the journals

Last night one of our neighbors allowed his car alarm to go off – from one in the morning until who knows when (hours later). I’ve been having a terrible time sleeping, anyway, so I think I clocked in at about two or three hours tops, after going upstairs where it was infinitely quieter. I had this funny nightmare about being late to work because I was sleeping upstairs, too… I dreamed I overslept until 8:40 (after I’m supposed to be at work) and then, to top things off, couldn’t manage to drive to work because I was dizzy and kept crashing into telephone booths.

I have weird dreams sometimes.

Tonight I made a cheese-and-eggplant sandwich (Seth’s working tonight), on this funny rye stuff that isn’t sure if it’s a cracker or bread… sorta like pita bread, only crunchy. At any rate, it was pretty good. I’ve never cooked eggplant before, and I didn’t have any clue what I was doing, but I think it turned out okay. Not very filling, though!

I had some more significant things to say, but I’m really, really sleepy, and I apparently don’t have as much energy to write as I thought I did. So I think I’d better close, scoot off to get ready for bed, and save the deeper things for another day.

The final piece of Julie’s Songs, Julie’s Song No. 12, can be heard here. I hope you enjoy it!

http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=307369&T=3505

I have recently been awakened in my thoughts regarding the importance of the doctrine of baptism. Most professing Christians feel that baptism is an issue that can be tolerantly overlooked for want of peace with other Christians. At times, I have found myself inclined toward this position. But recently I have been forced to answer the question, What priority does Scripture give to baptism? And frankly, I cannot deny the conclusion of my conscience that Scripture commands baptism of Christians. Matthew 28:19 is the most commonly known passage proving this point: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” There is also a command in Acts 2:37-38: “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Another example, where Peter is speaking about Gentiles who have received the Holy Spirit, shows the urgency and requirement of baptism: Acts 10:47-48 says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.” From these verses, then, it becomes clear that baptism is not a topic that Christians can view lightly. Rather, baptism is an issue of morality – an issue of sin or obedience to God’s commands.

That being said, I want to make sure that I extend my warmest love toward those who do not share my views – particularly my Presbyterian brothers and sisters. Much is to be commended of the gospel work done by those of the PCA, OPC, PCUSA, and other Presbyterian denominations. However, I cannot deny the testimony of God’s Word that every Christian man, woman, boy, and girl holding to these paedobaptist beliefs is in direct moral violation of one of the clearest and most urgent commands of God. In their belief of paedobaptism, which is the baptizing of infants, they practice a damnable heresy contrary to Scripture, and it is my sincere prayer that every paedobaptist will see their error and come to hold the true teachings of Scripture regarding baptism.

In this short little essay, I will plea Scripturally for believer’s baptism, showing that this view is the only proper and God-glorifying view. I will also show why paedobaptism is fallacious and seriously damaging to a Christian’s understanding of the Bible.

Argument 1: Paedobaptism is historically absurd.

Without question, arguing from history is not the final authority for truth, but history certainly sheds light on the reality of matters. What does history say about paedobaptism? The answer to this question is not something that most paedobaptists want anyone to know; I dare say that most paedobaptists aren’t even aware of this fact themselves. To their own embarrassment, the doctrine of paedobaptism, embraced by the major Presbyterian denominations, was not practiced until late in the history of the Church. How late exactly? Not two hundred years after the church began. Not three hundred. Not even four hundred, five hundred, six hundred, or seven hundred years after the Church began. Are seven hundred years enough time for the Church to think about baptism? Let’s give them another one hundred years. Still not there? Just to be kind, let’s give the Church another seven hundred years of cultural and ideological changes. We’ll throw in a few wars just to be safe. Has the truth of paedobaptism been discovered yet? This enlightening gem of theology didn’t show up until over one thousand five hundred years of church history had passed. Only from the mind of Ulrich Zwingli in the sixteenth century did the Presbyterian view of paedobaptism begin to develop!

