National Grudge

And thus, after 91 hours without power, National Grid finally restored our electrical service.

I'm pissed off. What if this had been a major storm? Assessments have already determined that the region had FAR more power outages in this storm then we did in the next most powerful storm on recent record. Why? Why is our infrastructure suddenly so much more fragile than it has ever been? Or is it merely incompetence?

I've heard story after story of people who, like myself, heard transformers blow up in the very opening minutes of the storm. How could that be? My entire family and I were on the porch enjoying the BREEZE when the one in our neighborhood blew out. Can I expect the next time we have a passing rain shower that the town sewers will overflow? We felt the distant tremors from that earthquake in Virginia. Why didn't our roads collapse into sink holes?

The fact there is some major stinkin' noobery going on down at the power company. You don't lose an enormous percentage of your power grid to a storm that was as mild as this one was without some serious asshattery being the cause.

Fenway or the Highway

It's a rare treat for me, but I was blessed to have been able to attend the Red Sox game last night while the team is still in the middle of a red hot streak. It was just this past Sunday night that the Sox destroyed the Milwaukee Brewers and I was really hoping to get in on some of that magic.

I was not disappointed. The Sox put up 10 runs in the 7th inning to crush the San Diego Padres in inter-league play by a score of 14 to 5.

Boston has been the epicenter of sports success in the last few years. All of our sports franchises have brought home the gold in the last seven years and if you go back to the beginning of the decade, it's been even more often than that. I'm not sure that many cities can boast a record of sports achievement that comes close to this.

I've loved Boston since I was old enough to venture out on my own. Whether it was me and Math Guy sprinting the Back Bay with mere minute to get to the fireworks down on the waterfront on New Year's Eve or driving hopelessly in circles in a vain attempt to get to the Museum of Science; whether I'm working downtown in the financial district or I'm picnicking with my family in the Public Gardens, Boston does it all for me. I have trouble figuring out why anyone would live anywhere else.

The tear the Sox are on right now may not last all season, but my hunch is they're going to plow deep into the playoffs leaving a swath of blown out teams in their wake. Here's hopin'!


.

Seemed Like the Thing to Do At the Time

So, this morning, my boss called me into his office. He explained that he had found tons of pornography on my computer, that they had records of me using the company telephone to conduct unethical, personal activity, and that numerous women had come forward to accuse me of sexual harassment and each had physical proof. He asked me to resign quietly rather than be thrown out on my butt. I did the only reasonable thing: I initially denied the accusations, then I pretended that what I had done was accidental, then I cried, apologised, and explained that nothing I had done had any bearing on my job so there was no reason for me to leave. In the end, he agreed with me and everything was okay.

Does this sound likely to you?

Me neither. So why does this dirt bag Wiener think that if the ordinary mere mortal in a shmuck job should be booted that he should be any different -- he who was elected to a position of privilege and national leadership?

Some people like to pretend that a person's "private life" has little or nothing to do with their ability to hold office effectively. I vehemently disagree, as did George Washington who, in his farewell address, made it clear that nothing was more important when selecting leaders than choosing those who were upright, moral, ethical, and honest in their private affairs. I can remember clearly being taught in Christian school that "character is who you are when no one is looking." Unfortunately, Mr. Wiener, pictures are made for looking.

Here are three reasons why Wiener must step down immediately or be sacked:

1. He has clearly demonstrated that his ability to make decisions is poor at best. Decision making is one of the chief duties of a leader. He is unquestionably a failure at making good decisions. If he can't figure out that pressing "Send" is a bad idea, then we shouldn't be trusting him with our money and our freedoms.



2. He cannot be trusted. If man would do this to his wife (of only a year, as I understand it), then how on earth can an entire country of strangers trust him? Not only did he do it, he lied about doing it.



3. He can no longer be taken seriously. The next time you see him stand up and start talking about healthcare, the economy, our country's relationship with Paraguay, what will be in the forefront of your mind? What will he forever be known for by everyone in this country and all other countries who might deal with him? Is this really the face you want representing you?

