And by that, similar to the quote I shared above from the yet-to-be-revealed “document,” they meant, “Don’t send us material to read that we might not agree with,” because, of course, if they didn’t agree with it it would mean it was not in the Bible, which meant it was heretical.  Really.  (Don’t raise your eyebrows at me; I know some of you have “been there” too.)

I often despair of ever being able to reach Christians who are so closed to the Truth, who have neither the desire nor the willingness nor the patience to listen to the “why” if they have pre-judged the “what” to be wrong.  Such brothers and sisters are content in their “I’m right and you’re wrong”ness.

One of the big issues of course is that we (well, not me personally, ‘cause I’m into grandchildren now) train our children to have the same closed-mindedness.  And I guess, since I’m trying to be honest, that I did my share of that too – but I’m trying to make it up to them now!  Along those lines consider this second quote from the document’s author:

“Students don’t reach conclusions like this on their own; our churches train them. I had to take into account the role of views like <XYZ> in the exodus of the students from our churches. Right now, you may think that whatever I believe about <XYZ> is wrong, but we must ask why our sons and daughters are most likely to leave our churches.

“I’ll mention one other student who brought me a booklet opposed to <XYZ>, written by his new preacher. I took the first argument and showed the student how it was flawed. To my surprise, he shared my study with his preacher. To my greater surprise, the preacher said it looked like he couldn’t use that argument any more. I wondered if there was hope.”

Wow!  Wasn’t that great!  He found a person (preacher in this case) who WAS willing to actually listen and study, and re-evaluate his thinking.  My personal prayer is that the Lord would give us all hearts similar to that of this preacher who was willing to use his mind to study the Word, instead of limiting himself to simply repeating what he has heard others say for 50 years.

So what’s the big secret about “the Document?”  The document’s author, Danny Corbitt, has put together his thoughts on a non-issue to most of the religious world, but an issue that is, perhaps more frequently than any other, used as a “litmus test” by Churches of Christ.  That issue is, “Is it permissible to sing praise accompanied by instruments?”

It is interesting to note that this book was self-published.  (It is also available to view (or download) as a PDF document here or from Amazon here.)  There were no brotherhood publishers willing to publish it.  One of his footnotes reads as follows:

“One publisher would not read my manuscript because ‘church politics would never allow me to print it.’  A former publisher explained that it would be ‘commercial suicide’ for anyone in the restoration movement to publish my work.”

The title of his book is:  Missing More than Music – When Disputable Matters Eclipse Worship and Unity.

So why am I recommending you spend some time with this book?  Well, for one, the spirit the author displays is wonderful.  He does not lambast, he does not denigrate, he does not lampoon – he teaches.  Secondly, I’ve not seen more information on this topic, or more depth of study, in any other single source.  Whether you agree with his conclusion or not, you will be enriched by becoming aware of the information he has collected all in one place for your consideration.

While I was considering the material in Missing More than Music I also ran across another interesting word study document:  Documents on Instrumental Music.  Note:  Charles Dailey has made copies of this book available on his site at these links:

Documents on Instrumental Music. Requires Acrobat Reader.
Chapter 1       Chapter 2       Chapter 3
Chapter 4       Chapter 5       Chapter 6
Conclusion    Appendices    Bibliography

Tom Burgess authored this intriguing document.  Basically, it is an entire book on the meaning of the Greek word translated “sing” in Eph 5:19, where we are told to “sing and make music in your heart to the Lord.”  As  you may be aware, those who believe that using instruments to accompany praise to God is sin do so because they believe that the Greek word for “sing” in New Testament times meant exclusively “to sing without musical accompaniment.”  Burgess goes to great lengths to prove the opposite, i.e., that the word was commonly used to include the idea of musical accompaniment.  It makes for fascinating reading.  He includes photocopies of correspondence he entered into with

  • The publishers of the Interlinear Literal Translation of the New Testament
  • Researchers for the Merriam Webster Dictionary
  • Researches with the Thorndike-Barnhardt Dictionary
  • Etymology researchers with
    • The World Publishing Company
    • Funk and Wagnall’s
    • Random House
    • Etc., etc.

