pinakidion.*

Yes, the site looks different. It is different, too.

Besides the new theme is an upgrade to the latest release version of Wordpress. The other major thing that is different is that all the other Wordpress based sites (PrairieComber, Sycarion, etc.) feed into the posts here. In other words, when a post appears on Sycarion, it will also appear here. (It’s like Slashdot in a way. Each subdomain has its own theme, but the repository for all of them is here.

Coming soon, the site that deals with philosophy, the ICOC, and all things weird (like lolcats) will move to religion.pinakidion.org. No need to change the bookmarks as all the posts there will appear here. Clicking on the post title will take you to the religion site, in case you don’t particularly want to see posts about Lenga.

I put quick tags on the comments for easier link creation. I tried to implement threaded comments as well, but they are not working.

Enjoy!

Note: Alan, you’re ahead of me. I’ll get there, I promise.

I know, here comes the Apologists out of the woodworks. I guess I am bringing it on myself.

There is generally some excitement from friends I know that one apologist or another is having a debate with some Smart Evil Atheist. We hope for something like this exchange based on an urban legend that Albert Einstein delivered these arguments to a professor. It seems so slam-dunk and the end of the story is the conversion of the evil professor.

I haven’t ever witnessed such a thing.

Most theological debates I see start with each person presenting their side, then each person redefines certain key words used by their opponents, then repeat themselves until the time is up. Folks vote on ‘who won’. Usually the Christian debater claims some sort of victory and the SEA goes back to teaching at a university somewhere.

If debate truly did anything, I would be a hindu today. Swami Vivekananda addresses the World Councils of Religion in the 1890s and basically lays down the argument that Christianity and Islam gain prosperity by subjugation and war. By the end of the council in Chicago, he was receiving three minute standing ovations. (Yeah, I listen to Ravi Zacharias sometimes.)

Back to the point, though. Some friends of mine are excited about an upcoming seminar featuring a debate and talks on Intelligent Design. My friends think it is quite odd that I do not agree with many of their arguments pointing to ID. I’ve been called anti-Christian because I point out logical issues with their presentation. It usually ends with the question, If you don’t believe in ID, why do you believe at all?

That comes later, first, why I wrote this in the first place. Here are two statements I believe are true:

* The anthropic principle does not prove the existence of God.
* ID is based more in passion than in reason.

First, the anthropic principle which states that the fundamental constants of the universe have set values they have because this is what is required for advanced forms of life. The line of reasoning then moves into the finely tuned universe and other neat vocabulary terms. Ultimately, though, it comes down to the belief that the odds of the universe existing this way without a creator is so astronomically low that it is laughable to conceive.

What I point out to my friends is that this is the prosecutor’s fallacy. Basically, the statement that the odds are almost impossible that the universe arrived at its present state by natural selection is meaningless. The only way that this statement has meaning is if we know the odds that the universe exists this way because of a creator. You may believe that the odds are 1:1 that God is the reason that certain universal constants are what they are, but you are trying to prove that by saying that the alternative is extremely unlikely. The odds of both have to be established independently before making comparisons.

Suppose a family has two children die upon reaching the age of 10 weeks old. What are the odds that both deaths are due to SIDS? You could say that one in 8.5 million that a child would die from SIDS at 10 weeks. I could say that the odds that both dying this way are on in 72.25 million. Surely, something sinister is afoot right? Well, I could also say that only one murder in 10 million is of an infant child. That would makes the odds of murder one in 100 million. Does it support SIDS as the cause because it is most likely? Does it point to a middle option?

No, the odds of either one happening are extremely low, but one of them happened. The solution is that evidence presented must be weighed against the fact that both events are extremely unlikely. In other words, I shouldn’t have an idea of innocence or guilt based on the odds. (See Sally Clark case)

A good illustration of this that is less grisly than the Sally Ride case is this. Suppose you have 1000 balls in a really large bowl. Some are wooden and some are plastic. We know that all the wooden balls are white. We know that 10% of the plastic balls are white, the other plastic balls are red. Given those facts, I pull out a white ball - what are the odds that it is made of wood?

First time I read this illustration, I said 90%. I said that to myself because I figure that 90% of all the white balls are wooden. The problem is I do not know how many wooden balls are in the bowl. I could have 10 wood balls and 990 plastic ones. That would mean that the entire bowl has 109 white balls of which 10 are made of wood. That means most of the white balls are actually made of plastic!