Heck, he's had his chance to step down. Just throw the bum out.

.

Death Sucks

From the Venting Department:

You might find this sort of a contradiction (and honestly, I'm not sure it isn't) but in spite of my earnest conviction that everything that happens is in the hand of God, that not a sparrow falls from the sky without His knowledge, the fact is, I find myself holding an animosity toward death that is almost unhealthy. (Only almost.) I could not overstate the extent I hate death.

It's the ultimate rip-off. Life is not supposed to be this way. Far from death being "a natural part of life" (that's a line of crap), I believe that death is completely unnatural. Death is wrong.

It's an unnatural, unintended, intrusion into what life was supposed to be. I despise it. I shake my fist and spit into its face. I hate death.

When people marry one another they marry "until death do us part." What the heck is that? That's the best we can hope for?! In other words, in a best case scenario 100 out of every 100 marriages will result in one of the two parties being dead, leaving the other to mourn alone in anguish until they too die.

I may not have any authority to criticize reality but if you ask me this freakin' sucks.

Life, the Universe, and Everything

As promised in my last installment, I am focusing this post on answering an important question, one posed (somewhat rhetorically) by author Rob Bell. The question has been asked countless times throughout human history by untold numbers of individuals.

The jailer of Acts 16 asked, "What must I do to be saved?"

The rich young ruler who approached Jesus in Luke 18, asked the specific question, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Later the on-lookers in Luke 18 asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Bell, concerned with the apparent exclusivity of Biblical salvation, forms his question as, "...how do you become one of the few?" I think we can agree that each of these questions is soliciting the same information, but for the sake allowing a broader scope for this discuss I'd like to define the question in a more generic sense:

What does the Bible say a person must do in order to be allowed into heaven after one's death?

Hopefully, this phrasing covers the range of meanings that these questions imply, while providing enough specificity for us to examine the question in a meaningful manner. Let this be The Question for which we are trying to discover the answer.

There are numerous passages in the Bible where people clearly ask The Question, but there are even more passages which answer the question. However, not every passage is intended to be a comprehensive answer and each answer must be understood in the context of the passage.

As a student of the Bible, I've sometimes felt it troublesome that it is not always plainly evident to the casual observer what the full answer to The Question is. To wit, some false doctrines have arisen as a result of groups selecting partial answers from certain passages and running off half-cocked with them. ("Repent and be baptised" in Acts 2, comes to mind.)

All Christians should be familiar with the "Romans Road"(1), the sequence of verses from Paul's Epistle to the church at Rome that together form a road map of the steps necessary to answer The Question. More recently, Bill Bright of the organization Campus Crusade for Christ, published his pamphlet called "The Four Spiritual Laws"(2) which also uses a collection of scripture verses to logically move the reader from one Biblical principle to the next in answering The Question.

Both of these tools -- and that is what they are, tools -- are logical collections of scripture that when taken together form a comprehensive amalgam of the Biblical answer to The Question. These are two of the better known and easily teachable tools; however, there are many others. An adept student of the Bible can take you to any number of passages in innumerable combinations to provide an answer to our Question.

Until recently, however, I felt a sort of dismay that I could not find a passage in the Bible that I thought really encapsulated everything involved in answering The Question. (Okay, all you Christians out there, hold your fire. I'm not saying that it's not there, all I'm saying is that I personally hadn't found a passage in which I personally felt everything that I personally needed to know about salvation was comprehensively contained.)

Until now.

I recently had an encounter with the Book of Jonah, chapter three. You might recall Jonah from his association with a certain whale. However, chapters one and two which recount his misadventures in the deep are really an unfortunate diversion from the real point of the book -- that being Jonah's commissioning to preach to the city of Ninevah and their subsequent conversion. Regrettably, Jonah, upon being given this assignment, decided to avoid such and instead pulls the reader along on an abortive trip to Joppa and into the intestinal track of a large sea creature. Ultimately, he regrets his disobedience to the Lord and is forthwith deposited unceremoniously on a beach.

