Look how they massacred my boy!

I have to tell you about the most expensive haircut of my life ...

My son and I had been needing haircuts for a while, so we went to a place where we could use a coupon. I won't tell you the name of the place, but only say it wasn't so "great" after all.

As we were nearing completion, I looked all the way across the "salon" and even without my glasses I could see a distinct horizontal line across Eric Jr.'s head.

For the record, I had not requested a bowl cut for him, but for them to blend from the short to the longer hair on top. Even after having a more advanced helper relieve the stylist, his cranium was still sub-par.

What about my own? I didn't fare much better. When spun around, I put on my glasses and saw some serious lack of blend. I asked if she could try to "erase that line" and she gave it another go.

However, even after that it wasn't right. She tried to tell me that it was because my hair was a bit wet, as though I'd never had a haircut before.

Well, it wasn't the worst haircut I've ever received. That was when I was 15 in the Waterloo train station in London. My dad let me go first, which meant I got the "one-armed" barber.

It wasn't the worst (some buddy cuts at A&M were more heinous), but it was the worst haircut I ever had to pay for.

In fact, for the first time in my life I was REALLY tempted to not pay for a haircut. But, the ladies were nice as can be, so we paid, but I made sure Victoria & her brother both got 2 lollipops out of the deal.

I hoped the bad haircut was obvious only to me and that it wasn't so bad. Besides, it will grow back, right?

When I got home, my wife was not impressed. She said we should go back there and make them fix our heads. I told her that it wasn't so much a question of their being willing, but rather their being able.

She said something to the effect of, "Well, he's 4, so it's not that big of a deal. But you're the pastor of a church, you can't stand in front of people on Sunday looking like that!"

At her vehement behest, we went to a proper barbershop. You know, the kind where it smells like a mixture of Brylcreem & cigars and George Jones always seems to be playing in the background.

They fixed me up as we talked about the Cowboys, completing the most expensive haircut of my life.

From here on out, I'm back on the barbershop plan exclusively. But, if you see Eric Jr., try not to give him a complex as you see how they massacred my boy.

Yeah ... you're a legend in your own mind.

More than once I've come across the assertion that one is not a sinner anymore. The thinking is, "I'm a saint, so I must no longer be a sinner."

I've even been rebuked for saying that I am a sinner saved by grace.

I have had many discussions with folks on this topic and I find it troubling. One such discussion has sparked this post.

- - - - - - - - - -

I appreciate the heart of those who affirm sainthood to the point of denying their identity as sinners. I do. I think much of it comes from a desire to think oneself to be who one is, rather than who one once was. I appreciate that. I really do, but I have to disagree.

It's not that we're not saints, of course. But it's a false dichotomy and dishonest to say we're not sinners.

We're sinners saved by grace through faith. We're saints because we've been declared such, and should act like such.

Yet, we're saints that sin. That's the Reformed (or historic Protestant) understanding of justification.

As Luther penned it, "simul iustus et peccator" - Latin for simultaneously justified and sinner.

In other words, I am a saint and a sinner, pardoned and adopted by God's grace.

We're sinners simply because we sin and that's what the word means. To deny we sin is another problem in and of itself.

Plus, Paul speaks of himself as a sinner, in fact the chief of sinners in 1 Tim 1:15. And he does so in the present tense.

It's not "I was the chief of sinners," but "sinners, of whom I am chief."

Like the elderly Texas lady said of the KJV, "If it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me."

There is often concern, however, that just as Satan tries to convince the unconverted that they're saints, so he tries to convince the converted that they're "unworthy sinners."

First, I would say, we are unworthy and will always be so, in and of ourselves. Any pleasure God has in us is because of Christ and His righteousness, not ours.

I also have to disagree, at least in my experience,with regard to spiritual warfare as to our identity. For me, the enemy's attack (post-conversion) has been more, "No, that's no big deal. It's not sin. If so, it's only a little one and, hey, you're a forgiven saint anyway, so what's the big deal? Jesus will still love you. Do it. You know you want to."

I have been told:

"Luther’s comment is not found anywhere in scripture and Paul’s statement is just an adjectival phrase of who Jesus came to save (he’s one of the group). Paul also said that he wasn’t fit to be called an apostle which, given the same kind of literalistic interpretation that you use in 1 Tim. 1.15, means that God really missed it.

While the Reformers saw some light on faith, that revelation does not transmogrify them into being foundational apostles or even put them in a class of elevated teachers. They, for instance, failed to understand the ontological significance of verses such as 2 Corinthians 5.21 (”we are God’s righteousness”) or Galatians 6.15 (”what counts is a new creation”) with their Latinized justification template."