Ok, so you don’t like the anthropic principle. Now what?
When I think of ID, I actually like the idea of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, it is less defensible than the anthropic principle. How did the eye evolve? Even Darwin wondered at this. Yet, not knowing how it evolved is not equal to it cannot have evolved. A person cannot present an argument based on ignorance.

Is science, therefore evil? I tend to agree with St. Augustine (I think, trying to find the quote) that a Christian should learn as much about the universe as possible in order to learn about God. I believe that we have been given the tools to examine the universe and we create more sophisticated tools as time goes on. I also believe that preconceived notions are more evil than fine sounding arguments. When mankind discovered that the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun, there should have been no religious reaction. Yet, men were made to confess errors in their science and declared heretics if they did not. I feel that in many ways, ID and other attempts to put God in a box sets up the Christian and non-Christian alike to be denounced as heretics on matters in which the Bible is silent.

I can read Isaiah 40:22 and believe that God inspired Isaiah to write that the earth was round when the rest of the world believed the world was flat. Then again, the world can be round and flat at the same time. Besides, focusing on the shape of the earth removes the point of the series of chapters (40-42) that speak of the coming messiah. Did the Hebrew reader in Isaiah’s time really think to himself that now he knows the earth is round? When I speak of the silence of the Bible, I’m talking about things like the dinosaurs, and exactly how God formed DNA, and other stuff like that. The Bible doesn’t speak about the process of building proteins, nor does it address photosynthesis in plants. But both are marvelous things. I believe in a creator, and thus I regard them as remarkable creations.

Again, I believe in God. I believe he created the universe. I do not look out at the world and see mathematical equations scrolling down a la The Matrix. I see the wonder of a cloud, shaped by the wind. I wonder at the veins in a leaf. I marvel at the stars and the unattainable idea of the sheer size of it all. I marvel that the so-called laws of the universe are very different on the quantum level. (I think it’s fun that we give quarks names like ’strange’.)

What makes things difficult for thinkers is that our current understanding of God is based on a deterministic approach. In other words, if I can determine a foundational fact, the rest can be built atop this foundation until we have a solid understanding of God. Quantum mechanics presents an issue in that the universe is probabilistic. Because of the uncertainty principle, we can know a particle’s position or velocity, but not both. When the position of a particle is measured, it affects the velocity, which includes direction, of that particle and vice versa. As such, once we know a particle’s position, we no longer know for certain where it is going. Einstein hated this notion of fuzziness, so he challenged a colleague with an experiment in an effort to remove any idea of probability and fuzziness. Einstein found himself the loser of this challenge to which he replied, “God doesn’t play dice.” His colleague replied, “Don’t tell God what to do!”

We love to tell God what to do. If we can get him in a box, we can find ways to manipulate Him, or trap Him in His own words, or force God to ‘rule’ in our favor. In many ways, I see ID this way. We want the Earth to be young because Genesis can then be read literally. We want science to point to a creator, even if we have to invent the science, so that we can somehow justify our faith as something more than superstition. Hey, I’m guilty of this as well. You know how many times I have demanded God to heal my children, bless my wife, provide money, ‘fix’ the ICOC, ‘fix’ me, ‘fix’ ________ ? I tried to back God into a corner and make his do something because of a promise that I read into a passage. It’s easy for me to imagine that in trying to understand Him, that I put him in similar corners as well.

God has indeed done many of the things I have asked, but he is larger than my attempts to hem Him in. He has come through in ways that I never would have imagined. My faith is renewed, often times because He has done the opposite of what I asked. There’s a story about the kanji for change is danger + opportunity that fits here. That’s another column for another time.

Does a universe that appears random and probabilistic mean that God is not there? I’m sure it looks that way - it looks that way to me sometimes. In light of the anthropic principle and the uncertainty principle there are reasonable ideas that are still compatible with my faith. I want my faith to be reasonable, but not at the expense of creating a new branch of science to do so. God has to be big enough that I do not need to do his work for Him. It’s true that I have reason to believe because of what I read in the Bible. Ultimately, it is the source of my faith, after all faith comes from hearing the message (Romans 10:17). I did not come to faith because of empirical reasoning (though some do) or because I looked at the universe and sought to disprove Him (though some have tried). I came to faith because I believed what the Bible says. Any discussion of the nature of God is going to lead back to this point.