Why is this astonishing historical fact so significant? It is astonishing because of the urgent and primary importance that the Bible places on baptism. If baptism is so prominent a theme; if it is commanded of the Church alongside the necessity of so basic a doctrine as repentance, then why did it allegedly take such an incredible amount of time for the correct position of baptism to be discovered? Does this not lead to the possibility that Zwingli sought to salvage the long-standing tradition of infant baptism in the Catholic Church by finding a way to make the doctrine fit with Scripture? Perhaps.

There are other historical problems with infant baptism. According to earlier sources, infant baptism was a topic of discussion during the times of the early church. Without argument, infant baptism was even practiced by some at this time, claiming that the practice was apostolic tradition. Yet Tertullian, who is often recognized as a staunch defender of apostolic traditions, gave no defense for infant baptism! This is surely astounding if infant baptism is so urgent a doctrine for the church!

Another source called Didache (100-125 A.D.), served as an early church manual. In this document, instructions for baptism are given only for catechumens, not infants! If the early church had been advocating the practice of paedobaptism, then why is such a practice not promoted in this important church manual?

So in conclusion to the historical dilemma for paedobaptism, we see that the Presbyterian view of baptism is significantly lacking any weighty historical precedence. Not only does the Presbyterian view of baptism show up 1500 years after Christ, but the sources from the early church that we have indicate that paedobaptism was not the advocated practice of apostolic tradition.

Argument Two: Paedobaptism is biblically absurd:

However, historical argumentation can at best only corroborate with the ultimate proof of any doctrine, which is Scripture. There are many arguments against paedobaptism from Scripture, but for the sake of brevity, I will give only a few.

First, there is the most well-known argument against paedobaptism, which is the fact that no explicit example of paedobaptism exists in the entire Bible! Yes, paedobaptists will make eloquent explanations from the Bible, taking some of the most amazing contextual twists and turns until an elaborate theological pretzel is fashioned. But could it be that such an explanation is required because of the deafening silence of biblical example? Paedobaptists are tired of hearing baptists give this argument, but they must hear it again, and again, and again, because in order for them to turn way from their sinful practice of infant baptism, they must hear the truth of God’s Word, which reveals that infant baptism is not a biblical truth ever clearly given in any text of Scripture.

The only texts which the paedobaptists can cling to as examples of infant baptism are found in the book of Acts, where accounts of household baptisms are recorded. Frankly, it is amazing that anyone could draw any other conclusion from these texts except that only a repentant born again believer should be baptized upon hearing the gospel.

Acts 2:38-39 is one of the texts that is sometimes used by paedobaptists to defend their view. The text says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The important part for paedobaptists is “for you and your children.” The claim is that the benefits of receiving Christ extend to one’s children according to this verse. However, a careful look at the context of the passage clearly indicates that Peter is extending the promise and result of salvation to any person who will “repent and be baptized.” This is the only possible interpretation of the text; otherwise, what does one do with the phrase “and for all who are far off"? If we are to handle this text like some paedobaptists wish to handle it, then children of believing parents are no more special than “all who are far off"! In other words, the promise and benefits offered by Peter are offered to parents, their children, and anyone else who will “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ . . .” There is no distinction of children apart from anyone else in this passage, and therefore this passage cannot be used in support for paedobaptists.

The baptism of Lydia and her household in Acts 16:14-15 is also used as a possible incidence of infant baptism. The text reads in verse 15, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” Besides the glaring fact that any claim for infant baptism from this text is, to say the least, reading into the text, the context of this passage demands that the necessary circumstances of baptism are clearly shown to be faithfulness, which, in case anyone forgot, is an act of which infants are not capable. What was the prerequisite condition for Lydia before she was baptized? In verse 14 we see that before she was baptized, “the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” In other words, she heard the Word of God first! This important theological teaching is attested in every account of baptism in the New Testament! Such examples include the following verses:

Matthew 3:5-6 (ESV)
Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, [6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Galatians 3:27 (ESV)
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col. 2:12 (ESV)
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

In any of these passages about baptism, is their any room for infants? Can an infant confess his sin? Can an infant put on Christ? Can an infant be raised with Christ through faith? No! No! No! And text after text only further solidifies this truth. Look for yourself. If you are too lazy to do it, then I will be glad to send you a long list of texts.