Well, I'm just a caveman. I don't really understand transmogrified apostles or Latinized justification templates, but I do know this.

In 1 Cor 15 Paul speaks the truth, he wasn't worthy. He doesn't say he was "unfit," but I'll even go that route. God made him fit.

"For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (v.9)

How can that mean anything other than what Paul meant? God called him by grace, since he wasn't worthy. Had he been fit, then it wasn't by grace.

Of course, there's always Romans 7 where Paul speaks in the present tense. Some will dispute the nature of his discourse, but in the context of dealing with sanctification you have the Apostle Paul speaking of himself as struggling with sin.

In 1 Tim 1:15 Paul speaks in the present tense of being a sinner. Sure, that's a literalistic interpretation. Is that a bad thing? Don't his words mean things ... literally?

Luther's comment, of course, wasn't in Scripture, which was obvious since it's Latin. But, of course, "trinity" is not found in Scripture either, but it's a helpful way of understanding things (cf. "hypostatic union," "forensic justification," "substitutionary atonement," etc.).

My question to those who claim to be saints, but deny they are sinners is always this: Are you saying that you don't sin? If so, I have little hope we'll come to any agreement on things of the faith.

But, if you sin, then you're a sinner ... just like the rest of us. We all know that's how language works.

One who runs is a ... runner
One who swims is a ... swimmer.
One who sins is a ... sinner.

In short, I think such folks assume the conclusion. They assume a false dichotomy that we can't be both a saint and a sinner at the same time, which is a very Roman Catholic approach.

They know we're saints, so they assume we can't be sinners. Then they interpreting these texts through such a lens.

The thinking is: "Well, they can't mean that a regenerate person is a sinner, so they must mean something else."

I just don't think these texts are given a fair treatment to allow them to answer the question of our multi-faceted identity.

In a discussion along these lines, one wrote:

"It’s one thing to admit that I sin. It’s another to wallow in that admission and fail to walk in the triumphant life Christ purchased for us on the cross."

Amen. I'm certainly not advocating that. We are to walk as children of light, living as new creations.

Another wrote:

"The Word shows us that a sinner has the nature of the devil in him (John 8.44) and that he is also “energized” by the devil as Rotherham puts it (Eph. 2.2). The Word also shows us that one who is born-again has the very nature of God Almighty in him (see John 1.2, 4; 10.10)."

I've not heard of Rotherham, but even if he "saw some light on faith, that does not transmogrify [him] into being [a] foundational apostle or even put [him] in a class of elevated teachers."

(Just having some fun with it.)

I agree that there's been a significant, nay huge, change in those born again. I agree we were children of wrath and of the devil, etc. What I'm arguing, however, is that those things don't mean we're not "sinners saved by grace" in addition to all those other things.

Another wrote:

"In that light, I am a saint. Not because of anything I did, but because of what Jesus Christ did for me! Yes, I sin - but I learn from it, ask forgiveness and continue on being “made” by the One I follow!"

Amen. We sin, because we're sinners and/or thereby making us sinners, but we're also saints.

I'm certainly not arguing that we're not saints.

Another wrote:

"Call it “The New-Birth Birthright.” Yes, we will struggle with the old nature at times, but we’re all new creations in Christ. Our address has been changed from hell to heaven. Should we go back to hell and reminisce about the old days? No. We must claim the birthright He purchased for us by living obediently with Him as our Head. That’s the position we’re in now, the position of the saint. (BTW, Watchman Lee lays this out brilliantly in his exposition of Ephesians, Sit, Walk, Stand.)"

(I think it's Watchman Nee being referring to. His name seems to have been combined with Witness Lee.)

But, who said anything about going back to hell to reminisce about the old days? I'm talking about the here and now. As you note, we will struggle with the old nature at times ... and sin. That's our reality, isn't it? Saints that sin?

Do you sin? If you're not a sinner, then doesn't the answer have to be no?

In these discussions folks will often labor to convince me that we're saints, that which I'm not denying nor arguing against. I'm fully persuaded the redeemed are saints in Christ Jesus. So, if you're trying to persuade me of that, it's already a given.

What must be proven is that one cannot be both at the same time, not merely because we declare it to be so, but by Scripture or logic or something. Or what must be proven is that we are not sinners in any sense after conversion.

Those are the thoughts I'm challenging, not that we're saints, children of God, priests, new creatures, etc.

I don't want to come across as antagonistic, but this is an important issue that we not think more highly of ourselves than we ought, sinners saved by grace.

Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!