After he documents all this correspondence (in Chapter One), the author states:

“A concise summary of evidence needs to be made here also.  This will distinctly indicate that our English dictionaries observed no revolutionary change in “psallo” or “psalmos” just prior to, or during, the New Testament period, as is asserted by those who oppose instrumental music.”

He summarizes from each source he contacted, but typical is this one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionaries company:

“ There is no evidence that pagan Greeks ever used the word for a vocal composition.”  (Note:  Most pagan Greeks spoke Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written.  <…> the New Testament is written in the spoken Greek of daily life, which can be proved from inscriptions to have differed but little, as found in nearly every corner of the Roman Empire of the first century.”

Chapter Two discusses Greek lexicons, Chapter Three “Commentators, Encyclopedists, and Grammarians,” Chapter Four’s content is from Greek professors, etc., etc.  You get the idea.

But back to MISSING MORE THAN MUSIC.  The author builds his book around discussions of what he terms the “Five Disputable Matters,” which he says are

  1. God commanded the early church to chant
  2. Texts on “worship” only apply to Christian assemblies
  3. The New Testament is silent on singing praise with any accompaniment
  4. The New Testament is silent on singing or listening to solos
  5. God desires division when we disagree over praise

Spread around those 5 “disputable matters” are 15 chapters.  Chapter 4 is “Why do scholars disagree?”  A short excerpt will perhaps help you see the writing (and thinking!) style of the author, as well as illustrate the content of the book:

An example comes from Milo Hadwin as he argues for a cappella singing only. He observes that before the first century, Jews and pagans had used instruments when praising God, but that the early church praised God a cappella. From this he concludes,

Nothing less than a command of God would have been sufficient to account for such a radical reversal in belief and practice.

Notice that his reasoning runs backwards from what one would expect. Hadwin doesn’t say that the scriptures teach exclusively a cappella singing, and therefore that explains why the early church chanted. He rather asserts that only a command of God could explain the chant of the early church, so that’s what the New Testament passages must teach. He finds a way for those passages to teach a cappella only, because he believes that nothing less could explain the early church chant. The scriptures don’t form his conclusion; they conform to it. The presumption that the early church believed God commanded chanting is the underlying premise that directs how he interprets scripture. His premise will help us understand arguments that he makes when we consider them later in this book.

<…>

Sometimes people frame this argument by saying, “I just think there is something that those first Christians understood about our singing passages that we don’t understand.” The thought is that as Paul traveled about, he made something clear to the early church that he never wrote down so clearly in scripture. It says that we need to deduce what Paul might have told them and then interpret the Bible to match our conclusions. It is not the style of argument you come to expect from the Churches of Christ. We would never agree to let that line of reasoning filter scripture on any other matter of faith. At its heart, it implies that the Bible is incomplete. Trying to make sense of the early church chant, we re-evaluate the scriptures. Hardly realizing we are governed by a premise — much less researching whether or not that premise is true — we work to align the scriptures with this suspicion that God —somehow — commanded the first Christians to sing a cappella only.

So… read his book.  Examine his reasoning.  And decide for yourself.  But decide based on facts… not DOGMA.

In Christ,

Mark

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

0138 — Do YOU have DOGMA?

Well, do you?  Have DOGMA, that is?

What is dogma, anyway?  Is it bad or good?  Well, I suspect that the answer is:  It depends.

What is dogma?

Merriam-Webster thinks it is:

1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
   b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
   c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

(Oh, by the way:  I’m going somewhere with this.  The point of the post is not DOGMA; but the DOGMA discussion gets us where we can discuss the real point !)

 

NOTE:  As this posting, #0138, was only a partial posting, now that it has been completed it has been moved to #0139, so folks won’t inadvertently be wondering, “Where is the rest of this post?”  So, just CLICK HERE and move right on over to #0139!

