Today is Miley Cyrus's Birthday
My 7yo Daughter: Daddy, did you know that today is Miley Cyrus's birthday?
Me: No, I sure didn't.
My 7yo Daughter: Well, as a pastor, you should.
I'm not quite sure what this site is about. If you figure it out, let me know.
I am a husband, a dad, a worship leader, a Cub Scout leader, and a blogger. I write IsaiahSix.org and FamilyWorshipGuide.net. I also offer website design and customization services.
Is It That Time Already?
Came home from the office and this was on our front porch. And boxes of decorations were out in our dining room. Just a wee bit early, dear.
Comments [0]
We Got Turkeys!
Charleston has its turtles. Aiken has its horses. Edgefield? Edgefield has its turkeys.
Comments [0]
God or Angels?
When I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the late 1990s, I took an Old Testament class from Dr. Boo Heflin. I loved the way he taught the class. He was always so passionate and his lectures were filled with inspiring knowledge.
One of the passages I distinctly remember studying was Psalm 8. Verse 5 of that psalm states,
"Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor." (Psalm 8:5 ESV, bold added)
Dr. Heflin argued that "heavenly beings" referred to God Himself, or, more specifically, the Trinity. Because man is God's ultimate creation, it's impossible for man to be placed lower than the angels in the order of creation, he argued. Of course, he used the original text to back up his interpretation, but I have since lost those notes. I always resonated with that interpretation, but now that I am studying the passage in depth on my own, I am finding little support for such an argument. In fact, the passage is quoted in Hebrews and there the author uses the word "angels." I'm certain Dr. Heflin would have addressed that discrepancy; I just don't have an recollection how he did that.
So, for those of you who are Bible scholars, how do you interpret Psalm 8:5?
Comments [1]
Willfully Disobeying SEC Rules
The SEC has said I can't post this picture. It's such a ridiculous rule, I'm willfully disobeying it. So there, SEC. You can't ban social media just to keep your old paradigms in place. Welcome to 2009.
Comments [1]
Melted Into Liquid?
We had a scare at my house this morning. A squirrel chewed through the neutral line on the power pole outside the house and that meant that the full voltage of the electrical lines was rushing into our house. Appliances were popping and smoking, lights were flickering, and there's still a stench in the air.
The DIRECTV box in our bedroom seemed to take the brunt of the heat. This is a picture of something that was apparently burned so badly it melted into liquid and leaked onto our DVD player. Unless there are some liquid-like components in a converter box, I'm not sure what else this could be.
The good news is that my wife was home at the time. Had she not been, or had this occurred at night, it is very likely that the house would have caught on fire.
Thank you, Lord, for protecting us!
Comments [2]
Are You a Church or a Club?
The folks at 9Marks posted this on their Facebook page and I wanted to post it here because it's a good word to the Church in times of financial struggles.
Filed under //
church
Comments [0]
My Thoughts Exactly on the Mark Sanford Ordeal
Before "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" became background music at every groveling Sanford press conference and speech, we had a governor who did his best to stand up to a Legislature that ranks right up there, or rather down there, with those in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California. And yes, many good and decent people serve and have served in our Legislature. It's just the organization that doesn't perform very well.
You cannot blame Mark Sanford for South Carolina's sky-high unemployment, dearth of job-creating industry, abysmal public schools, or drastic revenue shortfalls brought about by a severe national recession. Come to think of it, you can't even blame him, as many today undoubtedly would, for the failure of USC and Clemson to field better than mediocre football teams, despite the best coaching and playing talent money can buy.
The brutal fact is that South Carolina, dominated by its Legislature, is not and never has been a poster child for strong and responsible government. This is partly systemic. The checks and balances one usually looks for in a democratic constitution are not much in evidence here. The Legislature lords it over both the executive and judicial branches. We are the only state in the nation with a Budget and Control Board that exercises executive powers ordinarily held not by the legislature but by the governor. Judges and justices are elected by our legislature, and those seeking a career in the judiciary must first join the good-old-boy network in the Statehouse, in effect making our courts retirement homes for legislators grown weary of the legislative grind.
Should he resign? Should he be impeached because of a business-class ticket or two? Be careful what you wish for.
This editorial makes more sense than anything else I've seen since Mark Sanford turned "hiking the Appalachian Trail" into a euphemism for bad behavior. I was (and am) as upset at the Governor as anyone else.
But what would impeaching him accomplish? Would it show that we, as conservatives, take a stand on moral issues? It might give that appearance, but, as Schreadley rightly notes, "I wonder how many of those urging his resignation or impeachment could stand up to the same scrutiny he is subjected to?" Very, very few. If any.
All we're seeing now is nothing short of political maneuvering. And the only thing it will accomplish is South Carolina's further descent into a horribly-ill good ol' boy system of governance.
Comments [1]
Comments [0]