Now, I do not write so tongue-in-cheek to be mean, but I do so because I want to convey my attitude of aggravation and concern with this terrible heresy of paedobaptism. Even though I don’t believe paedobaptists are damned to hell for their belief, I do believe their position is divisive and destructive to the unity of Christ’s bride. I have seen this happen with my own brothers in Christ, and I want to do everything I can to prevent it from happening. If you are someone thinking about accepting paedobaptism and the theology surrounding it, then I ask you, on the basis of what biblical text or historical foundation are you doing so? Are you sure you are not emotionally drawn to the strong theological foundation of Presbyterians?” Please let your emotions be guided by truth, not truth guided by your emotions.

With that statement, let me make it very clear that I detest paedobaptism. I love the brethren who hold to it, but I think the theology of paedobaptism is hurtful to the church and the mission of the gospel. This is especially true of heretics like Douglas Wilson, who have taken paedobaptist theology and used it to cause parents to stumble in presenting their children with the gospel.

I urge any paedobaptist Christians to reconsider their beliefs on the matter. These beliefs are damaging the advance of the gospel among our most precious souls–our children!

I know that I have left many ends untied, and for that I apologize, but this is not the platform for a thorough attack on infant baptism. I will be glad to discuss this issue further through the comments section.

John 13:34-35 (ESV)
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. [35] By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

With these words of Jesus in mind, I think that it is time for those of us who call ourselves Christians to take a deep look at the attitude of our own hearts toward our brothers and sisters in Christ. I am increasingly appalled by myself and other Christians at the slimy refuse that lingers in our minds and drips from our mouths when we deal with other Christians. I have heard it preached too few times that there should be less gossip, backbiting, and slander among the body of brethren. And even when this topic is mentioned, it is spoken of in a chummy and indirect manner, because pastors are too spineless to speak according to the authority of God’s Word.

What is the purpose of calling oneself a Christian and being a part of a church, if one acts and lives just as non-believers act? We congratulate ourselves for loving our wives, husbands, and close friends, but even non-Christians do this! One of the most important characteristics of a Christian that sets him apart from the world is his ability to love even those who do not love him. It is the ability to love those brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we have little in common. It is the ability to love those Christians with whom we have opposing interpretations of Scripture. It is the ability to love those Christians who frustrate us in their spiritual immaturity. It is the ability to love ugly, unsociable, unlikable, awkward, weird, and quirky Christians. Let’s face it: Such Christians are out there.

Does anyone recall that we were once vile and filthy persons before a holy God? Imagine one who comes upon a the corpse of a man; his flesh is rotting and the organs of his body are putrefying and swelling with liquid. His body is venerating the foul smell of dead flesh. Maggots, birds, and dogs are feasting on the open flesh of the corpse. What will be the reaction of the one who comes upon this sight? Even the most concerned person will be repulsed and cover his mouth from the sickening stench.

Do we not see what the Lord our God has done for us? We were repulsive to Him. When He looked upon us, He too had to cover his mouth because of the rottenness of our flesh. He considered us to be his enemies. He opposed us, and the foul stench of our sin meant that we could not stand in His presence, and yet He loved us and made us His own in Christ.

Do we avoid certain brothers and sisters in Christ because we have passed judgment on them? Which brothers have we deemed unworthy to converse and fellowship with? How many people are in our churches with whom we have not spoken or taken even the time to say hello, because we assume things about them that in our minds makes them unfit for our presence? When, I ask, will we obey the command of Christ and love our brethren as Christ has loved us in our own putrefying filth? When will we love them with the same sacrificial love with which Christ has undeservedly loved us? When?