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , | 2 Comments

0137 — “Antithetical Thinking?” What’s that?

CENI: Antithetical Thinking

Posted: 04 May 2009 05:00 AM PDT by Jay Guin

 

We humans have a natural tendency to overreact to emotionally traumatic events. We tend toward avoidance behaviors, that is, if one dog bites us, we stay 100 feet away from the next dog we see.

And this affects our theology. We like to think that we’re rational, scientific, unbiased, scholarly people — and sometimes we are — but we are also often deeply emotional and influenced far more by our feelings than we wish to admit.

When the Restoration Movement was caught up in disputes over instrumental music and missionary societies after the Civil War, both sides turned to the scriptures to find arguments for their side and against the other. For a time, both sides treated the other as fellow Christians, although in error. But as churches were split and suits filed over the ownership of buildings, many leaders began to press CENI as not only the proper means of finding authority but the way of finding salvation.

Soon many were damning the opposite side over issues only a few years after the same people considered the same issues not to govern salvation. You see, as our emotions rose, we raised the stakes. Making our positions salvation issues was a last, desperate attempt to force agreement. It failed. It always will. It was, you see, avoidance behavior — attempting to make the unpleasantness of the controversy as far removed as possible.

Reading the literature of the period, you won’t find rational, scientific, unbiased, scholarly arguments for why these errors damn. Rather, it was simply assumed that errors damn. Or it was assumed that the other side was acting in willful disregard for God’s will, and thus was surely damned. Good faith could not be credited to the opponent, because the opponent was dividing the church and taking buildings from good, loyal, sound Christians.

Now, it’s important to realize just how deeply this thinking affected us. In the aftermath of the 2006 reunification efforts with the Christian Churches, conservative Church of Christ members wrote articles condemning the instrumental Christian Churches for dividing congregations and stealing buildings — as though we were still fighting with the same people! It was a remarkable demonstration of how these traumatic events have affected our group psychology. But, of course, the people who did this — right or wrong, saved or damned — are long dead. And yet some wish to go on holding the grudge. It’s truly astonishing.

Here’s the point. Doctrine that is forged in the midst of an internal fight is almost always wrong. When we are pulling out our Bibles trying to damn our opponents with some clever argument, well, that’s hardly the mindset that leads to truth. We quite naturally tend to overreact, to push too hard, and to overlook the arguments that go the other way.

Worse yet, when we divide our branch of the Restoration Movement based on our battle-forged arguments, we feel obliged to defend that decision against all dissent. Indeed, I still sometimes see people argue: of course, we’re right about instrumental music! If we weren’t right, we never would have split from the Christian Churches! — as though the decisions made by our great, great grandparents are wise and good beyond all dispute.

We see the marks of this thinking in our doctrine of apostasy. Ask most preachers in the conservative Churches of Christ what doctrines lead to apostasy, and you’ll quickly see a list made up largely of instrumental music, missionary societies, institutionalism (often combined with missionary societies), and false teaching on the present work of the Holy Spirit. These, of course, reflect the best-remembered splits — over instrumental music and missionary societies in 1906, over institutionalism in the 1950s, and over Pentecostalism in the 1970s.

More recently, the role of women has become a genuine issue in the Churches of Christ. Therefore, the issue has been elevated to “salvation issue” status. 100 years ago, David Lipscomb allowed women to teach men in Bible class and many of our leaders spoke in favor of female deacons without being damned. But very few churches actually followed this counsel. Now that churches are beginning to actually do this, the issue raises fear and so becomes a matter of apostasy.

Ask a preachers in the one-cup branch or no-Sunday school branch, and he’ll list those controversies as damning issues. They remember those fights, although many in the “mainstream” churches do not — or more precisely, we in the mainstream no longer fear disagreement over those issues, whereas the conservative churches very much fear “false teaching” over their pet issues. And so whatever issue remains controversial within our branch of the Restoration Movement is declared a salvation issue.

