What makes a man a man?

A friend of mine once wondered. Is it his origins? The way he comes to life? I don't think so. It's the choices he makes. Not how he starts things, but how he decides to end them. -Hellboy

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Very deeply. With quite a bit of fear at the answer. What is it that makes a male a man? How does a boy grow up? How does one know if he really measures up?

I don't know, but I know enough to know that it isn't something you can do on your own, and I know that masculinity isn't something that can be given by a woman. It must be given, but can only be given by those who possess it. That requires the comaraderie of a man with other men. It requires that group to which you can join hands and truly say, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers."

I've never been horribly comfortable with other guys. I've had a very hard time having male friends. I think that most of it is because I've always been afraid that when I'm around other men they are all judging me and finding me wanting. That they see me and see that I don't measure up. That I am mocked.

So I generally feel like the outsider - like the one that does not belong.

It's a burden, never feeling like you belong. Like you can never truly be good enough. Like there is that select club that you'll never be a part of -- that you'll always be on the outside looking in.

None of this is about reality, but about perception. Perception, in the end, of a boy of around age 7. The boy who still lives in my head, and is convinced that he will never measure up and can never measure up. His eyes don't see too clearly -- he's too convinced of the answer before he even looks.

Why do I give him so much power? Why can I not see with older, more open eyes? Why can I not, in even a small way, feel comfortable in my own skin?

What does it take to gain entrance into the boys' club?

What makes a man a man?

Happiness is...

... A new Mozart CD in your car on the way to work.
... A fridge full of left-over turkey.
... A glass of good Italian red wine.
... Sharing an order of nachos with your daughter at a middle-school girls basketball game.
... Teaching your son to sharpen his new pocketknife.
... A brisk December morning in the mountains.
... Acing your Thermo homework.
... A clean house, ready for beloved family to come visit.
... Psalm 23

Intelligent Design

I don't usually get into some of these sorts of issues (although I have a lot of big thoughts and good arguments in these things), but I thought I would share this little thought with you.

Want to know what I believe is one of the greatest evidences of intelligent design in the world is?

These guys:

Saccharomyces cerevisiae aka yeast. Let's look at what these little guys can do and how it works.

Let's say you get some flour from ground wheat -- something that isn't found in nature, by the way, so the behavior here can't be the product of natural evolution -- and mix it with water. You get an environment with a lot of starches and sugars all in solution, which is a great environment for the growth of all sorts of little critters. Within hours you'll have dozens, if not hundreds, of different things living there. Many of which would make you sick or kill you.

But, every 12 hours, take half that mixture and mix in fresh flour and water (throwing out the other half, so you keep a blob of near constant size. Within a couple days or a week you will have only two types of critters left, everything else is dead. Those two things that are left are the yeast as shown above and these guys:


Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis, which is a lactobacilli bacteria that lives in symbiosis with the yeast. Only these two survive because the environment created by the flour and water mixture is absolutely ideal for these two and their symbiotic lifestyle. They outgrow everything else. In addition, as they grow, the yeast helps the lactobacilli stay alive, and the lactobacilli produces lactic acid which kills other bacteria and molds and such.

So, you take this very man-made thing called flour and you get the ideal environment for these univeral natural organisms that are everywhere in the air.

Also not only are these the only two that survive, these two also won't harm you. In fact, they are pretty good for you. But, even more, the yeast that makes its home here is EXACTLY what you need if you want to make a dough and bake bread -- that which has been the primary staple food of most people throughout history.

What an amazing coincidence, huh? That's all sourdough is: just keep mixing flour and water -- and don't do much else at all, because this happens on its own -- and you will get a living, thriving colony of yeast and lactobacilli living in symbiosis all ready to make bread for you.

But, it gets better.

Grapes. Grapes have this amazing little waxy skin on it. A skin that is perfectly made to capture wild yeast. Why? It does nothing good for the grapes. And not really anything good for the yeast. But it does great thing for man. Because grape juice is the perfect material for fermentation, and that takes exactly the yeast that the grape skins catch. All you have to do to make wine is just squish the grapes. You get the grape juice, and the yeast from the skins goes directly into it and starts the fermentation. Within a matter of hours you will have a rather highly alcoholic wine.

OK, is this good for the yeast? Were they evolutionarily driven towards this? Not really, because the fermentation of straight grape juice -- if not controlled by man -- can quickly reach a high enough alcohol content that the yeast itself will die. Is it good for the grapes? Not really, because this only happens after the fruit has fallen and almost always only if all the grapes get squished together -- not good if the point of your reproduction is to spread your seeds around larger areas, something that is usually accomplished by birds picking the fruit and eating it on the fly, dropping the seeds as they go. And while birds can eat fermented grapes, they don't fly very well or very far when they are drunk. Believe me, I've seen it.

