October 2006

There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky... (Proverbs 30:18, 19)

Twice, today, I've looked on things too wonderful for me and I've been overwhelmed with God's beauty. First, looking at a maple tree sitting majestically in the sunshine and draped in all of its flaming Fall glory. It was set off more perfectly than usual by dark wet bark providing the perfect contrast to the tens of thousands of orange-red-green-yellow leaves. Maybe you wouldn't say the leaves were orange-red-green-yellow, but please remember I'm color blind. That's what they look like to me. Anyhow, we can agree that, whatever those colors should be called, they're stupendously unlike anything we see any other time of year.

Second, arriving home Taylor and I went outside and played fetch with Ben and Michal's dog, Congo, who's staying with us while they're in South Africa. Congo's a purebred Black Labrador Retriever and boy does he retrieve! Throw the tennis ball as far as you can and he's off. Like a sleek black rocket he streaks across the lawn and road, grabbing the ball in his teeth--often catching it midair after only one or two bounces. Then he's streaking again, this time back to deposit the ball at his master's feet. It's amazing and, in a very different way than the maple tree, Congo too is stupendously beautiful. Shiny black coat, furiously fast, unerring timing to grab the bounce, and a heart made to please his master. Oh, that my heart would do only one thing all the time--please my Master.

Tell me, how did God come up with such beauty? What treasure chest did He open when He made maple trees and Black Labs? What other things are in His treasure chest? If this is only nature's way here on earth, what kind of stupendous beauty will we see when we gaze upon Heaven, the Angels, and God Himself--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Let us worship the Lord!

...things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him. (1 Corinthians 2:9b)

Halloween approaches and once again the debate will rage: "To trick or treat or not to trick or treat; that is the question."

Being one of very many areas where Christians of good conscience differ, I trust I will not be a stumbling block to others by linking here and here to a couple posts I've made on this in the past.

The chief attraction of ideology as a way of thinking about the world is that, in the absence of religious belief, it answers man's need for a purpose that transcends the humdrum tasks and flux of day-to-day existence in a settled democratic society. In doing so, it reassures the individual of his personal significance even as he frets about his insignificance. Of course, in the process it obliterates the distinction between the inherent limitations and travails of human life, for which religion used to provide both an explanation and a consolation, and the genuinely political sphere. On the contrary, it recognizes no inherent limitations to human life at all, which is why it has a tendency, in the words of Alice, to grow furiouser and furiouser, even as some of its ostensible ends are met. As equality of the sexes comes about, therefore, so feminists grow shriller: for the disparity between what is expected of social and political change, and what it actually produces in the way of personal satisfaction, is laid all too bare. The increased shrillness is a sign of existential desperation.

-Daniels, Anthony. "Up from communism." The New Criterion 21 (May 2003): 34-35.

You shall rise up before the grayheaded and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:32)

He was an eighty-year-old Spanish American War veteran and I was a seven-year-old boy who loved the circus. He had a television set in his house and the Baylys didn't, so after dinner every Thursday evening I'd walk down the block to his home and knock on the back door. After a long wait, Mr. Fedders would come and let me in. Then we'd walk to his front room where, together, we would watch the circus and the first half of Sing Along With Mitch. It was the only television and the only pipe smoke of my entire childhood, there at Mr. Fedders' Thursday evenings. It didn't matter how much Mr. Fedders liked the circus nor how much I liked Mitch. The two of us--one seven and the other quite ancient--were friends.

Older adults were always a part of the Bayly family. Whether it was my older brother and sister, Joseph and Deborah, cutting grass and shoveling snow for elderly people in our neighborhood, my two younger brothers, David and Nathan, hitting up the elderly lady across the street for candy, or Dad and Mud caring for a woman in her eighties in our home until she died, old age pensioners (as the Brits call them) were our friends. If we all had to choose a favorite, I'm sure it would be Aunt Gail. She wasn't a blood relation but she was a part of our family. We all have warm (and a few not so warm) memories of Aunt Gail. Here are a couple of my own.

When I was in junior high school I would walk over to Aunt Gail's house after school one day a week and spend the late afternoon and evening with her, until it was time for me to go to church for our weekly Boys Brigade meeting. (Our home was eleven miles out of town, so this saved my parents some driving.) Often there were little odd jobs Aunt Gail would wonder aloud whether I'd mind doing for her. The one I detested was washing windows...

(Note: Heresy is nourished by lies. With feminism, the lies come fast and furious, often repeated by naive souls who aren't aware that what they've been told is not true. Many could be listed, but here's one particularly noxious example that should be a warning to all of us to check our primary sources before we accuse dead men of things that aren't true. Our friend, Bill Mouser, sent me a copy of a letter he'd written his daughter, Geneva. I asked if I could post his letter. It all started when Geneva was debating feminism in her dorm one night...))

Thank you for relating the debate you had last night with the religious feminist in your dorm who challenged you saying Aquinas taught that females are defective males. You also mentioned Patricia Gundry's online book, Woman Be Free, as one place where an egalitarian writer condemns Aquinas for holding this terrible opinion about women. This idea gets batted around a lot by religious feminists and you'll find Gundry making the accusation here. (Do a text search for 'Aquinas'.)

In his Summa, Aquinas explores whether or not the Christian faith is compatible with Aristotle, a pre-Christian Greek philosopher who was all the rage at this point in European history. Here's the section where Gundry charges him with holding this view.

A refutation of this charge is contained in Michael Nolan's article, "What Aquinas Never Said About Women," published in First Things in November 1998. Nolan demonstrates that Aquinas not only never said what Gundry claims, but that Aquinas expressly denies this view six times.

Gundry (and many others) have taken Aquinas out of context in an egregious way...