And, of course, each of these issues tends to be argued along the lines of CENI. That is the hermeneutic — so much so that CENI is reshaped and redefined as needed to fit the needs of the controversy.

Unfortunately, for reasons I’ll explain, it’s a severely incomplete hermeneutic, and therefore incapable of bringing agreement. Indeed, while the early years of the Restoration Movement were characterized by dramatic unification of churches across the American frontier, as CENI became the dominant approach to scripture, the Movement fractured over and over — and is finally about to fracture over that very doctrine, as many within the more progressive congregations have rejected CENI (as applied by the conservatives) altogether.

To our conservative brothers, this sounds like utter nonsense, as we quite obviously must respect the scriptures’ commands and examples and properly drawn inferences. But it’s not that simple, as I’ll try to explain as we go forward.

Stick with me. I’m getting there.

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

0136 — Where’s the verse for CENI?

CENI: Introduction

Posted: 02 May 2009 05:01 AM PDT by Jay Guin

 

I’ve been planning to say something on CENI hermeneutics for years. Now I finally get to it.

For those not familiar with the term, “CENI” is the internet abbreviation for Command, Example, and Necessary Inference. And CENI is the foundation of 20th Century Church of Christ hermeneutics.

A fuller expression of the slogan is Direct Command, Binding (or Approved) Example, and Necessary Inference.

Let me try to explain what’s going on. You see, CENI makes no sense unless you also teach the Regulative Principle. This principle goes back to John Calvin and his efforts to purify the church from the accretions of Medieval Catholicism. Calvin taught that, in worship, anything that isn’t authorized in the scriptures is not allowed. In other words, silence is a prohibition. This was supported by various passages that express God’s concern for how he is worshiped, such as the story of Nadab and Abihu.

Over time, those who followed in Calvin’s footsteps further developed the argument, but for centuries, the argument was limited to worship, as is evidenced by the fact many Calvinistic denominations developed denominational heirarchies and other organizations structures not found in scripture. Even the Puritans, who taught congregational autonomy, limited the Regulative Principle to worship. (Here’s a really interesting article on the Puritan version of the Regulative Principle. Someone could earn a masters — at least — comparing the Church of Christ version with the Puritan version.)

Now, it’s important to realize that the Restoration Movement grew out of Calvinism — as a rejection of many of the then current practices of the Calvinist denominations. But Barton W. Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell were originally Presbyterians. Although they rejected TULIP atonement theology, they remained affected by their heritage, Indeed, Thomas Campbell referred to himself as a Calvinist as late as 1820.

It’s perhaps more significant that vast numbers of the Movement’s members were recruited from among Calvinist denominations, especially Baptists (back then most Baptists were TULIP Calvinists, while most Baptists today are not). Therefore, we are hardly surprised the find the Regulative Principle being taught by the early Restoration preachers.

Now, if matters on which the Bible is silent are banned from worship, some rule must be given for how to know what is and isn’t a silence. Early on, the Campbells found authority in commands and examples, but soon enough, Alexander Campbell was forced to conclude that authority would also be found in necessary inference, even though inference involves the application of human wisdom and hence is less assured than the word of God itself.

Thus, when the question arose as to whether a congregation may buy a meetinghouse in which to worship, there is neither command nor example, but it was easy enough to infer the necessity of acquiring a space large enough to assemble in.

Now, notice that the original purpose of CENI was to establish authority for worship, not to define who is and isn’t saved. Indeed, the Campbells were quite clear that no one should be denied membership on a question of inference. CENI was not about salvation; just worship.

Early in the history of the Movement, CENI was expanded to include all of Christianity. As so often happens, we create doctrine to deal with problems that confront the church. Thus, as churches began to use organs in their worship, the Regulative Principle was called upon to prove the practice unscriptural. When disputes arose over the formation of extra-congregational organizations, such as missionary societies, the Regulative Principle was expanded to include church organizations. Over time, the Regulative Principle has been expanded by some to areas only tangentially mentioned by scripture (if at all), such as the structure of Bible classes and the propriety of supporting orphans homes.