In the past, I've sounded off about my dissatisfaction with the BCS & college football, but I still have to share a few thoughts after tonight's game.

1. Though I wouldn't have known the game was on tonight had Bobo not reminded me this afternoon, I was rooting for LSU to win.

2. I think it is whacked to have a 2 loss team (i.e., LSU) playing for the national championship.

3. I think LSU would have done well enough in a playoff system and likely still won.

4. The BCS is really quite silly and the NCAA should pick the top 4 teams and have a playoff system. Pick the 4 highest ranked conference winners, but only 4. Five is right out.

5. A team that cannot win its own conference should be ineligible for the playoffs. (Incidentally, I believe that about professional sports as well and hate the "wild card" slooge, but that's another post for another time.)

6. I realize that there are 5 pretty good conference champions from which to choose (ACC, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, and PAC-10). At least one of those would be tender each year.

7. I also realize that there are certain schools that are independent and not in a conference. Learn to get along with others by joining a conference if you want to play for the national championship. Otherwise, keep doing what you're doing and you can still wind up in the non-BCS bowls.

8. Unless the go to a playoff system, the tenderness, conspiracy theories, and controversy will continue to overshadow what could actually be a pretty good product. You might as well have strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as the basis for a system of championship determination.

Summary:

• In my playoff system, you'd quibble about how teams 5 & 6 got snubbed, but you'd be less likely to hear that the best team in the country wasn't able to play for the national championship.
• You'd only need an extra 2 weeks for a 4-team playoff and you could start the NFL games a week later, if you're worried about playoff competition.

Congratulations to LSU on their win tonight and to the 2 schools (i.e., Kentucky & Arkansas) that can boast that they were/are better than the National Champions.

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

A man who can do 100 impersonations in rapid fire. (HT Timothy) Many I don't know, but the ones I do know are pretty good.


Read as Brent explains why he's not a fan of the phrase "God-Shaped Hole."

• It Underestimates Sin ...
• It Overestimates Man ...
• It Ignores God’s Wrath ...

Scope out the whole slew of Bible reading plans Ray Fowler has assembled.


Read Joshua Harris' thoughts on Affluenza
Part 1: The Real Money Problem
Part 2: The Deception of Greed
Part 3: Greed Destroys Us
Part 4: Our Unique Vulnerability
Part 5 - Guarding Against All Kinds of Greed
Part 6 - Spending and Materialism
Part 7 - Rescued from Greed (LAST ONE)


This is inspiring and challenging. Energy Independence: How Denmark Kicked Its Foreign Oil Habit


The newsletter of the Southern Baptists of Texas (SBTC) has announced that Al Mohler will be nominated for SBC president in the next election. Now I have at least one less question about voting in 2008. I'm in! If you've never done so, scope out some great slooge from the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (in Louisville, KY ... where they have White Castle).


Read the interesting Edmund Burke quotes Rev has compiled on the anniversary of Burke's birth.

“Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little.”

Read 10 great diagnostic questions from Lionel Woods on Evaluating Relationships in 2008.


Read 5 Myths About Our Ballot-Box Behavior.


Scope this out. Finally, a tattoo that makes sense.


Read Al Mohler's thoughts on The Caucus, the Candidates, and the Dance of Democracy.


How SWEET would this be? Snorting a Brain Chemical Could Replace Sleep.


Scope out these Great Resources on Prayer Benji has compiled.


Read about the Effects of THAT Kind of Girl on Boys.

"Let our goal, as modern girls, be not to be the princess who is pretty enough or waits long enough to get the boy to pursue her. Let our goal, as modern girls, be to be THAT GIRL, who challenges the men around her to seek God."

Read this thought-provoking piece from Daniel Whitfield on Alcohol and the Bible, which includes a list of every reference to alcohol in the Bible (KJV & NIV).

"In answering this question, our primary focus of inquiry will be the Bible itself. We will look at all the references to wine and strong drink in the Bible and we will examine the life of Jesus. We will also look at the common arguments that arise in a discussion on this topic."

The secret's about to be out. Learn the Secret to Raising Smart Kids.

"Our society worships talent, and many people assume that possessing superior intelligence or ability—along with confidence in that ability—is a recipe for success. In fact, however, more than 30 years of scientific investigation suggests that an overemphasis on intellect or talent leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful of challenges and unwilling to remedy their shortcomings."

Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive? Read about the study that shows us that Free Rx samples go to wealthy, insured.


President George W. Bush wishes us all a "Gig 'em, Aggies!" for the new year.


Read Johnny Mac's thoughts on Perseverance of the Saints.