This brings us to chapter three. Herein have I found a synopsis of the answer we seek like no other place in scripture. God speaks to Jonah a second time, "Arise and go to Nineveh and preach..." In response, verse three tells us, "So Jonah arose and went unto Nineveh according to the word of the Lord." (It's a rather profound sermon in itself to think what if Jonah 3:2 had instead been in the place of Jonah 1:3, isn't it?)

Then, in verse four, we come to the crux of the matter. Jonah begins to preach to the inhabitants of the city of Nineveh, the people hear his admonition, and they respond positively to what he has to say. In the following verses, I find the message of the gospel enumerated point by doctrinal point in what I believe is one of the most beautiful and well documented conversions in all of the Bible. I shall elucidate:

Jonah 3

• Preaching v4: Jonah preached God's message of judgment of sin. Clearly from the response of the people, his message was an effectual one. Roman 10:14-15 demonstrates the necessity of someone to carry the message to the lost.

• Hearing v6: The people heard the message and it was carried all the way up to the king of Nineveh himself. Romans 10:14 implies the importance of hearing the message.

• Believing/Faith v5: As a result of the message, the people believed God. This wasn't simply a tacit mental acceptance of the information provided, but a stirring faith that wrought a great change in them. Hebrews 11:6 declares that "without faith it is impossible to please Him..." Ephesians 2:8 tells us that we are "saved by grace through faith." Romans 10 repeatedly emphasizes the roll of faith in salvation (consider Rom 10:10 carefully). The faith of the Ninevites spurred them to action, demonstrating clearly the extent of their faith (James 2:17-18).

• Contrition/Regret v5-6: Psalm 34:18 says, "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." James 4:6 says that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. How can one learn of one's sin, believe the message, and not be sorry for one's sinfulness? To sit in ashes wearing sackcloth was a sign of intense grief. (Job did the same in the midst of his trials.) This demonstration by the king and people of Nineveh clearly shows their genuine and admission of guilt and led them to the next steps.

• Confession v8: Nineveh did not try to hide their guild. To the contrary, the king himself made no bones about proclaiming what they had done, openly voicing the facts of their "evil way" and the blood on their hands. Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." I John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Matthew 3:6 tells how John the Baptist baptised those who confessed their sins. (Note that baptism followed salvation rather than caused it.)

• Repentance v8: Thus far Ninevites have heard, believed, were ashamed, and confessed their sins. Now their faith took action in the form of Repentance, a crucial ingredient in salvation. Jesus Himself calls for people to repent (or perish) in Luke 13 not once but twice. In Matthew chapter 3, John the Baptist calls for people not only to repent, but to demonstrate in their actions their repentance. The king of Nineveh himself led this movement of repentence with his declaration to "turn every one from his evil way." Google says that the very definition of the word repent is "to turn away from sin."

Given the people's lack of knowing whether God would spare them, and particularly given the attitude Jonah strikes in chapter 4, I rather suspect that Jonah in his preaching left out the part that God loves them and "is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). But God did not bring the judgment upon the city that He had warned was coming.

In this very same way, the judgment that we all deserve (Romans 6:23) can be replaced with the surety of eternal life in heaven (John 14:1-6). Thus, a Biblical response to The Question: What does the Bible say a person must do in order to be allowed into heaven after one's death?


Do what Nineveh did.



(1)The Roman's Road: http://www.christianevangelism.net/tools/romansroad.html
(2)The Four Spiritual Laws: http://4laws.com/laws/english/flash/

Yea? Hath God Said?

Well since readership seems to have dropped off to just about nothing once again, I figured I'd do something a bit different here. I can't recall if I've tackled the subject of religion in any direct way in this blog, but today that's going to change.

