bekahcubed

Categories Faith

My First Seder and the Four Cups

1 Comment by

I was eight years old or so and I wanted to finally be allowed to take communion at church.

Unlike the Catholic church or Lutheran church or other denominations that have a set schedule for “first communion” or “confirmation”, our church left that decision up to parents.

My parents wanted to make sure me and my sister (who was also clamoring for communion) understood what communion is all about.

So they bought a copy of Martha Zimmerman’s Celebrating Biblical Feasts and hastily prepared a Passover Seder.

So began my love affair with the Haggadah, one that has only deepened over time. In the almost twenty years since my first Passover, I have read dozens of incarnations of the Haggadah. Christian Haggadot. Judaic Haggadot. Secular Haggadot (which seems a contradiction in terms, but I assure you that secular Jews try their hardest).

I love the way the Haggadah points to Christ. I love the way Jesus fulfilled the traditions of Judaism (as well as its laws). I love unwrapping layer upon layer of meaning.

Martha Zimmerman’s Haggadah sparked something inside of me–but it and the host of other Christian Haggadah I’ve read and performed have left me still discontent.

They’re missing my favorite part.

Twenty years ago, my parents prepared a Seder so that my sister and I could understand the meaning of the cup. Now, twenty years later, I’m still marveling over the cup–and am disappointed that my first Christian Haggadah (and later Christian Haggadot) didn’t go deeper into the cups.

The Seders I grew up with numbered the four cups per tradition, and even gave them their traditional names. The Cup of Sanctification. The Cup of Deliverance. The Cup of Redemption. The Cup of Rejoicing. But those names were little more that the subheading before the blessing. Not one Haggadah bothered to explain where these names came from–or what they meant.

This is the first part in a four-part series on the four cups of the Seder. Stay tuned for the rest of the posts, which will be rolling out over the next couple of weeks.

Categories Book Notes, The Week in Words

WiW: Notes from my readings

1 Comment by

With less than one week before books are due back to the library, I’m in a frenzy trying to get several books finished up. The below is just a sampling of what I’ve been reading.

George W. Bush on the Iraq War prior to the 2006 “Surge”:

“For the first time, I was worried we might not succeed…Ultimately, our enemies could use [Iran’s] sanctuary to attack our homeland. We had to stop that from happening

I made a conscious decision to show resolve, not doubt, in public. I wanted the American people to understand that I believed wholeheartedly in our cause. The Iraqis needed to know we would not abandon them. Our enemies need to know we were determined to defeat them. Most of all, I thought about our troops. I tried to imagine how it would feel to be a twenty-year-old on the front lines, or a military mom worrying about her son or daughter. The last thing they needed to hear was the commander in chief whining about how conflicted he felt. If I had concerns about the direction of the war, I needed to make changes in the policy, not wallow in public.”

~George W. Bush in Decision Points

I’m not a George W. groupie by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly disagree with some (even many) of his policies. But I admire him greatly–and am immensely thankful that he was our leader during the years after 9/11.

Reading Decision Points has cemented my admiration of the 43rd president. Whatever I think about some of his policies, George W. Bush was a leader. He recognized that he could not sit idly by, waiting for someone else to do what he thought needed to be done. He took personal initiative, took personal responsibility, and took the harsh criticism that came with standing as a leader when many would have preferred a figure-head.

Tony Blair on success as an envoy to Palestine:

“The day he left Downing Street, Tony Blair accepted a post as special envoy to help the Palestinians build the institutions of a democratic state. It wasn’t glamorous work, but it was necessary. ‘If I win the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Tony joked, ‘you will know I have failed.”
~George W. Bush in Decision Points

Considering that Palestinian-peace-obstructing Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, I’d say Blair is probably right.

Arthur Koestler on American psychology:

“For the anthropomorphic view of the rat, American psychology substituted a rattomorphic view of man.”
~quoted in Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards

Pre-modern animism raised animals to have human (or godlike) attributes. Modern naturalism lowered humans to have merely animal attributes. Yet only Christianity can account for man’s wonderfulness and horridness.

