Many things have happened in this past week in Norman. This has been one of the strangest weeks I’ve seen. Many things have happened to me this week. However, it is not my life that has been the most changed this week; it is Chris Goree and his family that have had the drastic week. Christopher Goree has worked for the University of Oklahoma Baptist Student Union (OU BSU) and this past year I have been on his Ministry Team (MT). Chris has a wife, Laurie, and two children, Daniel and Anna.

As of Wednesday,  Chris no longer works for the BSU. Nothing illegal, immoral, or ungodly has been done; Chris is a godly and righteous man. What I have been told is that he and the BSU are going in different directions. What that exactly means, I don’t know. And I don’t think it is healthy give it too much thought, as it would be mostly speculation.

Here is what I know: John Kelsey (Kels), Director of the BSU, did not make this decision lightly or quickly. He agonized over the decision and consulted Max Barnett, John Strappazon, and Dick Jaques. I also know that both Kels and Chris love God and want to make disciples. And I know that while a great many people are hurt, blaming or slandering either party hardly seems wise or honoring to God. I’m not suggesting anyone has taken sides, I am simply encouraging anyone reading this not to ‘take sides.’

The situation being briefly described,  I would like to say a few things about Chris. As I said earlier, he is a very godly man; he loves God, God’s Word, and people. Chris earnestly and passionately seeks after God and intimately knows the Scripture. Few people remember names like Chris does and even fewer can tell stories like him. When he greets someone, that person knows that he really cares about them. He has poured out his life to those around him, demonstrating Christ’s love to them.

Chris has taught me an enormous amount over the past several months. He has taught me about prayer, relationships, and Scripture. Chris not only has practical advice on relationships, he demonstrates what he says, from students, to neighbors, to his family. Not to belittle what I’ve learned from my parents or grandparents, but I have learned quite a bit just from being in the Gorees’ home and watching Chris interact with his lovely wife and wonderful children.

I think you would be hard pressed to find another man like Chris Goree; or even another family like the Goree family. His wife, Laurie, sets an amazing example of Christ-likeness and is constantly recommending great books and resources. And it is a joy to talk with their brilliant son, Daniel, and insightful daughter, Anna.

Also, Chris is incredibly smart and educated. And one of the things that has really impressed me is that you would never know that from talking with him. That’s not to say that people walk away from conversations with him thinking he’s a moron; he simply chooses not to use impressive speech, does not flout his knowledge, and hardly ever refers to his education. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 1991 with a BA in History and Psychology, and in 1994 he received his Juris Doctorate in law from Oklahoma City University. He has attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and has a degree from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Chris and his family have impacted many lives, and though they are hurting right now, I think they know that they are loved and that they are being prayed for. 

How is God involved in this? Well, simply put, God is sovereign and in control of everything. He will work everything together for good.

Romans 8:28 (NASB)

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

 

I know there have been many times when people have referred me to this verse and I have hated it; and I am sure I have not been alone in that. Why is that? I felt it was cliché and trite and in some ways I was correct. It is easy to say that God is sovereign. However, it is a hard thing to believe. I suspect Romans 8:28 is one of the most oft quoted and least believed verses in the Bible.

Right now, it is hard to see God’s design in this. Really, we might never see it; but I suspect we will. Right now, probably what is needed most in the lives of those involved and affected is patience, trust, and obedience. Again this is easy to say – easy to write, but hard to do. Many times over these past few weeks, I have been frustrated with God. And yet, it was because God’

s will did not match my own and I needed to trust God and submit to Him in simple obedience.

Psalm 33:8-11 (NASB)

Let all the earth fear the LORD;

Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

For He spoke, and it was done;

He commanded, and it stood fast.

The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations;

He frustrates the plans of the peoples.

The counsel of the LORD stands forever,

The plans of His heart from generation to generation.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:14 (NASB)

I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.

 

Ecclesiastes 7:8-14 (NASB)

The end of a matter is better than its beginning;

Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit.

Do not be eager in your heart to be angry,

For anger resides in the bosom of fools.

Do not say, “Why is it that the former days were better than these?”

For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this.

Wisdom along with an inheritance is good

And an advantage to those who see the sun.

For wisdom is protection just as money is protection,

But the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors.

Consider the work of God,

For who is able to straighten what He has bent?

In the day of prosperity be happy,

But in the day of adversity consider–

God has made the one as well as the other

So that man will not discover anything that will be after him.

 

Proverbs 19:21 (NASB)

Many plans are in a man’s heart,

But the counsel of the LORD will stand.

 

Psalm 145:17-19 (NASB)

The LORD is righteous in all His ways

And kind in all His deeds.