Is this just a weird happy coincidence? No. Not this. Not with the amazing set of chemical processes that go on here. Here's a quote from Stuart Fleming's Vinum: the Story of Roman Wine

"The ease with which the juices of the grape ferment naturally into wine belies the complexity of what is one of hte most elegant chemical processes in nature. Back in 1810, Joseph Gay-Lussac recognized a key element of the process -- the breakdown of the grape's sugar content into alcohol and carbon dioxide. But more than forty years were to pass before Louis Pasteur identified the catalyst for that breakdown -- microscopic organisms that we call yeast...

[There follows a description of the chemistry of a grape]

While these sugars and acids define a wine's main elements of flavor, many other constituents of the grape play a part in defining its subtler qualities, and thus the aroma and bouquet of the wine produced from it. Various amino acids, vitamins, enzymes, and minerals provide nutrients to the fermenting yeasts and thereafter become part of the process by which a wine develops its aromatics; tannins in the grape's skin provide the astringency that characterizes red wines which are fermented from a mash of the entire grape; and a dozen or so pigments give the wine its color. With good reason, Maynard Amerine has described wine as a chemical symphony, comprising not just ethyl alcohol but a host of other ingredients that, in their possible permutations or combination, result in so many different tasteful harmonies."

This isn't an accident, it's art. It's a symphony in the form of chemistry. Chemistry that happens naturally -- man doesn't DO anything in making wine, other than just squishing things and letting it sit -- but chemistry that produces something not only desirable to man, and enjoyable to him, but beneficial to him as well (pre-modern technology, water wasn't really a good option for beverage). Yet it is a chemical symphony that benefits no other player in the game. Not the yeast, not the grapes, not the birds that eat the grapes.

All in the exact same little micro-organism. Two of the earliest cultivated plants were grapes and wheat, mainly because of they are common in nature, easy to domesticate, and their extreme hardiness allowing them to be grown pretty much everywhere in the world. Both of these products, in interaction with the same little critter, produce something extraordinary for man. Things that the life of pre-modern man literally depended on for survival in any sort of civilized community. Civilization couldn't have happend without bread and wine, both of which are created by yeast doing something it naturally does.

Accident?

Exactly how blind are you?

Wow has it ever been awhile

Sorry all that I've been away so much lately. The IT guys at work put up a new filter system and I'm still not exactly sure what I can get away with yet. I really don't want to push it, you know?

So, work's been a bit stressful. Like I think I mentioned this past summer, I've been trying my hand a bit at program management. It's a teeny-tiny little program -- less than $100k. But fun. But also very stressful. This is really pulling me out of my comfort zone. The good thing is my customer really likes what we're doing and actually gave me a plus-up just a couple weeks ago. This late in the year that's almost unheard of, considering that this is all R&D.

Church has also been pretty stressful lately. The basic disagreement/conflict between those of us with a more firm idea of orthodoxy and those who want a very evangelical anything goes attitude is building up and building up. Whenever this hits a head, things are going to get nasty. I'm really not sure what exactly to do at this point, other than to continue to teach what I believe is true and to speak my mind. I just hope that the conflict isn't pushed into a climax pre-maturely by people doing something stupid -- like my wife's best friend who is running a lot of our children's stuff who is just about ready to walk. If she was to leave then about half the rest of the church would either leave as well, or just stop coming -- because our children's ministry really drives a lot of things.

Other church-related stuff, though, has been a lot more edifying. My Wednesday night class is going very, very well. Every week I get a ton of compliments. My Sunday night class has been even more popular. And these are not warm-fuzzy group-hugs, either. These are the forums where I most feel free to speak my mind on a lot of things -- and I'm not holding anything back or pulling any punches. These things have been well-recieved, but I'm still not sure how much impact it is having in the realm of actually changing things for real.

School... School is school. So far I've been doing really, really well, but I've got a major assignment due in a week or so and then my final (over the same material as the assignment) and I'm actually rather lost. I just hope I can pull this out. I finally turned in my program of studies, so I'm actually on my way towards actually graduating...in another year and a half.

My relationship with Z has been...interesting. Not sure exactly what is going on. Sometimes things are really great. Night before last, for instance. We take a shower together, she goes down on me. We get out and, after she dries her hair, she disappears into the closet and comes out all dolled up in the only semi-naughty lingerie she owns -- garters and stockings and everything. More oral sex, some pretty enthusiastic intercourse. Lots of fun.

