Here are a few cute pictures of Fiona. She looks so small in her car seat and her cap makes her little ears stick out. Mom is doing well and continues to get better each day (the sleep helps!).
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Fiona Joule Is Here!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
BreAne - Overdue
Our New Cradle
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Pregnant BreAne
The nurses at work painted BreAne's belly on Friday. For the remainder of the day people were staring at her belly because they could see the pumpkin through her shirt. She had a lot of explaining to do. The people that knew us didn't think anything of it; they already knew we are strange. Willie's obedience training is going very well. She now knows how to sit, stay, and lay down. She is nearly up to par with me.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Saturday, June 02, 2007
New Nickname!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Our Trip to Chicago
Friday, April 13, 2007
One-Eyed Willie
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Our First Baby Picture
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
It's Sink-tacular!
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Things I Love about the South

Being a Midwestern boy, I have found several things about the South, particularly western North Carolina, rather appealing. Here are a few of them:
- Bojangles' biscuits - KFC has nothing on these biscuits.
- Weather - just enough snow to scratch the itch, but it only lasts until noon!
- Mountains - there is just something comforting about being surrounded by mountains.
- Bluegrass and Mountain music - while some find the banjo appalling, I rather like it.
- Time - early morning is 9:00 am. Can't beat that.
- Love for the past - they are still stewing over the Civil War.
- Waving - when driving, you wave at people whether you know them or not.
- Sweet tea - need I say more?
Friday, January 26, 2007
Dachshunds!
This video is for Laci. If you listen closely you can hear the dogs crunching on their treats. Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVFlimAuJsk
The Church, Legalism, and Hauerwas
As compared to my most recent posts, this one is quite serious. The following thoughts are in regard to Keith Drury's "Legalism Scale," and the various responses to it. It can be found at this address http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/recent.pretty.good.writing.htm, under the heading "I dare you to take this Test: Legalism Scale." Be sure to read the "Responses." Bascially, the conversation comes down to this: does a commitment to holiness make one a legalist? Let me make clear that I am not interested in any discussion on whether or not certain denominations are legalistic or have been in the past, but should a church that promotes holiness deal with personal conduct (for my Wesleyan tradition compadres)? Can a church, or should a church, address issues such as homosexual and adulterous relationships, pornographic material usage, divorce, materialism, etc. among its members? To summarize the responses to Dr. Drury's 'Scale,' quite a few people said "no," personal conduct issues are simply between the individual and God. Thus many of the respondents reported a 'level-zero' on the scale: "We just love people - it isn't about rules it's about relationship." Now for my humble thoughts, and I must say up front that I probably rank somewhere between level one and level two on the Scale.
First, I agree with Dr. Drury that a church has an obligation to set certain standards of conduct for its members, based upon biblical foundations and presupposing conversion. I have yet to see any biblical argument against this and Saint Paul seems to argue strongly for it. Related to this, a church has an obligation to take stands on conduct that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture as well. Dr. Drury's example of slavery works well, and we could include abortion, cloning, use of illegal drugs, etc. In my opinion, it is not legalism by asking people to refrain from particular behaviors, whether explictly or implicity biblical, but I am certainly open to your thoughts and corrections on the matter. Obviously certain issues exist that are not matters of salvation, but still concern some denominations (e.g. alcohol and tobacco). I also think a denomination can address non-salvific issues as well and still refrain from legalism.