Now some I know may think that my trust of this book is silly. I can talk about the canonization and how the Bible came to be. I can even admit that it is easier to believe in some ways that the Quran or the Book of Mormon are easier to deal with because they each have only one author. Some are amazed at the textual consistency of the Bible. Some are amazed that the New Testament can be largely reconstructed from extrabiblical quotations, even if he had no text today. For others like me, though, all of this is just neat stuff to store away from a possible appearance on Jeopardy. I came to know God by putting his words into practice in my life. God addresses life, how to live, how to be , how to love, etc. All of these things deal with the world as I experience it, not the theoretical world as it may or may not be. Belief in God, for me, is made up, in part, of the practice of God. And the practice of God is not a cosmological issue.

But I do have an answer for folks that may bring up these scientific ideas as demonstrated the existence or lack of existence of God. It is reasonable enough and logical enough, even if not universally accepted. (What ideas are universally accepted?) As far as the anthropic principle, I believe in a multiverse made up of universes where the fundamental constants are all different from each other. Our universe has billions of observers, others may have none, more, or less observers. The condition for life as we know it have a very narrow threshold. I would guess that some of these universes contain life as we do not know it. Some probably do have life as we know it. The anthropic principle may not point to God, but my belief in God leads me to wonder at his great power. I am one person in a large universe amongst an infinite set of other universes. He cares about me.

When it comes to quantum mechanics and living in a probablistic universe, I again point to a multiverse model suggested by Hugh Everett. I can’t explain it any better than Wikipedia:

The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a “multiverse” composed of mostly independent parallel universes. This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical (not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations) quantum superposition. (Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state.) While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit. Everett’s interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell’s experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, the parallel universes will never be accessible for us, making them physically meaningless.

Wikipedia article on Quantum Mechanics

In English, we see things that look like they are uncertain. They really aren’t in the scope of existence, but our perspective is limited. One of the main reasons I believe this from a religious standpoint, is that it does allow us to understand God as certain, not uncertain. We see him an uncertain and random because His action don’t make sense to us. Just because we see him this way, does not make him this way.

It also leads me to see God as outside probability. Of course he knows what’s going to happen, he knows what every possible outcome looks like. More than that, when God, who is able to embrace all probabilities speaks to us, his voice cannot be limited like ours. He has total perspective. It would be good to listen to one with infinite perspective on things.

The cosmology of what I believe is reasonable, but not modern or widely believed. Still, my goal is not to have the right answer in these matters. My goal is to discover how what I know about God and what I know about science work together. Sometimes I change my view on God (my view is that He is much much bigger than I previously thought). Sometimes it changes my view on science (there are truly unknowable things and we can prove that they are unknowable.) Either way, it’s important to me to see God and His possibilities. Trying to put a box around him turns him into an idol that I can control and manipulate.

I know this is not so well formed. It’s an idea that was rattling around in my head until I wrote it down. Maybe I can work out the details later, there’s a few loose ends.

There’s a good discussion about a few posts down about change in the ICOC and other things. Unforunately, I keep getting sidetracked into something funny or just a complete lack of time to put words to paper. One big distraction has been the discovery of lolcats.

This has led to loltheologians, lolkip, lolmarty, and a host of others.

So, in a vain attempt to get back on track, I’m putting this placeholder here for all lol stuff. All links, pictures, ideas, etc. go here. Comment away. If the picture upload doesn’t work, email me at pinakidion @t gmail daht com

So to start off, my second favorite picture

and third and fourth

Websites I now cannot tear myself away from:

I Can Has Cheezburger?

lolcats2

But I am not as crazy as wanting to program lolcode

I can’t link to my favorite picture until I get home.

For now, here’s my entry:

Blogged with Flock

So you decide to do paper-rock-scissors to see who sits in the front seat. You are an uber-geek and you use your fingers all day to write out those TPS reports. Can they be risked over something as silly as riding shotgun?

Never fear, Electronic RPS is here. At Prankplace.com, you too can purchase this mighty conflict resolution device.

There is no word if there will be an RPS-7, RPS-25, or RPS-101 versions.

NOTE: I didn’t link to prankplace because of other items offered that may be considered distasteful. Go there at your own risk.

