I'm not sure how useful a concept of "There is no free will" is as practical theology. For instance, the apostle Paul seems to not buy it, by the fact that he tells his flocks how to live, and expects them to live by his God-given definition of the Christian Life. If we are rather to live by the idea that we are not able to make decisions, then why be told how to live, and why decide to live according to something?

While a discussion of whether or not free will can truly result from a given set of assumptions is possibly useful in the realm of philosophers, I wonder if that argument among ministers of the Gospel is another example of trying to be over-logical about the faith, trying to fit everything into a nice neat box.

That's something I'm not sure on, the role of logical extrapolation in Christianity. For I believe that it is the one religion that makes sense over all others, and know cases of conversions resulting from a careful examination of the facts. And I know cases of conversions AWAY from the Faith resulting from a fundamentalism that discourages thought or any hint of using our minds. However, I also know that we now see as through a glass, dimly, and having a transcendant God, when we extrapolate certain statements to their "logical conclusion" we often land outside the realm of the tenets of the faith and what is stated in Scripture.

I guess if I knew exactly where to draw the line, that would be yet another nice neat box; and the Faith does not seem to be made up of such.

We left Reed with Laurel for 5 hours and went on a date. It was real nice. I totally recommend it to anyone who might have a baby sometime.

Probably not the topic you've been longing for....

*WARNING* The following is about Breastfeeding. Feel free to stop reading at any time.

Amy has read a certain blog off and on for a while that often discusses the joys of breastfeeding and the necessity of it. This week, Kristen on the blog reports that it's WBW - World Breastfeeding Week. I posted a couple comments over there that I thought I'd repeat here, because it's a culmination of a few months thinking about and experience for Amy and I.

In response to here:

I’m new to this site, but my wife has mentioned several of your breastfeeding posts. We had a rough start with it in mid-May when our first was born, and you are right about the outcome of medical schooling: probably 6 nurses tried to help her in the hospital, and they had 6 different opinions (or maybe 7) on best breastfeeding mechanics.

But I’m not sure the experts are as unified as you indicate. Our certified lactation consultant suggested we supplement for the first week or so. This ended up being a blessing, because our son has been able to switch between breast and bottle without issue. This has given me some opportunities to bond with him during feeding, and given us added flexibility. Now he gets maybe 1 bottle a week (plus or minus 1, sometimes pumped milk, sometimes formula). I think the health drive for “exclusive” breastfeeding for 6 mos is more related to getting the right antibodies and other things that won’t be damaged by missing it 3 or 4 out of 35-50 feedings a week.

Anyway, from some of your posts I’m reading, this is clearly quite important to you, but may I urge you to not let it become out of balance. Your identity is in Christ, not in your children or in breastfeeding.

And in response to here:

I just read "why I demand feed", and would like to share some of my experience and philosophy with parent-directed feeding with Reed (our son who is 1 week shy of 3 mos old). It's not some strict adherance to a schedule, as if we serve the schedule. But it enables the parents to organize their family's days in a way that allows predictability and flexibility.

By about 3-4 weeks, Mama was able to work out the breastfeeding kinks and get Reed on a pretty workable routine of feeding every 2-1/2 to 3 hrs and one feeding at night (the night timing being chosen usually by Reed). Mama’s breasts were pretty clear about what was going on, such that they filled up just prior, with the amount he was eating. Reed’s body was pretty clear, too. Our friends who suggested this said we can expect him to sleep through the night starting at 6-8 weeks; right at 7 weeks he started sleeping through consistently, and it’s REALLY nice! Now he’s getting 5 feedings a day (6 in his recent growth spurt – Mama could tell it was starting b/c he was sleeping more and his typical pre-meal disposition changed).

We can tell he’s getting enough because he’s peeing enough, and his soft spot on his head is not too indented (and he’s 16 lbs now; started off almost 10). When Mama needs to stretch the time b/w feedings, Reed’s ok with it because he knows it’s coming, rather than thinking he has to cry his head off for it. Also, since his body is used to it, it processes the milk more routinely, not letting his blood sugar drop until nearly time for the next feeding; and he doesn’t get just the watery foremilk, as can happen from a 5-minute clusterfeed.

We don’t do it “by the book;” we’ve learned that exceptions are what raising a child (or life in general?) is all about. We don’t completely ignore our baby, but he doesn’t run the show, either. I see our society, and the breast-feeding lobby, as not so much naturally schedule-driven when it comes to nurturing babies, as having become baby-centered, sometimes to the point that “babies know best,” since they aren’t yet stained by the Evil Adults of this world (more of a Hollywood-style extreme perhaps; I’m not trying to straw man you into any of this, but it is out there; you may know of similar extremes in the cause of scheduling that I would agree with you on).