But then we had a week there where we didn't do much of anything except fight. About sex, of course. She just seems comfortable, some times, to just ignore me for days and days on end and to get mad when I seem irritated at that.

Outside of sex, things are OK between us, I guess. We haven't had a lot of time to talk to each other lately. Monday night she had a meeting at school, so she left the house an hour or so after I got off work and wasn't back until almost time for bed. Tuesday night I had cubscouts with the little guy, and so we weren't back until late. Wednesday night she stayed at church talking with her BFF until almost midnight. Thursday she had some other thing until late. Last night she was at a friend's house scrapbooking until 1:00 am. Tonight she's back doing more scrapbooking. So, we haven't seen each other a whole lot. In general, we've been pretty good. Other than sex we don't fight about much. In fact, there were a lot of times over the last few weeks -- around the election -- where we had a pretty good groove going on between ourselves. Mainly because we agree so absolutely on all these things, and don't see how others who share our value system don't see what we see.

Kids are great. Acing all their classes, etc. Growing up a lot.

What else...

I've been trying to start baking bread a lot more, and I've been trying to use a starter. I have yet to get it to do what it ought. I get a good starter that gets all bubbly and frothy, but when I add in all the other stuff to make my dough it just doesn't want to rise. I know sourdough takes longer to rise, but the dough ball in my kitchen right now has been rising all freakin' day. I finally decided that I would count it as "doubled in bulk", even if it probably wasn't quite, and moved on with the next step, but I'm not sure it's actually working. I'll probably end up with a nice smelling brick here in a little bit.

Oh, and my wife's minivan has cost me over $2000 the last month in repairs and is now making another really weird noise. Just ticks me off. Not sure what the noise is or what to do about it, or how much it is going to cost, but it's really annoying.

Continuing Discussion

The discussion started in FTN's blog, went to Digger's Reality and Redemption, then to Unsolicited Advice, then here, then back to Unsolicited Advice. (Oh, and RS had a little side discussion going, too). Then Digger closed the discussion in rather abrupt fashion.

So, if anyone wants to still discuss any of this stuff, the comments on this post are a welcome place to do it. Any of the stuff we've talked about, from any perspective.

But so this post will have some content, here's a couple of scriptures to think about:

II Pet 1:10: "Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall."

II Pet 3:14,15: "So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him."

II Tim 2:15: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Heb 4:11: "Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience."

Tit 2:11-14: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."

Oh, and when I finally get the time I'll put up the other promised posts with pics from the Balloon Fiesta. I got a whole lot of really good ones.

The Church of Christ

I guess I can see when what I say strikes a nerve, because that's when Digger starts taking cheap-shots. So, I'll put up a post to answer the questions he raised in the comments on the last post.

In this case, though, these things are easy.

First of all, to assert that because of what I've said the only place I can be without hypocrisy is a "Roman Catholic church" means that either you read more into my posts than I said or you don't really understand Catholic theology all that well. Or both. Even if I said exactly what you apparently think I said, that still ignores the fact that it would not just be a "Roman Catholic" church that would satisfy these things. For instance, the other Catholic rites, like the Byzantine Rite Catholic church that Therese grew up in. Also, there is always the Greek Orthodox church which fulfills all these things. And the Russian Orthodox church. And a case could even be made for the Anglican church -- at least the old-school, high-church, Anglo-Catholics. Among others.

And one of those others is the Church of Christ.

Let me educate you on a bit of history.

This body started in the late 18th century with a couple of guys named Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell. Independent of each other, they started religious movements that were eventually to merge up. The focus of this movement is not really important to this conversation as the body was to eventually go in a much different direction, but there were two things that the original Stone and Campbell movements were to bring that were important. First, was a very sharp break with the Protestant world they had come out of, including a very strong urge to figure things out independent of the traditional Protestant authorities. Second, was an immensely strong focus on the Bible and determining what it actually taught.

Into this environment stepped Alexander Campbell -- son of Thomas -- who was one of the greatest theological minds America has ever produced. (Must have been his Scottish heritage, Therese :) ) . One of the things he brought to the table was the idea that Christians should try and do what the early church did. This theology came to be called "restorationalism" but that's really a bad term for what Campbell himself believed for various reasons. Suffice it to say, it brought something new into the picture: an idea of how to get the correct interpretation of things from scripture.