I like NASCAR and I like little E. I never rooted for his father, but something about Jr is a lot of the good things in NASCAR.

I do not like Jeff Gordon. In some ways, I think he represents a lot of the not-so-good in the future of NASCAR.

There’s a good chance that they’ll be teammates, and that is not so fun.

Will DEI just give him what he wants? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

What does criticism of our recent history have to do with the cross? Probably closer to the intent of the question would be, How can you say such negative things at the foot of the cross?

On Earth, Jesus did not bring glory upon himself, yet submitted to his calling from God. During his life on Earth, he learned obedience to God through his sufferings. Through his refinement, he was able to become the source of salvation for all that obey him. (Hebrews 5:4-8)

In one sacrifice on the cross for all time, the penalty for sin was paid in full. A priest no longer had to offer sacrifices to cover the sin of the people, Jesus provided atonement once for all. (Hebrews 9:24-28) The connection between God and man was no longer through a caste of men serving as go-betweens, Jesus is our mediator. (Hebrews 9:15) Because of his blood, we can approach the throne of God with confidence. (Hebrews 10:19)

When he rose from death, he demonstrated the working of God’s mighty strength. Jesus did not just overcome sin, but death itself. (Ephesian 1:18-21) Once, we were dead in our sin and in our desires of the flesh. Now, we have also been raised from our spiritual death to demonstrate the working of God’s strength in our lives. (Ephesians 2:4-7) It is God’s grace and our faith that saves (Ephesians 2:8) not any work of any man or priest. It is not even by our own strength we are redeemed.

As this is what Jesus’ death and resurrection represent to me, now the present criticism can be addressed.

It is true that we have addressed our former leader. He had to be first in all things, even harming congregations and carelessly disrupting lives in order to be first. Instead of submitting to God’s call for him, he sought to bring glory and honor only to himself. Anyone that has tried to help him address his sin has been eventually rebuffed. Those that attempted to help him individually includes Sam Laing (RTR 3), Steve Staten, Al Baird, Bruce Williams, and Doug Arthur. I’m certain there were others who’s efforts were never made public.

In the end, a collection of his friends even publicly warned him, but to no avail. He was put aside as he should have been. I was upset that such action wasn’t taken much sooner. With all the warnings and rebukes from the pulpit to avoid sentimentality in regards to sin, it felt hypocritical that leaders used the excuse of grace to mask their own personal feelings for their friend, Kip. In retrospect, this may have been the first warning sign that our old paradigms were in great need of change.

Yet, even in the repudiation of our founder and leader, there was no call to repent of our errant theology. We focused on the man without addressing his message. We cast him out without considering the implications of the teachings we held dear in order to fulfill his vision. While calling over and over for Kip to repent, we avoided looking at ourselves and striving for our own repentance as well.

His reaction to continued rebukes was worldly sorrow and superficial change. Our reaction was little different, and this is the difficulty that I continually address. When I look at the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, I see the importance of repenting from deeds that lead to death (Heb 5:44) and allowing the strength of God to work in our lives. It is important to address areas where there has been no repentance and where our own agendas replace the Holy Spirit.

I cannot speak to all churches and situations, but I can speak to what is spoken in public. From what some leaders are saying publicly, it is clear that we, as a denomination, have not repented and we, as a denomination, have little interest in doing so. Order, pleasantness, and silence have become idols to which we sacrifice justice and mercy. As a recent example demonstrates, we are still rebuking those we consider weak instead of bearing with them as Paul encourages us in Romans 15. It appears we have no tolerance for those that do not catch ‘the vision’, and so their needs are seen as a burden to be cast aside.

In general, we have not addressed areas of our theology that are opposed to God. We have sidestepped looking at our practices that harm others. We used John 8 to chastise other denominations for their devotion to ‘strange practices’, yet we hold unswervingly to our own traditions without the slightest examination. There are many areas that are in dire need of examination, salvation and discipleship are two of them.

Salvation
We have taught directly and indirectly that our denomination pointed the way to Heaven. We paid lip service to the possibility of believers in other churches, but qualified that to say that we had not met anyone outside our group that was saved. The root of this errant doctrine was our own formula for salvation. From our heritage, we were taught Hear + Believe + Repent + Baptism = Salvation. We added something between Repent and Baptism because of Kip. As he says in RTR1, I taught that to be baptized, you must first make the decision to be a disciple and then be baptized. Even now without Kip, some of us are still adding things between Repent and Baptism. Phrases such as have the heart of a disciple or demonstrate repentance or attend every meeting for two weeks are still taught. The danger is this additional phrases is that we determine what they mean. When we add these things to salvation, we become the gatekeepers for whom enters Heaven and whom does not. (Only Peter had that kind of authority!)