The LORD is near to all who call upon Him,

To all who call upon Him in truth.

He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him;

He will also hear their cry and will save them.

 

            God is in control over all that happens and is kind and good. God is righteous and will care for those who love Him. And even when Christians are in need, they can rest in knowing that their hope is not in this world, but it is in Christ. That hope is not a wish or a delusion, but a confidence in what we know to be certain.

1 Peter 1:3-5 (NASB)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

There were many purposes in writing this post; the main purposes were to honor Chris and his family, to encourage those who are sad and hurting, and to glorify God. With those things in mind, I will leave you with the words to a hymn I love:

How Firm a Foundation

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word! What more can He say than to you He hath said, to you who for refuge to Jesus hath fled?

“Fear not, I am with thee; O be not dismayed, for I am thy God, and will still give thee aid; I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand, upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.”

“When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie, My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply; the flame shall not hurt thee; I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.”

“The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose, I will not, I will not desert to its foes; that soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake, I’ll never, no, never, no, never forsake!”

Chris, you have had an enormous impact in my life – you have taught me, poured into me, and have shared your life with me. I thank God for you! You are in my prayers! I love you and will certainly continue to love you and be your friend, whatever is in store for you next.

Quite a bit has happened to me over the past week. Right now I am near Santa Fe, New Mexico. I have been at a week-long conference. This valley I am in is beautiful. The speaker was amazing and I will likely be posting many of the things I have gleaned from him. I have gone hiking, played miniature golf, played French Cricket, played BANG!, and I have greatly enjoyed the fellowship of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Also, I have had a few discussions about Open Theism with a friend of mine. I will likely write a bit about that as well - though while writing about that I will likely borrow from my friends, Chris Krycho and Tim Graf (neither of which are Open Theists).

Also, in a discussion about con-substantiation, Tim suggested that our Lutheran friends be asked if “Christ can be in the bread and with the bread, but not under it.” In other words, what do they actually mean when they say that Christ is in, with, and under the bread?

I heard these on the radio the other day and thought they were worth posting. Also, I’m going to shorten the jokes; just be aware that they all start with “How many _____ does it take to change a light bulb?” Below are the responses:

• Calvinists - None. God has predestined when the lights when he lights will be on and be off.
• Arminians -  Only one. But first the bulb must want to be changed.
• Charismatics - One. And his hands were up in the air anyway.
• Baptists - Change?!
• Pentacostals - Ten. One to change the bulb and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.
• TV Evangelists - One. But for the message of the light to continue send in your donation today.
• Fundamentalists - Only one. Because more than one would be compromise and ecumenical.
• Charismatics - None. Unless the Lord leads them to change it.
• Dispensationalists- Two. One to change the bulb and one to keep the promises to the old bulb.
• Promise Keepers - None. Unless coach McCartney says it’s manly to do so.
• Calvinists - Every Calvinists knows that only God can change a light bulb.
• Episcopalians - None. They assume darkness is the nature of the bulb and it would be harmful and disrespectful to violate the personality of the bulb.
• Evolutionists - None. It will naturally change over time.
• Lutherans - Seventeen. Five to form a committee to find and nominate nine people to a committee, which shall then discuss the issues of bulb changing. From which, that committee shall appoint three other people to carry out the final resolution of the second committee, which is that one person shall supervise while one changes the bulb. And one will follow up in one month’s time on the performance of the bulb.
• 7th Day Adventists- One, as long as it isn’t on Saturday.
• Atheists - One. But they’re still in darkness.
• Liberal Christians- One hundred and eleven. Twenty-seven to reconstruct the dilapidated house that a burnt-out bulb would be found in. Fifteen to set up a food and clothes pantry to provide for both those who are constructing and willing to live in the house. Eight ’scholars’ to think of new ways of understanding light. Three more ’scholars’ to explain how much we’ve misunderstood the bulb. Thirty-two to love the old bulb in the same way Jesus loved bulbs. And twenty-six to love the new bulb the same way Jesus loved bulbs.
• Amish - What’s a light bulb?
• Emergents - No one knows. They avoid discerning between light and darkness.
• Youth Pastors - They aren’t around long enough to change a light-bulb.
• Liberal Christians- At least ten, as they need to hold a debate on whether or not the light-bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light-bulb, they still might not change it, to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

McCain - I’m not going to go into detail about why you shouldn’t vote for McCain. I think this is obvious to many conservatives. If you want reasons why McCain shouldn’t be supported listen to talk radio. You can also read Michael Bates’ series on Why “Stop McCain”? (Pt 2, Pt 3).Romney -  One of the reasons I am not going to vote for Romney is that he is a mormon. Now, before anyone gets upset, I want to make it clear that I don’t think that his mormonism makes him unfit for office. However, if a mormon were to become the President of the United States, it would most likely give Mormonism the ability to become mainstream. It would at the very least lend it some credibility. And I most certainly do not want this little henotheistic, non-Trinitarian, proselytizing , frightening cult to grow.