Secondly, my theology has been shaped, to a great extent, by the writings of John Howard Yoder and particularly Stanley Hauerwas. I find that Mennonite theology (although Hauerwas is Methodist, but was under the tutelage of Yoder) challenges me spiritually in a way most Protestant theology does not. I think the Mennonites have a better grasp on the church, community, and culture, than do Protestants, generally. What certain segments of the 'emerging church' are talking about now, the Mennonites (or at least Yoder) had figured out sixty years ago. By the way, I am not emerging, but do find some of their stances valid. So, where is this second point going? It is going to the point Hauerwas and Yoder make (primarily in The Peaceable Kingdom and The Politics of Jesus), that being a Christian cannot be separated from the being the Church and that the Church, by definition, is public and counter-cultural. The Church itself is a "social ethic," a "servant community," and all Christians are called, unconditionally, to follow the teachings of Christ as a public witness (yes, even in the commitment to nonviolence). Hence the only way the Christian life can be lived out is through community (no 'what if a person was trapped on a desert island' stuff); the Christian life and Scripture is more complex than simply 'relationship,' as is currently popular. Any person (i.e. Jesus Christ) that is not concerned with what I do (as opposed to simply 'heart matters') is not worth following. The quip, "a right heart leads to right action" is partially correct, but it grossly underestimates the sinfulness of humanity. Personally, I don't trust myself enough to leave my religious convictions or Jesus' teachings to my conscience. My conscience deludes me far too often; I need the Church. So, my answer is no, a commitment to holiness does not make one a legalist. It is this very commitment to Christ and the Church that define us. Hopefully this will start some conversation. Let the tomatoes fly! Yee-haw!
First, I agree with Dr. Drury that a church has an obligation to set certain standards of conduct for its members, based upon biblical foundations and presupposing conversion. I have yet to see any biblical argument against this and Saint Paul seems to argue strongly for it. Related to this, a church has an obligation to take stands on conduct that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture as well. Dr. Drury's example of slavery works well, and we could include abortion, cloning, use of illegal drugs, etc. In my opinion, it is not legalism by asking people to refrain from particular behaviors, whether explictly or implicity biblical, but I am certainly open to your thoughts and corrections on the matter. Obviously certain issues exist that are not matters of salvation, but still concern some denominations (e.g. alcohol and tobacco). I also think a denomination can address non-salvific issues as well and still refrain from legalism.
Secondly, my theology has been shaped, to a great extent, by the writings of John Howard Yoder and particularly Stanley Hauerwas. I find that Mennonite theology (although Hauerwas is Methodist, but was under the tutelage of Yoder) challenges me spiritually in a way most Protestant theology does not. I think the Mennonites have a better grasp on the church, community, and culture, than do Protestants, generally. What certain segments of the 'emerging church' are talking about now, the Mennonites (or at least Yoder) had figured out sixty years ago. By the way, I am not emerging, but do find some of their stances valid. So, where is this second point going? It is going to the point Hauerwas and Yoder make (primarily in The Peaceable Kingdom and The Politics of Jesus), that being a Christian cannot be separated from the being the Church and that the Church, by definition, is public and counter-cultural. The Church itself is a "social ethic," a "servant community," and all Christians are called, unconditionally, to follow the teachings of Christ as a public witness (yes, even in the commitment to nonviolence). Hence the only way the Christian life can be lived out is through community (no 'what if a person was trapped on a desert island' stuff); the Christian life and Scripture is more complex than simply 'relationship,' as is currently popular. Any person (i.e. Jesus Christ) that is not concerned with what I do (as opposed to simply 'heart matters') is not worth following. The quip, "a right heart leads to right action" is partially correct, but it grossly underestimates the sinfulness of humanity. Personally, I don't trust myself enough to leave my religious convictions or Jesus' teachings to my conscience. My conscience deludes me far too often; I need the Church. So, my answer is no, a commitment to holiness does not make one a legalist. It is this very commitment to Christ and the Church that define us. Hopefully this will start some conversation. Let the tomatoes fly! Yee-haw!
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Po-ta-to or Po-tot-o?
Since moving to the South, I have noticed several pronunciation differences in various words, as well as usage differences. Here are a few:
- Rastlin' (rass-lin) - a variant form of 'wrestle'
- Shurf (shũrf) - a person who wears a badge; also known as 'sheriff'
- Chile (chīl) - a small baby; with the 'd' left off; also called 'child'
- Toboggan (te-bog´en or toe-bog΄en) - typically understood as a type of sled elsewhere in the United States, but here, apparently, a stocking cap
- Vul - as in Asheville or Louisville; in the North, preferrably pronounced 'ville,' not 'vul'
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)