There remains no memory that the principle was once limited to worship. In fact, the proofs adduced for the Regulative Principle are now so broad as to include anything that the scriptures address. Thus, if the scriptures mention one way of taking communion, supporting orphans, congregational singing, supporting missionaries, or raising money, that creates an example or command, and the mention thereby excludes all other possibilities.

However, if there is no CENI for a given practice, the matter is left to human wisdom as a matter of expedience. Not surprisingly, opinions have differed as to when and how to apply the principle, and yet many within the Churches continue to insist that any violation of CENI damns. Indeed, recently, Dub McClish has declared apostate those churches in which the elders have stood for re-affirmation, agreeing to resign if the members don’t periodically affirm them. After all, there is no CENI for elder re-affirmation. And those who fellowship the apostates are, of course, also apostate. And on it goes.

Interestingly, McClish has declared Dave Miller apostate over this issue, and Dave Miller is the author of A Plea to Reconsider, damning the Richland Hills congregation for adding an instrumental service, which I considered in the following series of posts:

Introduction
Must We Have Authority?
Must We Have Authority? Further Thoughts
What’s Not Religious?
A Return to Creeds?
Abusing Restoration Movement History
On How Hard Humility Is: The Conclusion of It All

CENI has proven ineffective at bringing unity. Even the most conservative among us are now dividing from and damning each other over the most picayune issues. And this is hardly new or unexpected. It’s the natural consequence of a seriously flawed doctrine.

I’ll try to explain the flaws in the theory in future posts.

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

0135 — “Make Disciples” Notes

The notes for the class mentioned in ISI #134, and an Excellent 8-minute video excerpt titled “No More Samaritans,” can be found at 20s30s Class Notes. (Click on the 090621 link on that page.)

I only got through maybe the first half of the notes (the PDF document at the above link), but the information was very well received.

On a lighter note: Can you believe I actually thought that on this Port Aransas vacation trip I would be able to create several blog entries? Hah! Keeping a 5-year-old consumes about 97% of the available resources of one pair of grandparents, we (re)discovered. It’s been a blast, but I had been a little delusional when I anticipated spending time on the IronSharpensIron blog it seems.

Blessings in Christ,
Mark

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

0134 — “GO!”, or “As you go…” ?

I have been tasked (that word sounds onerous, but in this case it is not; in fact, it is a blessing!) to teach the 20s/30s class Sunday morning.  In 35 minutes or less (assuming our starting activities, including prayer, take less than 10 minutes!) I am to explain how to “take Christianity to the current culture.”

I guess my first note would be:  Wouldn’t you rather take CHRIST to the culture, than take “Christianity” to the culture?  We get into semantics at that point, don’t we?  if “Christianity” means “the practice of following Christ,” then I don’t mind taking Christianity… but if it means “~religion” then I’m not too keen on it.  But I digress.

I thought I would start by mentioning how different (HOPEFULLY!) we are from most folks in today’s “culture.”  Maybe talk about the previews and advertisements that are shown in movie theaters today.  (Do YOU get all of them?  Some of them cause my wife and me to look at each other and say, “What was that about?”)

Then a quick jump to Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission:

From the venerable KJV:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

I don’t know Greek. There, I’ve said it. But… I do have access to a lot of Greek scholarship, and I’ll pit my Greek scholars against your Greek scholars any day!

And myGreek scholars seem to be saying that we’ve “missed” the point of the Great Commission for some time. I grew up understaning that the main imperative of that verse was

GO,
but I’m learning from which verbs are imperative, which are participles, and other fascinating things like that, that the actual command in the verse is

MAKE DISCIPLES!
The other verbs (go, baptize, teach) all modify the MAKE DISCIPLES command.

Interesting, huh?