Huckabee -  His record as governor doesn’t lend itself to demonstrating him to be a conservative. Also, I do not want evangelicals to give him a pass on his politics and notice only that he is an evangelical Christian. However, I would much prefer him to McCain. And, at least for those in Oklahoma, he is the most strategic to vote for. Again, I think Michael Bates explains it well.

I encourage all Oklahomans to vote for Huckabee. I’ll leave you with this video: 

This is the first episode of my new podcast, The BIggs Picture.  I expect that over time the sound quality and content quality will improve. Depending on weekly constraints on time and guests, some podcasts may be longer than this, but this will likely be the normal length (21 min).   

 

 Introduction to Truth: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Recently I read Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I would not recommend this book to anyone. The subtitle is “Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality.” It is mostly a narrative that bases its arguments on experience. As far as I can remember, it does not quote the Bible or reference it directly, it merely alludes to it a couple of times. I could hardly recommend a book on spirituality that barely mentions the Bible, let alone a book that is not based on the Bible.

“Actually,” I told him reluctantly, “I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don’t think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, ’cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, that there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe.” ^{[1: p 17]}

Miller doesn’t say exactly what he means by fundamentalists, but I don’t think it is far fetched to infer that he is saying that he doesn’t quite agree with total depravity. It seems he believes that sin nature is a flaw and a propensity toward evil. People can do good things (even great things), but it isn’t easy. What does the Bible say about man and his nature?

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? ^*

Psalm 14:1-3 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. ^*

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.” ^*

No one does good, not even one! That’s is quite a bit different from what Miller describes.

A little later, in a chapter called “Magic,” Miller talks about “big haired preachers” and what they said about Christ.

I never liked it when the preachers said we had to follow Jesus. Sometimes they would make Him sound angry. But I liked the idea of Jesus becoming a man, so that we would be able to trust Him, and I like that He healed people and loved them and cared deeply about how people were feeling. ^{[1; 34]}

Jesus is angry. Is He loving? Of course, He demonstrated that on the cross. But that doesn’t mean He is never angry or that He is not angry with sin or sinners. John 3:36 says, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” ^* Or read about the Second Coming:

Revelation 19:11-16 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” ^*

Furthermore, why would we be more inclined to trust God as a man? We should trust Jesus, but not because He was made a man. And He did not become a man so that we would trust Him! He became a man to seek and save the lost - He became a man to be the perfect mediator between man and God - to save man from sin and Hell - to satisfy the wrath of God!

It also gives me little comfort to see Miller put quite a bit of stock in what he likes and doesn’t like, rather than what is true.

Starting on page 41, Miller speaks about Reed College saying, “I felt alive at Reed.” Also, “As odd as it sounds, having grown up in the church, I fell in love with the campus. The students were brilliant and engaged. I was fed there, stimulated, and impassioned. I felt connected to the raging current of thoughts and ideas.” Then, in the next paragraph, he says, “Many of the students hated the very idea of God, and yet they cared about people more than I did.” Wonderful.

Miller makes several snide remarks in this book. When talking about his writing career (on page 188), he makes this remark, “There’s not a lot of work in the Christian market if you won’t write self-righteous, conservative propaganda.” Really?! I used to work at Mardel (a Christian store, which does sell books); there are plenty of liberal books and many books that are fluff and so theologically vacuous that they can hardly be classified as liberal or conservative. And there is a plethora of conservative books that could hardly be called ’self-righteous.’ I find much of the ’self-righteousness’ in the liberal books, whereas the conservative books tend to recognize Christians have a righteousness that is not their own, but Christ’s.

In a chapter called “Money,” Miller writes about a friend named Curt who hates church, cusses, tells dirty jokes, and watches ‘South Park.’ Curt lectures Miller on tithing and Miller says, “I go over to Curt’s house to watch South Park, and I get a guilt trip from a fundamentalist.” So, Curt hates church, etc. but is a fundamentalist? What exactly is your definition of a fundamentalist, Mr. Miller? Is it simply someone disagree with? Is it anyone the slightest bit more theologically conservative than you?

I think the line that really caught my attention and really annoyed me was on page 115. “For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced, but not explained.”

This idea that Christianity (or Christian spiritualism) cannot be explained is rampant throughout the book, as well as the emerging church. So, it did not surprise me to see this idea again in the beginning of the seventeenth chapter, “Worship.”