Over the centuries this group was to change a bit, but a lot of these fundamentals remained strong. Because it did not feel beholden to the Protestant world -- and it's members would NEVER self-identify as "Protestants" -- it could break free from a lot of this heresy. The Truth of the gospel taught by the Apostles is pretty apparent to see, one just needs eyes that look for it.

At any rate, this body -- the one I was raised in -- would disagree with all of these major points of Protestant faith Digger produced, and would agree whole-heartily with what I wrote the last few days. We do not believe in sola scriptura. We believe that, to be right, one must do what the early church did. That is single-source theology.

We absolutely fundamentally disagree on all levels with sola fide, as that is against the clear and unambiguous testimony of both scripture and tradition. Instead, we believe that one is saved by faith working through love. That action is necessary, that obedience is not optional, and that faith alone is dead. As part of this, we have always believed in a sacramental efficacy in both baptism and the Lord's Supper as the mechanisms by which Lord transmits grace to the members of His Body.

We have always taught, therefore, that because obedience is necessary for salvation, disobedience can cause one to fall from grace. Far from promising that once you are saved you are always saved, God clearly promises that those who turn from Him will never enter His rest.

We have always taught that church leadership and the church organizational model used are essential features of actually being "Church" and that there are different roles in the body. There are those selected by God for local spiritual leadership, and, to be right, the members must be in submission to them. We have always taught that clearly the charismatic gifts did not outlive the Apostles, so God isn't talking to you, so if you ignore what the Apostles clearly said in the name of "being led by the Spirit" you are a liar trying to justify clear error in a way that will brook no argument.

We have also always taught that God's Church is a visible body here on Earth. That salvation is not an invisible, personal, individualistic thing, but that there is a corporate expression of it. This is why protestants often make fun of members of the Church of Christ saying, "They think they're the only ones going to heaven." Which is not really quite true -- that's taking a complex topic and trying to make one single extraordinarily simple summary of it for the purpose of mocking it -- but is also natural. Because we DO teach that the body you are in makes a difference and that the Lord's Church has visible expression on Earth.

This is why, for instance, all my life I've been told by my parents and grandparents and all these other CoC members who I are deeply committed to this movement, that the Christian group closest to us, that agrees with us on every fundamental point, and that is clearly also a part of Christ's true Church and will be saved, is the Greek Orthodox church.

This is why nothing I've written on here would be in any way controversial among Churches of Christ. I take all these essays -- and a ton more that I have never posted here -- and shoot them all around the country. To my elders here in Albuquerque. To my Dad who is an elder of the Church 2 or 3 states over from here. To my uncle who is an elder a further state away from my Dad. To my brother who is working as a pulpit minister up in New England. That's why I preach these things at my local congregation all the time. The reaction is never scandal. These things aren't controversial. This is the standard belief system.

This is why Church of Christ theology has often been described as a "stripped-down version of Catholicism." Which is very fair. (To CoC members, that which was stripped out was what needed to be stripped out, of course, taking Catholic doctrine back to the more simple and pure version seen earlier on. Catholics would, of course, disagree.) It is what Therese and I, after having a pretty detailed discussion on Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua decided to call "little 'c' catholic" as opposed to "big 'C' Catholic" which would denote those Christians in communion with the Pope in Rome. In this nomenclature, a "little 'c' catholic" would be synonymous with being a "little 'o' orthodox".

If one put a big, bold line down the center of the Christian world, dividing it up based on these fundamental components of the gospel taught, on one side you would have the more catholic and orthodox traditions: the Catholic church, the Orthodox churches, some Anglican groups, etc. On the other would be the Protestants. In this conception, the Church of Christ would clearly be on the catholic side of the line.

As would early Christianity, the Bible, the Apostles, and Christ Himself. There is no other place the Church of Christ should ever be. As lies do not save, and those who teach a different gospel from the Apostles -- even an Angel from heaven -- is accursed and condemned.

None of this is to say that the Church of Christ is perfect in either belief or practice. There are a lot of things I have trouble with that I am working to change -- outgrowths of our basic belief system, and implications of it all (especially in the realm of leadership and authority and more general, all-encompassing, universal unity) -- and some of these things ARE a bit controversial at times. But none of that changes this fundamental gospel we preach.

Can I hold these things I've taught and be a member of this church without hypocrisy? You betcha. In fact, one could not be a member of this movement and NOT hold these things without severe cognitive dissonance.

The Fatal Flaws of Protestant Theology - The Church

Last one here.  For now. 

Like the rest of these I've brought up, this one is simply a consequence of the initial error of belief in salvation sola fide.  If salvation is by faith alone, then what you do doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter in obtaining salvation, and it doesn't matter in maintaining it.  All that matters is faith.