Let’s not get sidetracked on whether GO is the “imperative” or not. I’ll go so far as to agree that “GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES” may be the imperative here. But the relevant point, for the upcoming class, is that we should do a particular thing BEFORE we BAPTIZE. What must be done first? MAKE DISCIPLES!

Have you made a disciple lately? How does one go about doing that? Especially if you grew up “in the church” and you want to disciple someone who is not sure “about this Jesus thing.” ??

That’s not rhetorical! If you know, let us know! Especially me, because I need to find out before Sunday morning!

But I suspect it involves something other than knocking on someone’s door you have never met and asking them if they are saved or not, and would they like to be.

What do you think?

–Mark

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

0133 — Christian Oxen

Well, I’m sitting here at the airport, trying to get to New Orleans but the DFW weather is not cooperating!  Heavy thunderstorms there, so my flight to DFW is on hold, waiting for the DFW airport to be opened.  <sigh>  But, I had a thought to share with you, and have time to share it, so here it is.

My siblings and I were all helping my mother move into her new house over the weekend, and my sister and I happened to be at different churches Sunday morning.  She heard a thought expressed in the sermon she heard (I haven’t heard it yet; I need to go download it and listen.  Once I get it I’ll post the link for you.) that impacted her.  It may lose a little in the translation, from the preacher, to her, to me, to you, but it was along these lines:

One of the good features of domestic oxen is that they are docile.  This has been bred into them.  Were they not docile, a single person would never be able to put a yoke on them, to bind them to his service.  Some Christians are like that.  They are docile.  They willingly accept a yoke fashioned from strong-willed individuals’ personal convictions.  These individuals bind rules on Christians that can not be found in the Word.  BUT SOME CHRISTIANS ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE BOUND!

I don’t know where the sermon went from there, but I have to wonder about myself (I’ll leave your situation to you to wonder about):  Am I docile?  Do I willingly accept being bound by those who believe it is their right to bind others?  I think I have been this way in the past.  But I also believe God is leading me out of that mentality.  I’m really glad, because I don’t want to be an ox.  I’d rather be a warrior.  May the Lord forgive my timidity in His service, and grant boldness in its place.   And may He do the same for you!

–Mark

Posted in Freedom | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

0132 — Whither Mark?

Well, probably no one has noticed, but it has been over a week since I’ve posted anything here on IronSharpensIron.  But what a week it was!

The week was “set up” actually two weekends ago, when my sweet wife leaned over my shoulder, and invitingly whispered into my ear, “Mark, that computer is just so slowwww.. you really need to get another one!”  I thought she was just trying to get on my good side [sometimes she doesn’t remember that she is ALWAYS on my good side, no matter what!] and so kept working on what I was working on.  But then a little later she said, “You know, I really mean it.  And isn’t ‘You need to get a new computer’ on the Top Ten list of what you would like your wife to tell you?”

Wow.  I decided she was serious.  So of course I went out and followed instruction like any devoted husband.  Those of  you who know me very well know already that I don’t “buy a computer;” I buy components.  So, for the techies out there who really care, I got an Intel dual core 3.16 GHz CPU, plugged it into a new shiny ASUS motherboard with 4 GB of RAM (I’m staying with 16-bit computing for awhile, so there wasn’t much point in getting more than 4 GB right now), got two 1 TB whiz-bang disks to replace my two smallest disks, a pair of 250 GB Western Digitals, to bring my spinning disk total capacity to 3.6 TB.  I hasten to add that I don’t actually USE all that, sort of — half is for active storage, and the other half is for cloning the first half occasionally, for disaster recovery purposes.

What in the world does any of that have to do with not posting on my ISI blog?  Just this:  If you’ve ever put together those sorts of components, and forced them to play nicely together, you have a clue how much time it takes.  And on top of that, once that is achieved, THEN one has to reinstall tons and tons (well, pounds anyway) of software, and I’m still only perhaps one-third done with all that.

I’ll get it done eventually.  Then you’ll see more regular postings.  Promise!

Go with God.

–Mark

Posted in Personal | Tagged | 2 Comments