There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I understand them. A statement like this offends some Christians because they believe if aspects of their faith do not obey the facts of reality, they are not true. But I think there are all sorts of things our hearts believe that don’t make any sense to our heads. Love, for instance; we believe in love. Beauty. Jesus as God. ^{[1: p 201]}

I stopped where I did because the paragraph that follows that is absolute nonsense. I would agree that parts of the Christian faith do not align with reality as perceived by Donald Miller. However, I would say that truth is defined as thet which corresponds to reality as perceived by God.

On the following page, Donald Miller relates trying to convince his friend that he is a mystic:

I asked him if he believed in the Trinity. He said he did. I asked him if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one. He said he did. I asked him if that would be considered a mystical idea. He just stood there thinking.
You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic. ^{[1: p 202]}

I think, more than anything, this shows that Mr. Miller does not understand the Trinity or mysticism. Now, I am not saying that anyone can fully understand the Trinity, or God. But there is an enormous difference between being a mystic and not have a complete knowledge of something. The Trinity is three Persons and one God; three persons in one nature, one essence. The Trinity is not three persons and one person.

Mysticism often refers to the idea that intuitive and immediate knowledge of ultimate reality (or in this case, God) is possible. That is, you can have knowledge of God that bypasses the intellect and cognitive abilities that is straight from God. If Miller means mysticism by this definition, then I would say the closest thing to this that Christianity teaches is the conscience, or rather, the innate knowledge of the Law. There is an experiential knowledge in Christianity, but it is no more mystical than the experiential knowledge I have of tasting a steak. All other knowledge of God is given to us through the Bible.

Now, I want to contrast Donald Miller’s atrocious ideas of truth and knowledge with what R.C. Sproul has to say about truth and knowledge. Here’s what Sproul has to say about the private interpretation of the Bible:

For the classic Protestant, though the individual believer has the right to the private interpretation of Scripture, it is clearly acknowledged that the individual is capable of misinterpreting the Bible. He has the ability to misinterpret Scripture, but never the right to do it. That is, with the right of private interpretation the responsibility of correct interpretation is also given. We never have the right to distort the teaching Scripture. ^{[2: p 43]}

And this is what Sproul says about truth:

As Christians, we must be intimately involved with and passionately concerned about the matter of truth. Because, we are told, Biblically, that God in His character (in His inmost being) is defined as a being who is altogether truthful.

We remember the banter between Pontius Pilate and Jesus during Jesus’ trial. Where Jesus spoke concerning the truth and Pilate suddenly wanted to become philosophical, and he said, “What is truth?” And at that very moment the Truth was standing right in front of him.^[3]

In John 14, Jesus calls Himself the “Way, and the Truth, and the Life.” He defined Himself as truth. The Christian ought to consider truth sacred. Contrast this with Satan. He is a deceiver; in the first time he is mentioned in the Bible, he is lying. John 8 says there is no truth in him.

R.C. Sproul continues:

Let me say something that may sound outrageous to you: Errors in doctrine are sinful. It is a sin to be wrong. It is a sin to be wrong about theology. It is a sin to hold a wrong view; it is an even greater sin to teach a wrong view.

Why do Christians differ in theology ad doctrine?

Because the Word of God is so obscure, so mottled, so mysterious that no virtuous person could ever really sort it out? Or is it because when we come to the Biblical text, we come with our prejudices, we come with our biases, we come slothfully, rather than diligently?

Is there anybody in this room that, since you got out of bed this morning, has loved the Lord your God with your whole mind? Is there anyone in this room who, for one full day, has given a perfect living sacrifice of your mind to a pursuit of the truth of God? ^[3]

This is radically different from Miller’s “nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced, but not explained.” Christianity not only can be explained, but should be. Scripture should be carefully examined. 2 Timothy 2:15-17a says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.” And if you back up a little bit, you’ll see 2 Timothy 2:2 “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” A little further and you’ll come to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” ^*

Luke 1:1-4 says, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” So Luke wrote his gospel so that Theophilus would know the exact truth? It seems so.

Look through Proverbs and you will also see that knowledge and wisdom are attainable and that it comes through the fear of the Lord and through God’s Word. It must be sought after, but you can receive it. Christianity can be explained and is not some mysterious, mystical thing you must experience. Can you experience Christianity? Yes. Are there mysteries (things we do not comprehend in its entirety) in Christianity? Yes. But it isn’t mysticism. Go read the Bible.