Which means you get a theology that is completely focused on the internal.  All that matters is the internal things -- the relationship of the soul with God.   Which makes your Christianity and your salvation a completely personal thing that only depends on what is internal to you.

In this theological framework nothing external matters.  Not morality.  Not obedience.  Not self-sacrifice.  Not baptism.  Not the Lord's Table.  

And not the Church.  

This leads to a soteriology that says the church has no impact or relevance when it comes to your salvation.  Jesus is, then, your "personal savior."  

This makes the idea of "church" ultimately meaningless.  At best, it is where you go to see friends and get, personally, encouraged and stimulated.   It becomes a country-club.   You can take it or leave it.  Where you go doesn't matter -- because the church you attend is external to you and your salvation is completely internal.  Leaving one group for another doesn't matter, because all that's important is what's inside.  Go off and start your own if you feel like it.  Or just go worship on the golf course.  

Because church can't matter.  Not if the internal is all that matters and the externals are irrelevant.

First of all, this is, like the Protestant idea of grace, from a partial reading of Augustine.  If all you've read from Augustine are things like the Soliliques and Confessions, then you'd see him say things like "all I want to know is the soul and God, nothing more," and, "You made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they found their rest in you."  Very internally focused.  Augustine had a very deep inward turn.  

But he also wrote things like City of God, and a series of treatises on the church and the sacraments and morality and such.  He was certainly the philosopher of the inward, but he was also the Church Father of the external.  To take just half of it is to miss the larger point.  But that's what Luther and Calvin and such did.

The idea that the internal is all that matters is completely contrary to scripture.  Jesus is never described as a "personal savior."  According to the New Testament, Christ will save His Church.  Not you, His Church.  You are saved if you are a member of said Church.  The Church is that which He died to purify -- Ephesians 4.

And the Church, as presented in the New Testament, is not an invisible thing but a visible.  Again, the idea of the invisible church came from Augustine -- it does not predate him -- and was always balanced by the idea of the visible.  The idea that the church is nothing but invisible is completely wrong.  And that's the idea that the "church" is simply the collection of all those who are individually and personally saved.  That it doesn't matter what denomination you belong to, where you worship, if you attend anywhere at all, etc.  As long as you believe, you are a part of this invisible, Spiritual community.

That idea is not Biblical.  Christ came to found a community, and that community is a real, visible thing.  It actually means being a community with all those others who are saved.  Which means that where you attend DOES matter.  Where you spend you time DOES matter.  Who you hang out with and are friends with matters.  Because all this determines what exactly your society is.  Which community you belong to.  

And Christ only has one community.  If you wish to be saved you will belong to that one and not any other.

This is why in the teachings of the early church, the Church itself was considered the primary means of grace.  The grace of God from Christ's sacrificial death is given to believers through belonging to the Church.  One does not and cannot have that grace without the Church.  It isn't found anywhere else.  That is what empowers baptism and the Table -- they belong to the Church and are used within the Church.  

Hence, the 2nd century church could say that if the Church is not your mother, God is not your Father.  

This is a set of ideas that are far more consistent with scripture than the Protestant conception.  In addition, the Protestant idea is completely based on sola fide, and so all of the arguments against that also work against this.  

This internals-only religion and the subsequent de-emphasis on church as a necessary part of the means of salvation makes Protestantism a very individualist religion.  It's all about you, alone.  Very individualist -- which makes it very attractive to those whose world view is more American than it is Christian (and the two really aren't very compatible) -- and very self-centered in the most literal sense.  And sometimes down-right selfish.

This causes and sustains so many of the other things already discussed.  Like the false charism: who are you to tell ME what to do, don't you know the Spirit is leading ME?  The disregard for leadership and authority: who are you to tell ME what to do, you certainly don't have any gifts that I need, or any gifts that also aren't given to ME.  And sola scriptura: who are you to tell ME what the Bible means or what is right and wrong or true and false.  Don't you know the Spirit guides ME just as much as it does anybody?

Thus Protestantism is a, ultimately, a religion of self.  It's all about you, baby.  The world revolves around you.  All about you and you alone, by yourself, and your internal and thus invisible (and highly emotional-driven) relationship with something you call "god."  

Christianity, on the other hand, is a God-centered religion, built on obedience to Him and His commands in the external observable world, lived within the community He built, submitting to one another in love and recognizing that God has given each different and individual gifts for the good of the community as a whole and that the Spiritual good of each individual depends on all the others and their gifts and the mutual and organized and unified exercise thereof.