The intent in adding these phrases is noble, we desire new Christians to be successful in their walk with God. However, it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to overcome sin. Should a person have salvation (and the Holy Spirit) withheld from them in order to overcome sin? Do we really make people overcome sin by human effort when it is so difficult even with the Holy Spirit within us? Besides, even our Savior tells us in the parable of the soils that many who hear will have difficulty. Are we withholding salvation from some who would be good soil for the sake of trying to strengthen those we believe are rocky or thorny soil?

Of course, it is silly to think that a man can withhold salvation from someone (John 6:44). The point is that we cannot be the gatekeepers, nor should we try to be. There is more that needs to be examined (Formulas for salvation, rebaptism, and others) but one thing is clear. Through our theology regarding salvation, we attempt to be God or to make decisions for God to others. We need to repent and allow the Spirit of God to work.

Discipling
In order to meet the needs of so many new converts, Kip implemented a system based on an idea from Crossroads. From RTR 1 Kip says, I came up with “discipleship partners.” In these relationships, the evangelists, elders and women’s counselors, after discussion and prayer, arranged for an older, stronger Christian to give direction to each of the younger, weaker ones. They were to meet weekly, but have daily contact (Hebrews 10:24,25). This idea is furthered explained in the 1988 Leadership Conference by Kip when he says:

Friendship is what builds trust. I really believe with all my heart that you will never be able to disciple someone unless you build a friendship with them and thus they can trust you. You see, here is the bottom line and get this down. The person that you are discipling must believe, must trust that you are out for God and their best interest. Because you see there is going to be some advice they will not understand. But if they trust that you are out for God and their best interest, they will obey.

Secondly, they must believe emphatically that your judgment is better than theirs. This is so important. How can you tell someone what to do, when they are even unsure of what is going on unless they will obey by trust that your judgment is better than theirs? I truly believe that in order to develop this kind of trust you have got to have a time when you are contacting that person every day. Hebrews 3:12 and 13 … so the premise seems clear. Friendship which builds trust which allows you to be able to guide them and to mold their lives.

It can be said that this is now ancient history. Things have certainly changed from almost twenty years ago. However, changing how discipling partners are selected does little to address the deeper spiritual issues. We may not have accountability sheets to fill out anymore, but in many cases, we still have deal with our own ideas of trust, obedience, advice, and friendship.

What has been the effect of our system over time? In my experience, I have seen young men and women struggle with many of the following thoughts and attitudes:

• I am not worth very much to the church or to God.
• If I claim any rights for myself, I am being selfish.
• The mission is more important than my own thoughts and feelings.
• I must please other people regardless of the cost to my person or my values.
• I have to put myself at the disposal of others without any protest.
• I need to get my heart right instead of speaking up when something bothers me.

We can change the name from discipling to mentoring, but the unhealthy practices and assumptions go unchallenged. When we look at shepherding Christians, the idea that a person has no value to God or the church is contrary to 1 Corinthians 12. Every part is needed and every part has value. More than any other attitude listed above, the idea that the individual Christian has little to no value has been the most destructive. Sadly, this idea has been reinforced over the years by the very system designed to prevent this attitude in the first place. This occurred more and more as the emphasis of discipling times shifted to the discovery and elimination of sin and away from prayer and encouragement. Even encouragement was given in relation to overcoming sin (real or imagined). This isn’t to say that every relationship operated in this manner – but even if only a few did, it is worth the effort to prevent this from happening again.

The old discipling system caused other effects as well and many do not change after the hierarchy is removed. Specifically, in dealing with sin, James 5:16 is twisted to mean that you cannot be forgiven of any sin unless you confess it to another Christian. This has conditioned in many of us a need to confess our sins to a person or group in order to feel forgiven. It’s not the confession that the issue, it’s the artificial need for the sake of feeling forgiven.