Church membership. What exactly do these words mean during a time of heightened relative truth? In the whirlwind of different denominations, styles of worship, and church government, what exactly does being a member of a church signify? It seems to me that there are two major opinions on this subject. One opinion is that church membership does not mean very much at all. To speak frankly, many seem to feel that being a member of a church is a mere formal ritualistic necessity. It is simply being accepted into a gang or club where “Christians” meet. Another opinion is that membership is crucial to distinguishing and holding intact the integrity of local Christian churches. Without membership, they say, there is great difficulty in holding theological uniformity. A slack attitude toward church membership is to open the door to the creeping in of unorthodox beliefs into a local body. In the midst of these attitudes about church membership, what is the truth of the matter? How is the believer supposed to understand his membership in the church? This is the question I seek an answer for. Let the discussion begin.

I have become increasingly puzzled at the lack of understanding about church membership among churchgoers. Even when I ask church leaders about their church membership policies, their answers are at best sincere but insufficient explanations. Why is this? Aside from a lazy approach by many in addressing the issue, the topic is made more difficult to discuss because of the lack of discussion in Scripture. However, churchgoers are not without any biblical precedence. Paul makes it plainly clear to the church at Corinth that they are not to receive those who deny the gospel that he preached to them. He also tells them that they are not to associate with anyone who claims Christ and yet lives an immoral and sinful life. To the church in Galatia, Paul curses everyone who would preach a different gospel than himself. Even from these few examples, then, it is easily seen that there is to be a distinct separation from the world by a local church, which is to be made up of true Christians.

If, then, a local church is to consist purely of Spirit-filled Christians, the question that I ask in my own mind is, how far is the local church to take this exclusivity from outsiders? To put it another way, how is a local congregation to receive persons into their body when they express interest in becoming a regular part of the church? If a local body is too lenient in their membership process, then it seems that such a body is more susceptible to inviting enemies of the cross into the fold. But if a local body is too restrictive, then it seems that such a body is more susceptible to creating an impenetrable barrier to believers who wish to become part of the body.

What is the solution to these problems? It seems that the right direction is towards the very definition of what a church is. The author of Hebrews states that believers are not to forsake the assembling of one another. Jesus says that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in their midst. He also says that those who are His own will be known by their love for each other. Clearly, then, the basic definition of a church is the assembling of Christians together in the name of Christ. We have further instruction that there are to be qualified elders who are to be in leadership over a local church. However, the legitimacy of a church is not dependent on the presence of elders, although a Christian body is to seek out such men to fill the position of elder. But elders are a topic for a different discussion.

So then, a church is essentially the assembling of believers on a regular basis. The issue concerns the definition of a believer. Without question, a believer is one who has put his trust in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins against God. A believer is one who no longer lives for himself, but lives in Christ. It is no longer he who lives, but Christ lives in Him. Essentially, then, those who join together while living by these beliefs form a church.

But what about other matters of Scripture? What about doctrinal areas such as baptism, soteriology, communion, the Trinity, or the relationship between the Old and New Testaments? What is to be done when two families desire to start a church while having contradicting opinions on baptism, with one holding to believer’s baptism and the other holding to paedobaptism? What are they going to do when the issue of baptism comes to attention in their body? Should the baptist family just tolerate the paedobaptist family as they sprinkle their infants? This matter becomes particularly difficult when both families believe that their preferred style of baptism is a matter of obedience to Christ. To make matters even more difficult, what is to be done if these two families are in an area of the world where they are the only two Christian families nearby? Should they not meet together and share the Word and fellowship with one another?

I do not mean to make baptism the issue of this essay. The topic is merely an example to show my struggles with church membership. As I face these difficulties, I am becoming more convinced that the criterion for becoming a church member should be based upon the essential foundation of Christianity, which is to receive Christ as Savior and follow Him wholeheartedly according to His Word. No knowledge of baptism, the Trinity, soteriology, or the Old and New Covenants is required to receive Jesus Christ and become part of God’s family. Did the thief on the cross get a theology lesson before he believed? No. At the moment the thief was made alive in Christ, he became part of the bride of Christ, which is the Church for which Christ died.

How, then, can a church reject the request of membership by one for whom Christ has died, regardless of theological differences? I understand that there are issues to be worked out in such a situation. There must be caution on the part of church leaders if they are to allow for theological diversity in the body. But I fail to see how such an open approach to church membership is the way to the corrosion of a church’s integrity and stability. I fail to see such teaching in Scripture. Show me. I welcome anyone to show me my error in thinking in a convincing way from Scripture.