Viola Trigiani on debt:

“There is no such thing as a silent partner. When you owe someone money, they own you.”
~Factory rules related in Adriana Trigiani’s Don’t Sing at the Table

A very Biblical sentiment. “The borrower is the slave of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).

The Week in WordsDon’t forget to take a look at Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”, where bloggers collect quotes they’ve read throughout the week.

Categories Flashback Friday

Flashback: She built us cakes

3 Comments by

Prompt #10: “What were your birthday cakes like when you were growing up? Were they homemade or store-bought?”

We always had two cakes for every birthday–the cake Mom made and the cake Grandma Menter made.

Mom’s cake was made on the day of our birthday–one of the old family recipes to go along with our favorite meals. Grandma’s Chocolate Cake or Lazy Daisy Cake or Applesauce Cake with Boiled Brown Sugar Frosting. Delicious cakes. Lick your lips cakes. Cakes where the birthday girl felt the specialest for getting to choose her piece first (of course, she picked the one with extra frosting!)

Those cakes generally looked ordinary, served up in the same pan they were baked in. No fancy furbelows here, just grandly tasty cakes.

Grandma’s cakes, on the other hand, were take-em-or-leave-em in the taste department. They weren’t bad, they were just ordinary. Cakes baked from cake mixes. White cake or yellow cake or occasionally a confetti cake for good measure.

Nevertheless, we eagerly awaited the semi-annual visits to Bellevue, where a whole counter would be devoted to the cakes. It was always cakes in plural because we always combined all the birthdays for the month into one celebration. January had four cakes. March had three. July had two. October had three. (I’m missing some cousins in there–a September and a November that I can’t remember exactly. Did we smush those two in with the October birthdays? Or did they have their own celebrations?)

At any rate, when we got to Grandma’s house, a counter (or sometimes the entire kitchen table) would be devoted to the brilliantly shaped and decorated cakes, glorious on their bed of aluminum foil.

[Show thumbnails]

(Keep clicking on the picture above to a slideshow of Grandma’s cakes)

These were cakes cut up and reassembled to make fantastical shapes. Cakes covered first with a layer of brightly colored frosting, then with additional layers of coconut. Cakes trimmed with a variety of gumdrops and licorice. Cakes that were a child’s delight.

Sometimes the cakes repeated, but we didn’t mind. In fact, we often requested the same cake over and over again.

And sometimes, we were just glad that someone else chose the same cake over and over again.

I wouldn’t have dreamed of selecting the lion for myself (how very boyish!)–but I certainly appreciated that the boys took their turns so we got it at least once or twice a year.

Man, but that toasted coconut on caramel-y frosting was good.

What about you? What are your birthday cake stories?

Categories Thankful Thursday

Thankful Thursday: Grace, Common and Saving

Leave a comment by

Thankful Thursday bannerI was doing my reading for Systematic Theology, contemplating common grace and the difference between common and saving grace, when it hit me.

Common grace, the undeserved blessings God bestows on all men, means that for the unbeliever, this life on earth is as good as it’ll ever get.

Saving grace, the undeserved blessing of salvation bestowed upon those who believe, means that for the believer, this life on earth is as bad as it’ll ever get.

What a sobering and joyful reality.

This week I’m thankful…

…for air in my lungs–and in those of my unbelieving neighbors and coworkers

…for medicine from the pharmacy, prepared by unbelieving hands

…for books, written by unbelieving minds

…for music, the expression of unbelieving souls (beautiful nevertheless)

…for cars and gasoline, brainchild and craft of myriads of unbelieving men

…for computers and blog platforms, built and sustained by unbelievers

…for God, who in His infinite grace made me beneficiary of both common and saving grace

All of it undeserved, thousands of blessings unmerited.

Why am I not struck dead on the spot? Why do subatomic particles repel and attract in just the right measure? Why does the universe continue holding together? Why does art and science flourish?

Why do I have hope for a life beyond this world?

Certainly not because of me.

I am thankful for God’s grace, poured out on His merit alone.

…for

Categories Reflections

Thoughts on my mind

Leave a comment by

Sometimes I wake up with my mind already moving a hundred miles an hour, puzzling over some philosophical or theological issue.