Anyway, parent-directing acknowledges that the child is not the center of the family, but a welcome member of it. The parents set the tone for the family and determine how to meet its needs, instead of this fallen human just born with a completely selfish orientation (not that he consciously rebels, but all his faculties are self-focused) who hasn’t yet been taught anything. To me, Parent-Directed Feeding makes sense because of the nature of man.

Somebody, please Open my Eyes to this meaning

By the way this is Tim. I've changed my listed name to Kibble, as that has been my internet habit over the years, and we now have a commenter who is also Tim.

I've never liked the praise song "Open the Eyes of my Heart, Lord", not just because of the music, or the built-in tautologocity, or the time at my growing-up church that we had a guest drummer who, "oh, look how young and talented and worshipful he is doing that song" but I could only detect emotion, and wasn't myself led to worship, BUT ALSO because I can't really figure out what it means. Though I may sound pershnickety, I sincerely desire someone's explanation:

Open the Eyes of my Heart, Lord
Open the Eyes of my Heart
I want to see you
I want to see you

To see you high and lifted up,
shining in the light of your glory
pour out your power and love
as we sing Holy, Holy, Holy

*lot's more Holy's*
I want to see you

What are the Eyes of my Heart? I presume that when they are opened, I will see the Lord. What can we see of Him in this life that we don't already, as believers, in seeing Christ? Speaking of Christ, where is he in this song? It is only in and through Christ that we can see God shining in his glory and live. Is "to see you high and lifted up" analogous to the Psalmists' "exalted among the nations"? What do we expect to see from his poured out power?

If I'm going to keep running into this song, I'd like to be able to make a more informed judgment.

The Value of Fiction

Recently (now that I've had a baby, "recently" means within the last year or so; "sometime soon" is probly within the next two) I tried to have a conversation with a couple Christians about books. One of them said "I don't have TIME to read fiction." Now, she probably really doesn't, as she has a large family to care for, but I sensed in her voice a large amount of derision for any printed word that isn't explicitly written to inform.

But can't fiction inform? What does fiction do? Does it merely entertain? And why are we entertained by it? I heard on the radio a talk show host quoting someone, who approximately said "Fiction is not true in only the least significant of ways," meaning that besides it not factually taking place, the story resounds with truth about life, the author, the reader, whatever. This is not to be relativistic and say that the story means whatever you want it to so it’s “true”. Stories are a part of life; the idea of “story” is ingrained in us. We were created in a story, and when we write stories, truths of life come out in them.

God works in his people with stories, both factual (eg, the Old Testament) and fictional (eg, the parables of Christ). And the greatest story is of course Christ’s redeeming work. I’ve started to pick up on elements of that story in others. It’s not just in “The Lord of the Rings” or C. S. Lewis’s allegories; many authors unwittingly point somewhat to Christ (however feebly). And no wonder; as Piper points out, (something like) “In heros we see a glimpse of Christ.” Why shouldn’t humanity’s deepest thoughts be informed by the desire for a redeeming hero, since we are in the image of God? And that is one true thing that comes out in many writers and many readers.

Also, stories can teach me about me. How my mind reacts to the plot threads and characters can illuminate my desires, weaknesses and passions. So, whether it’s books, movies, or other kinds of art, not only having time by making time can be valuable.

“Sometime soon” I plan to discuss a book or two.

I'm back...

Okay, so I haven't posted since I had the baby. I think that's fair.

So, about 9 months ago there was a case here in Utah about a LDS Sunday School Teacher who molested one of the girls in his class. He was a convicted child molestor, but for some reason the LDS Church let him teach kids. He was supposed to be teaching with his wife, but she did not go to church that day.

A discussion came up at my Chiropractor's/Physical Therapist's office about whether the family of the little girl should sue the LDS church. I said they should becase this isn't the first problem the church has had with child molesting SS teachers. The LDS church needs to change their policies. My Mormon Chiropractor and another patient were flabergasted. They said it would be like suing God because He is the one who "calls" people to their church positions. Plus, they thought that since the man had repented, he wouldn't be tempted by the children he was teaching (they don't believe in original sin). I finally got them to admit that the man could be tempted by those children being so near him, but they said that God still called him to that position. I asked them if they thought God knew what that man was going to do. After a long discussion on agency (or free will), the patient said to me about the molested child, "Don't you think God puts trials in our lives for us to overcome?"

I had to walk out of that office to keep from belting that man (who happened to be an LDS bishop).