I subscribe to a few different online news services. Each day, they send me a list of news headlines with links to the full articles. One of these alerted me to a controversy regarding a new book written by a man named Rob Bell. At the risk of providing publicity to Mr. Bell's book, Love Wins, I'll ask you, gentle reader, to view a 3 minute YouTube video promotion of his book. In this promo, Mr. Bell uses the subtle tactic of the Socratic Method to influence you to consider the reasonableness of his opinions.

Well, I seem to recall another rather "subtle" being who, a great many years ago, used this same tactic to instill doubt in the mind of his listener.

In response to this video, I am going to attempt to undertake a bit of conversation with Mr. Bell and provide answers to these questions that he asks you to consider.

Here is the link to the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2McL8g


Rob Bell: "Gandhi is in hell? He is? Someone knows this for sure?"

Gleno: That's an unanswerable question. It's also a very leading one. Bell would like us to think that since we cannot know the answer with certainty that the only reasonable position to assume is his position, which stresses the inclusive nature of God's love. God created us all, therefore God loves us all. God is good. Thus, how can we think that a loving God would send anyone to hell?

But, as a minister, Bell should know scripture better. Certainly Bell would maintain that only God knows the heart of a man. In this, he is correct. It is written, "Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men)." (I Kings 8:39)

Thus, we mere mortals cannot know for certain where Gandhi is. However, the Bible offers quite a bit more about what can be known.

Scripture is very clear on what it would take for Gandhi to get to heaven: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) According to this, if Gandhi chose to accept Christ as savior before his death, then he is invariably in heaven. It is in this offer of salvation through Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross that God's love "Wins".

My modest question to Mr. Bell is how likely is it that Gandhi, whose life was so firmly and famously founded upon Hinduism and its tenet of ahimsa (the avoidance of violence), decided in his later years to forsake Hinduism for Christianity? I can only hope it may be so.

Rob Bell: "Will only a select make it to heaven?"

Gleno: A rather unusual question from one who, by profession and training should know what the Bible says in answer to this. Is Mr. Bell being rhetorical or is this question planted to help me to make my point more easily?

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Acts 4:13-14

Rob Bell: "And if that's the case, how do you become one of the few?... How does one become one of the few?"

Gleno: What a great question, Rob; I thought you'd never ask! The Bible lays out everything one must do to gain entry into heaven. We need only look there to find out.

In Christian circles, there are a number of methods by which one answers this question for the earnest inquirer. (And, before I go on, let me be clear that each of these relies solely on the words of the Bible and each is in agreement with all the others.) Some Christians use what is known as "The Five Spiritual Laws" to share the plan of salvation. Others use that old standby "The Romans Road" to walk a person through the logical process of the salvation decision. Certainly, other Christians will share the salvation message with you with their own personal list of scripture references.

Talk with any number of Christians and you'll likely find that no two will use the same exact collection of scripture passages to explain to you how you can get to heaven.

They may call it by different names too: "conversion," "being born again," "the new birth," "getting saved," "accepting Christ as Lord." Whether you're "getting religion" or you're "seeing the light", the point is the same: namely, that you are doing what the Bible says you must do in order to enter into heaven when you die.

So, what's the plan, man?

Well, I think the answer is important enough that I'm going to devote my next post to this question entirely.


As you delve deeper into Rob Bell's own brand of religion, it becomes more obvious that Bell is merely rehashing "universalism"; that is, the belief that, in short, God loves everyone and therefore everyone will ultimately be saved. It's what has been called a "Love Gospel" and "Easybelievism." It's contemporary; warm and fuzzy; and it is utterly lacking in scriptural basis. It's a farcical notion that has been ripped to shreds by numerous theologians, and is it intuitively obvious to anyone who has made even a half-hearted attempt to understand the Bible that it is not what the Bible says.

According to Bell, there is no hell, and no matter what you believe in this life, you will ultimately end up in heaven. Sounds great.

So tell me again why Christ was crucified?


.

Words of the Wise

"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." -- Samuel Adams

But they aren't. So we can't.

.