^{* New American Standard Bible © The Lockman Foundation.
1 Miller, Donald. Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality. 2003. Thomas Nelson, Inc.
2 Sproul, R.C. Scripture Alone. 2005. P & R Publishing Company.
3 Sproul, R.C. Renewing Your Mind with R.C. Sproul: Telling the Truth. Podcast. Dec 25, 2007. Ligonier Ministries.}

Today I read this article in Wired News, about the National Academy of Sciences releasing a report concerning the importance of teaching evolution in schools. 

The article says, “The new document includes recently discovered evidence supporting evolution, including an important fossil find.” The article, however, fails to mention any specific evidence.

The article goes on to say that there is a lack of evidence for anti-evolution views. Intelligent design (ID) is described as “an alternative to evolution favored by some religious conservatives.” While this is true, I think this still misleading. It lends itself to be mistaken to mean that only religious conservatives support ID, which simply isn’t true.

I think the statement that angered me the most was, “Intelligent design holds that the universe’s order and complexity are so great that evolution cannot explain it.” That is not what ID purports! ID holds that specified complexity within biological entities is evidence of design. Either the author, Nancy Zuckerbrod, did not research what ID is, understand what ID is, or purposefully lied about what ID is. I am also open to the idea that she found her definition of ID from someone else who committed one of the previous three choices. Nonetheless, she should have gotten her definition from Dembski, Behe, or Johnson. I find any of the four way to produce that statement to be either incredibly lazy or incredibly deceitful.

This article said nothing of much importance; it simply furthers the portrayal of those who are anti-evolution as a dimwitted, religious, conservative minority standing in the way of the real scientists, who are calmly trying to demonstrate the importance of teaching some great scientific truth to students.

It is one of thousands of such articles that are intentionally vague, deceptive, and subtle. These articles are not necessarily dangerous because of what they say, but usually because of the things they imply. Now and then, I am going to examine and point out one of these dangerous articles.

I have recently read Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions and have decided to make some resolutions of my own. Several of these convictions have been working in my heart and in mind for some time and several coincide with Edwards’. And though I cannot articulate them as clearly or as eloquently as Jonathan Edwards, I find myself compelled to record them nonetheless. It is not my intention to merely take Edwards’ Resolutions and restate them, but he has influenced the order and phrasing of my resolutions regardless. Furthermore, I find I can write no preface to my resolutions so well as Edwards that I will use his introduction:

Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat Him by His grace to enable me to keep these resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to His will, for Christ’s sake.     

1. Resolved, to do whatsoever I see will bring the most glory and pleasure to God without regard to cost, time, and energy. Resolved to carry out my duty to fear God and obey His commandments.
2. Resolved, to desire and find my pleasure and joy in Christ. To thirst after the living God. To delight in the character and nature of God.
3. Resolved, to study God’s Word, to search and meditate on the Scriptures, that I may better fulfill the first two resolutions.
4. Resolved, in my love of Christ, to have and grow a heart for the nations and for my fellow man. To love and serve my neighbors because Christ loved me. 
5. Resolved, in my love of Christ and my love for my neighbors, pursue excellence in the things I set out to accomplish, so as to glorify God, imitate Christ, and further the Gospel. That in my work I may be found approved and above reproach, with no need for shame, but walking in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.
6. Resolved, that when I should stumble or fall in the keeping any part of these resolutions, when I am myself and of sound mind, that I repent of all I remember and submit my will to Christ once more.
7. Resolved, never to do anything that I would not do if I expected Christ to return within the hour.
8. Resolved, never to do anything that I would see fit to despise in others.
9. Resolved, to pray earnest, specific prayers, always expecting them to come to pass.
10. Resolved, to create, maintain, and preserve peace except when doing so violates another resolution.
11. Resolved, to battle and discourage heresy by clearly articulating and rightly dividing the Word of God and always doing so in love.
12. Resolved, to act as I think I should wish I had if I am damned in the end.
13. Resolved, when I am in pain, to think of the pains of Christ, of martyrdom, and of hell.
14. Resolved, never to spend money when I think that when looking back in a year’s time I will think it to be rash, foolish, stupid, selfish, dishonest, or imprudent. Yet also, in my giving, to be charitable, generous, and cheerful; always giving gladly when I can.

As I look back over my list, it occurs to me that it only makes sense that, after reading Edwards, I should borrow from some of his phrasing. After all, he, being widely held to be one of America’s greatest theologians (if not the greatest), would surely produce clear, concise, and meaningful resolutions; whereas I am more likely to butcher the use of our language in everything I write. In any case,  I have listed my resolutions and now the daunting task of carrying them out lays ahead. Will I break them? Most certainly. That is why I must rely on Christ and must never break the 6th resolution. And, if in my studying of the Bible, I find that a resolution is contrary to Scripture, then I will either fix or abandon it.