This morning, it was Wayne Grudem’s fallible view of prophecy, the connection between prophecy and canon, whether discomfort with a theological view is sufficient cause to deny it, and whether abuse of a theological view is proof of its falsehood.

My mind is welling up with Scripture verses, examples and counterexamples, things I’ve read from all sides of the aisle. I want to spend my day exploring the question, tunneling deeper for truth amidst a dozen opinions.

But, alas, I have to earn a living.

Categories Book Reviews

Book Review: “The Language of God” by Francis Collins

1 Comment by

Do science and faith conflict? Does being a scientist preclude being a believer? Can you be a Christian and a Darwinian evolutionist at the same time?

These are the questions Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, seeks to answer in his book The Language of God.

The book starts with Collins’ personal testimony from atheism to belief (his testimony involves C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity and, more specifically, Lewis’s moral argument for God). In the second chapter, Collins addresses some common rationalist arguments against belief.

Having answered some fundamental objections, Collins jumps into his argument for the compatibility of science and faith. He begins with Big Bang cosmology, a hard science which (I feel) offers compelling evidence for the God of the Bible. Collins’ argument here is straightforward and rather common (among Bible-believing Big-Bang theorists). The Big Bang insists that the universe had a beginning and therefore it needs a beginner; the anthropic principle shows that the universe is finely-tuned as though it were built with man in mind.

So far, I’m in complete agreement with Collins. The moral argument for God is a good and rational argument. Science and faith are compatible. The Big Bang testifies loudly of the God of the Bible. The anthropic principle indicates the personal nature of the Creator.

And then Collins loses me.

Because what comes next is an argument for the compatibility of Darwinian evolution and historic Christianity.

In short order, Collins debunks the argument from design (er…tries his best to debunk), derides the “God of the gaps”, and discounts the Cambrian explosion as a challenge to Darwinian evolution. But really, Collins’ argument boils down to this statement he makes in the middle of chapter 4:

“No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact, the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it.”

Collins unpacks his support for Darwinian evolution as he explains the genome and his work on the Human Genome Project. Collins refers to DNA as “the language of God”–“the DNA language by which God spoke life into being.” Honestly? I can’t say I disagree with him on that point. DNA is a marvelous thing, and it is the language that “tells” living things to carry out the functions of living. But then Collins tells us that most of God’s language is gobbledy-gook. He makes his case for evolution based on the similarities between the DNA of all living things (and the ability to create a phylogenetic tree) and on the prevalence of so-called “junk DNA” (DNA that has no known function.)

The difficulty I have with the “junk DNA” argument, in particular, is that, after deriding a “God of the gaps”, Collins now finds it completely reasonable to introduce an “evolution of the gaps”. We don’t know of functions for this DNA so it must be junk–and therefore must have come about by evolution rather than design. The evidence suggests otherwise. Unfortunately, many scientists who hold to this belief have abandoned the search for function in the “junk DNA”–but those who have continued to study junk DNA have found that there’s much less “junk” than they originally thought.

Part 3 of The Language of God turns again to science/faith conflict. Collins issues a warning by hailing back to Galileo–reminding believers that their interpretations have been wrong before, and that holding too tightly to a wrong interpretation can result in damage to the faith. Now he moves on to what he considers to be the four options in dealing with science faith issues: atheism and agnosticism (where science trumps faith), creationism (where faith trumps science), intelligent design (when science needs divine help), and “Biologos” (where science and faith are in harmony). “BioLogos”, of course, means theistic evolution.

This section was a mixed bag. I agreed with Collins’ point in the chapter on atheism. Science can not be used to discount the existence of God, especially since science cannot account for morality. I agreed with many (but not all) of Collins’ arguments against intelligent design, especially his argument that intelligent design does not offer a predictive (that is, testable) scientific model.

But Collins’ chapter on creationism seems to me to be setting up a straw man of sorts by focusing on Young Earth creationism. It is true that to hold that the universe is less than 10,000 years old means discounting the evidences of multiple branches of science (geology and cosmology primary ones, but analysis of prolific Chinese genealogies also suggests that humanity itself is older than Ussher’s date for creation.) But does this mean that the Genesis accounts are not to be taken literally and that Darwinian evolution should be accepted?