Jesus is our mediator. Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith. He paid the price for all of our sin. We have direct access to God because he went through the temple in Heaven to grant us that privilege. There is no need to confess to another man in order to be forgiven, Jesus took care of that. There is no need to confess in order to feel close to God, we are already standing at the foot of the throne. We can confess our sins to God himself. Whereas we added to salvation make people perform extra work, we also added to the process of forgiveness to make people perform extra work We have become addicted to these additional requirements to the point that they seem to be perfectly natural.

Though an overused word, it still applies to us. Within the old or new discipling systems we made its participants codependent on each other. A codependent person does not act on their own desires, they react to the perceived desires of those around them. We talk about being proactive, but our discipling system has conditioned us to require a third-party for just about any circumstance in life. For some, this became debilitating. We called this advice, but in reality, it was a request for permission.

A common question to anything perceived to be unusual was and continues to be Did you get advice? There was great pressure to answer YES. Those that answered NO would quickly rectify the situation in case the question was posed again. In my experience, many of us learned to find the very permissive members that would think anything was a pretty good idea. We weren’t looking for direction or advice, we wanted carte blanche to do what we wanted and still be able to say that we had sought advice.

Repentance in this area seeks to provide justice to those harmed. Because of the sacrifice of Jesus, justice and restitution should be the starting point of any discussion. Instead, however, we have thrown our own people under the bus, or we have allowed them to drift away. It’s about time we stop punishing those that are still hurting and repent.

Other Areas
There are many more areas left to address. We set up warped definitions of leadership. We did not protect the weak. We see peoples’ needs as burden to the church. We revise our history to the point of incredulity. We lord our authority over others and encourage the same in our leaders. We blame others for our denominations’ mistakes. There are yet more items than these, but we have not even addressed elementary issues. How can we look to more complicated and thorny matters?

Most importantly, we must address our inability to accept help from those outside our denomination. We worry that people in other denominations will water down the message of the cross while we crush our own people underfoot. It’s a false dilemma to ask which is worse, the truth of the matter is that we can get outside help without watering down our doctrine. As mentioned on DToday, one minister, with the help of Abilene University has written a program as a part of his doctoral thesis. Using Paul’s leadership style in Corinth as a model, many issues can be addressed and we can repent.

Overall, we need to repent of our own hypocrisy. We beg God for mercy, yet we offer no mercy to those that dare to call for change. We cry out for bold vision, as long as it is about evangelism. We call for money and missions to save the world for all generations, but we ignore the generations still holding on in our churches. Where is the repentance in all of this?

Where is the cross? It is far away in a distant land.

Jesus said, These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. God have mercy on us all, I hope we are not too late. The cross compels us to examine ourselves, repent of the hypocrisy and damaging doctrines, and live a new life in the power of God. This is not too much to ask - we would ask no less of anyone that wants to come to Christ.

A revisionist look at the ICoC’s recent history remarked the following in part three of the series:

If everything burned, why are there still around 500 churches spread throughout every continent of the world? How did over 100 churches get planted among us between 2003 and 2007? Can that really be due to the power of men? If everything that was built in our movement was built by the power of men with wood, hay and straw, how did so many people become Christians?

After the Fire: Not Everything Burned

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Numbers do not show the favor of God, the work of God, or the spirit of God. Numbers show numerical growth. Tying numerical growth to the Holy Spirit puts a Christian in a cycle of not being happy except in moments just before leading another person(s) to Christ. It also causes a Christian to see times of God’s refinement as personal weakness instead of the working of the strength of God. There is a big difference, most notably in where attention is focused.

God at work creates change and transformation. Sometimes it is in increased numbers, sometimes it is in decreased ego. Whatever the work of God brings into a Christian’s life, it is not always moving from one degree of glory to another. The depths and valleys bring growth as well. As someone I know can tell you, I don’t think Ezekiel’s ministry was ever marked by tremendous growth sustained over time. Yet Ezekiel has some of the most dynamic stories to tell about his relationship to God and His people.

Here is food for thought using numbers from a large denomination with a worldwide presence:

From 2000-2005 the church grew overall by 13.479%

In the US and Canada, the church grew by 9.2%
Outside the US and Canada, the church grew by 17.2%

The congregations in Cambodia more than quintupled in membership, in Mongolia, membership tripled. In Mozambique, the membership grew by over 5.5 times.

Hey, even the membership in the British Virgin Islands grew by 140%

Can this kind of growth be the work of men? Is it the work of God? What would you need to know to make that determination?