"Peter’s life is proof that a true believer’s spiritual experience is often filled with ups and downs, but Peter illustrates another biblical truth, a more significant one: the keeping power of God."

Last Monday, we looked at an unrepentant Garland woman who faked her 6-year old daughter's essay to win the Hannah Montana contest. She tugged the heart strings with a story about a fabricated daddy's death in Iraq. Well, she's apparently had a change of heart and apologized on the Today show.

"The Texas mother who helped her daughter win a “Hannah Montana” essay contest by making up a story about the girl’s father being a soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq says she made a terrible mistake and hopes she can be forgiven."

Comment of the Week:
"Do you think Obama and Clinton might become running mates? I was thinking that it might be a good choice for either to choose the other. Just think of how many would vote just to have a african-american president or vice president and a Female president or vice president. The downside would be that it might alienate the moderate democrats. I could see it happening though and it would make the presidential race actually interesting." (From Blackhaw)

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
- Bertrand Russell, philosopher (1872 - 1970)

If I could only have one food for the rest of my life? That's easy. Pez, cherry-flavored Pez. No question about it.

Like countless other naive Americans, I'm hoping to lose some weight in 2008.

My solution to that end is the Atkins diet, one with which I've seen some progress in the past. It works for me because I can have a monotonous diet whereby I don't need a lot of variety.

It works for me because my temptations on that diet are limited. For example, I'm a big fan of ice cream, chips, Cherry Coke, pizza, Pancho's ... hmm. That's more than I thought and I'm actually starting to get a little hungry.

Yeah, it's probably the lack of variety that separates the wheat & the chaff on that diet. Could you eliminate the variety?

So, if you could only have one food for the rest of your life what would it be?

For me, the playoffs would entail:

1. Pizza
2. Ice Cream
3. Bacon
4. Chips

I have ...

• Chips losing on the road to Pizza
• Bacon loses a close one in overtime to Ice Cream

In the culinary Superbowl, I have Ice Cream beating Pizza, thanks to a neutral site.

I'm not interested in your food pyramid, but your food playoffs.

That's not a good start, but keep going.

This was interesting, the results are in for the Iowa caucuses:

DEMOCRATS:

• Gold - Barak Obama (38%)
• Silver - John Edwards (30%)
• Bronze - Hillary Rodham Clinton (29%)

REPUBLICANS:

• Gold - Mike Huckabee (34%)
• Silver - Mitt Romney (25%)
• Bronze - Fred Thompson (13%)
• Bronze - John McCain (13%)

So, what does all this mean?

1. Concern for Clinton & Romney. Clinton earlier appeared as though this nomination was hers to lose. Now, she placed 3rd. Romney outspent Huckabee "15 to 1," but lost by a significant margin.

2. Winning Iowa is not a shoe-in for the nomination, but it helps greatly in building momentum and garnering financial support. People are more likely to contribute to a perceived winner.

3. Huckabee & Obama may get greater scrutiny now from the media after taking the "first leg" of the race.

4. What I find interesting in these races is the impact they have on the running mate that will accompany the eventual nominee.

5. Ron Paul got 10% of the Republican vote, which is in no way insignificant. I think that might have surprised some folks that he's more of a potential player outside of the Lone Star State than many had surmised.

6. The biggest spenders aren't always the biggest winners.

7. There's a good chance that a black man will win a presidential nomination, which in itself will be historical. If not him, then there's a good chance a woman will win a presidential nomination. Either way, I'm thinking history will be made by the Democratic party.

My parting thoughts:

• Rudy did not campaign in Iowa, which may prove to be costly.
• Kudos to Huckabee for taking the gold. I think he's surprised some folks, but the Democrats don't fear him as much as they do McCain.
• Fred, you better pump up the jam. You got the bronze, but only 13%. That's not a good start, but keep going.

Your thoughts?

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

I saw this yesterday and gave a chuckle ...

"Dallas police, officials discourage random gunfire"

That seems well, a bit understated to me. The headline doesn't quite tell the whole story:

"Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle and two top City Council officers made a New Year's Eve plea this morning that people not celebrate tonight by randomly firing guns around the city."

I didn't know people still did that. You'd see this in old western movies, celebrating with random gunfire in the air.

My grandpa used to do this as well. New Year's Eve when the clock got to midnight he shot a few rounds into the air off the front porch.

I remember as a kid asking him where the bullets went. He said something to the effect of "I don't know" and the conversation was over.

But I have wondered about that ever since. Do they disappear into the atmosphere? Do they travel to the moon? Do they eventually come back to earth in Canada?

Or do they travel back down and hit people, houses, dogs, cars, etc.?

Any ideas?