I don’t believe so. Collins completely ignores what I feel to be the most Biblically- and scientifically-faithful alternative: old earth creationism, particularly the (non-Darwinian) creation model set forth by Reasons to Believe. Reasons to Believe has a high view of Scripture AND a high view of science, believing both to be books written by God to display Himself.

The difference between Collins’ approach and RTB’s is marked. Collins says “Since the common interpretation of science and the common interpretation of Scripture are incompatible, the interpretation of Scripture must be wrong.” Unfortunately, Collins does not offer any alternative exegesis in support of theistic evolution. On the other hand, Reasons to Believe says “Since the common interpretation of science and the common interpretation of Scripture are incompatible, we must examine both carefully to ascertain what God is really speaking through the two books of general and special revelation.” Reasons to Believe offers a legitimate alternative exegesis of Genesis 1-2, as well as other creation accounts in Scripture–and offers a legitimate scientific model that has explanatory power for the observations Collins sees as irrefutable proofs of evolution.

Ultimately, I think that Collins is well-meaning in his writing and is a sincere believer in God–but I think he has more in common with a liberal branch of theology that discounts Scripture as truly inerrant than with historic Christianity (which has upheld a high view of Scripture). He made arguments for evolution, sure, ones that different individuals may find more or less convincing (I am less convinced). He made arguments for faith from outside the realm of science. But despite stating that science and faith are compatible, Collins failed to make any good arguments for how science and faith are compatible.

I’m glad I read The Language of God, and I’m thankful to Janet for drawing my attention to this book. Clearly, though, I was unconvinced by Collins’ arguments for theistic evolution (what he calls “BioLogos”).

Rating:3 Stars
Category:Science and Religion
Synopsis:The head of the Human Genome Project attempts to make a case for the compatibility of Christianity and science, particularly Darwinian evolution.
Recommendation: A thought-provoking book, but ultimately unconvincing. I recommend it for critical readers, not so much for those who aren’t able or willing to think critically as they read.

Categories The Week in Words

WiW: Waiting

2 Comments by

Waiting. It’s one of the most difficult tasks of my life.

For someone who hates to waste time, who wants to pack every moment full of something, waiting is terrible.

“I want to get on with my life,” I say.

I’m tired of waiting around for so and so to “talk it over”, for one or the other to “think about it.” I’m tired of waiting to get the okay from the higher ups, of waiting for the lower downs to catch up to where I’m at. I’m tired of waiting until I’m married, or until I have children, or until I own a house.

Waiting is hard.

But waiting isn’t wasted time.

“The active waiter finds purpose in every moment. She eagerly grabs hold of life and squeezes adventure and possibility out of each situation. Through the waiting, she develops an enviable trust in God. Psalm 37:3-7 describes the active waiter:

Trust in the Lord and do good [by reaching out to others];
Dwell in the land [make your home, settle down, be at peace where God puts you].
Delight yourself in the Lord [make the Lord your only joy], and he will give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your life [totally and unreservedly] to the Lord;
Trust in him and he will do this…
Be still before the Lord and
Wait patiently for him.

Trust, dwell, delight, commit, be still, and wait are all imperatives–they are not suggestions but commands. But of all the commands in Psalm 37, “wait patiently” is the most difficult. We can do this only if we have knelt at the altar of God’s timetable with open hands and an open heart and prayed:

‘But as for me, I trust in You, O Lord; I say “You are my God.” My times are in Your hand.’ (Psalm 31:14-15)”

~From Gift-Wrapped by God by Linda Dillow and Lorraine Pintus

Waiting has a purpose. Whatever its temporal purpose, it has a long-lasting purpose that far surpasses the momentary agony.

In it, I learn to trust in Christ. I learn to cling to Him. I learn to make Him my heart’s delight.

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
~James 1:2-4

Even if I die still waiting, my waiting will be worth it. For I will not die lacking. I will have Christ–and Him plus nothing equals everything.

The Week in WordsDon’t forget to take a look at Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”, where bloggers collect quotes they’ve read throughout the week.