During the same time period, the ICoC has shrunken by 25.66% :

In the US and Canada, the church shrank by 32.17%
Outside the US and Canada, the church shrank by 20.2%

That’s just to compare apples with apples based on the most reliable data available. Since 2005, the big denomination has grown by yet another 2.33%. The ICoC has continued to dwindle another 5 - 6%

Does God have a plan for the ICOC? I believe so, otherwise, we would have been completely destroyed. Looking for the working of God’s strength, though, requires that we look in unaccustomed places. Our usual haunts (numbers) and our usual rhetoric (shut up and baptize) are not encouraging. My hope is that the ICoC is not like Egypt which was built up only to be destroyed as an example to the whole world.

Thinking about a board game based on this machine. Just jotting down a few ideas:

Move proceeds around a board as player assemble pieces to construct their machine. The first to make it to the patent office with a working analytical engine wins. Players first make a difference engine and either patent it or build one by commission. Pieces from difference engine funds analytical engine.

If a player builds one for patent and not commission, he or she can use all the pieces of the difference machine to build analytical machine. Everyone else can only reuse their original (before being commissioned) pieces.

There are three pieces - spacer, cog, and rack.

The rack is a piece that allows the machine to be built ‘up’ a level. Presumably, the more racks, the more variables that can be calculated at once, but also the longer it takes to finish the machine.

The spacer allows the machine to be built ‘out’ a level. Presumably, the more spacers, the more decimal places that can be calculated for each variable. Once a spacer is added, it is added to every level.

Cog is a bit of machinery that fits on the grid created by racks and spacers. For example, a machine with 5 racks and 8 spacers would require 40 cogs to complete.

There would need to be a funding source, so I guess each player is a hobbyist until if and when a company commissions a machine to be built. Each would have different specifications and different advantages (more cogs per turn, alternate build rules, etc.)

Upon completion, they would get paid and then start to build the analytical engine.

Need to add in bonus or random elements like:

Ada helps your project (build at twice the rate)
Building trouble (destroys rack or spacer)
Lose funding. Keep your pieces, lose those purchased by company commissioning the machine.
Cogs go bad and must be replaced. or only red cogs go bad.
An entire rack goes bad and must be replaced.
A green rack goes bad or a red rack goes bad.

Piece would be two different colors to distinguish pieces built by you, the inventor, and those purchased by company commissioning you. Say Green are built by you and red built by company. When difference machine is finished, you can use only the green pieces to start analytical engine. (Thus if you built it entirely yourself, you could reuse all the pieces.)

Analytical Engine would need fourth piece, don’t know what to name it. Maybe replace cogs or modify cogs. Maybe analytical cogs cost more, but difference cogs can be modified very faster. For example in one turn you may get an analytical cog or convert three difference cogs to an analytical cog.

Building rules:

Rack pieces can only be removed from the top down, not the bottom up.
Removing a spacer affects every rack. The cogs lost cannot be reused. (Someone may remove a spacer in order to finish their machine faster.)
When you start on your analytical engine, you must add at least one rack and one spacer.
A difference machine must be at least 6 racks by 6 spacers.

Unless directed by card or company paying you (difference engine only), you can only add the piece you land on while moving your token around the board. If you are being paid to build, it must be a red piece. If you are going it alone, it must be a green piece.

I’ve asked some of you personally, now I’ll ask all of you publicly.

Which posts do you like the most?

I’m learning a markup language called LaTeX used for making professional quality printed information. I’d like to get practice using it for book layouts. I have no illusions of being published or anything like that, I just want practice. At the end, the pdf will be available here.

You can also mention posts you’d like me to finish. Some semithoughts are rather grand in scope, yet narrow in execution.

Thanks in advance. Take the month of June to decide.

Update June 4:
At first, I didn’t understand the meaning of “stuff from the heart” because it is all from the heart. But I follow now, I believe. Basically stuff about my life and family. Thanks for the votes thus far. I’ll put up a list from time to time so you can let me know about specific stories if you like.

Specific votes thus far:
Fistful of Diamonds is the story about playing cards.
Better Living through Oat Rings is so entitled to avoid using a trademark of a certain cereal company.
Eye of the Sparrow about a fire hazard.

There’s also been a vote to finish an article about the Christian pocket universe.