Categories Flashback Friday

Flashback: Fast Food

2 Comments by

Prompt #9: “Did your family eat fast food often? What was you ‘go-to’ fast food restaurant? What was (is) your order at your favorite joint?”

My family didn’t eat fast food. Not much, anyway.

We ate fast food maybe once a month.

At first, it was “Sams”, a burger joint down the way that sold minimalistic hamburgers for some ridiculously low price. I don’t know, a quarter or fifty cents? All I know is Mom would spend ten bucks and feed the whole passel of us–and we were pretty big eaters (I’m talking multiple burgers per person for 6+ of us).

We always drove through at Sams, so I have no idea what the inside looked like.

We always went in to Taco Inn, on the other hand. Each of us kids got a 79 cent kids meal–a bean burrito, a small drink, and a cup of ice cream with sprinkles. And we had the chips and salsa that were available for free in the lobby. We got our money worth there, eating through tub after tub of chips. The burritos were delicious–but you had to kinda ignore the general unkemptness of the employees. Certainly, the cleanliness of their hair was less than awe-inspiring.

McDonald’s was anathema, and if we had to go to a chain burger joint, it was Burger King, where we could get Whopper Juniors. And that’s what we’d get. Whopper Juniors. Period. We didn’t get a lot of fancy side stuff. We got a sandwich, which we took home and ate with stuff of our own on the side.

The abuse we heaped on McDonald’s was over the top: They had cardboard sandwiches, they sprayed good smelling stuff on their food to make you think it was good. Okay, maybe that was the extent of the abuse.

We changed our tune (slightly) when two of my brothers started working at McDonalds. Then, it became a convenient place to spend nights with the kids after youth group. We’d take over a section of the dining room, piling it full of kids with their sodas or McFlurry’s. My brother came out and visited with the kids during his break–and after he handed the keys over to the next manager on duty. It wasn’t a bad way to spend a Wednesday night (I spent it there, even though I wasn’t in youth group, because I was a youth sponsor and because I love hanging out with my siblings, about half of whom were in youth group at that point.)

Which brings me, in roughly chronologic order, to today. Today when I had my first McChicken in a month.

When I started commuting back and forth between Columbus and Grand Island, I was working 12 hours days in GI. I didn’t have much option but to pick up fast food.

What I didn’t realize then was that going down to two eight hour days instead of one twelve wasn’t going to make it any easier to cook for myself once I got home.

I *always* eat lunch in my facilities as part of ensuring quality for our residents (the exception is when I foolishly space lunch because I’ve got my nose stuck in a chart). I get the last tray of the noon meal, generally around 12:30. Which means that if I leave GI around 4:30 (if I’m lucky-it’s usually closer to 5:30 or later), I’ll get back around six and be able to have supper at 6:30 at the earliest. Since the norm is leaving much later than the ideal, a long time passes between lunch and supper on days that I drive in to GI.

Which is all a justification for what has become a biweekly habit of mine-driving through McDonalds, where I get a McChicken and a Wild Berry Smoothie or a McChicken and a large Sprite, depending on how dehydrated I am.

Oh, and I occasionally throw in a small fry (although I always regret it since trans-fat-free frying oils have made all fried foods taste distinctly of rancidity) or an order of Cinnamon Bites.

Frankly? After a month off, I was glad to eat some “real” food on the way home–but McDonalds tasted pretty bleh. I think I should learn a lesson from my Fast Food Free February and stash oranges in my car to snack on during those drives home (at least, the ones that get started at a semi-decent hour!)

Categories Flashback Friday

Flashback Prompt: Fast Food Order

Leave a comment by

I just completed an excruciating month without fast food. Fast Food Free February, I called it–a chance to give my wallet (and maybe my gut) a break. What I forgot was how hungry I get between lunch at my Grand Island facilities (around 12:30) and when I can fix myself something once I get home (I usually can’t get something made until at least seven). With that in mind (and the taste of Sprite still on my tongue), I’m ready to write about fast food:

“Did your family eat fast food often? What was you ‘go-to’ fast food restaurant? What was (is) your order at your favorite joint?”