Understand that I am not opposed to church membership. Besides the clear commands to assemble as believers, it seems that just by virtue of people becoming Christians that some sort of organized process to assemble believers together becomes an inevitable necessity. My questions concern the covenants, creeds, and other formalities that usually surround becoming a member of a local church.

The truth is, we live in a fallen world. Even Christians are part of this fallen world, and we are subject to the erroneous ways of thinking that are the products of sin. This will always be the case until our bodies are renewed fully in Christ and we are able to see with complete clarity. Why, then, do we as Christians huddle together in our little churches as if we are completely right about our creeds and confessions, while saying, “We could be wrong, but this is what we believe. If you don’t believe it, then you can’t be a member.” If a church is going to have a doctrinal confession, then by all means they should believe it with full conviction! And this idea of allowing Christians to become members of churches by getting around statements in a church’s confession or covenant is, quite frankly, self-defeating. “Well, I know you have a difficulty with this point of our covenant, but understand that we wrote this with the mindset that we would be flexible.” What then is the point of a confession or covenant?

If a church is to have a covenant (and I fully support and encourage the use of covenants, creeds, and confessions), then let them be written according to the fundamental elements of the Word of God which are crucial tenets of the Christian faith, in order that such statements are indisputable. These confessions should only concern elements of Christianity without which Christianity would collapse on itself. I submit that the following elements are the only elements which should be required of Christians desiring membership:

1. Justification by faith in Christ alone
2. Repentance as the necessary evidence of true faith in Christ.

How is it that I can state so few requirements for a local body? I believe that the other necessary beliefs and actions of Christianity outflow from these two basic truths (which could be merged into one statement). How does one repent? He turns from his sin. How does one turn from his sin? He follows Christ. How does one follow Christ? He follows the teachings of Christ found in Scripture. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Clearly, then, a true Christian will follow the required demands of God’s Word, or he will deny the two essential elements I have listed above. When one has done this, then he is subject to the discipline of the local church.

There is much more to be said on this matter, and I am sure that I will say more. For now, I make my conclusion: Church membership is to be according to the requirements of church membership found in the New Testament, which do not include adherence to lengthy and technical documents often filled with jargon difficult to understand. There is no example of this in the New Testament. Rather, we see those counted as members of the bride of Christ as those who have given their lives to Christ by the electing grace of God.

I warn all of those who feel superior towards those other brothers and sisters who do not have the theological knowledge they have received. Those who separate themselves from other believers because of a creed or a covenant are to be ashamed of themselves. This knowledge is of no value without the love of Christ. One may have his flesh melted off over hot coals for his belief in a church covenant and yet afterwards suffer the infinite flames of hell because he did not truly embrace and abide in the love of Christ.

Tonight we went to see Finding Neverland (opens to more screens on the 24^th; it’s still a limited release right now) – the movie about J.M. Barrie, writer of Peter Pan. I thought it was a rather sad movie, on many different levels, from the opening sequence to the end credits, but it was sad in an undepressing way, which is good. I don’t think I like depressing movies.

Anyway – I liked it. :-)

I had written a whole long entry about the above screenshot from a game called The Sims 2, but then a series of events intervened and my entire entry was lost amongst the discovery that my keyboard apparently requires nonrechargable batteries to run. Suffice to say that I think that the game is trés cool.

Yes, I did indeed vote. I was a bit amazed by how utterly difficult it was. We vote here by shading in the appropriate circle across from the candidates’ names and then taking our paper to the vote-collector-person – but it was a bit confusing which circle went with which name. And the lady gave me no instructions, which left me entirely confused, so I asked. And she proceeded to tell me how to vote straight-ticket. I wish I remembered it perfectly, because I’m pretty sure she told me that you just fill in the circle for “Republican” (which she indicated) or “Democrat” (also indicated). Maybe I misunderstood her. But it wasn’t very good instructions, at any rate, and they really need to get the circles closer to the candidates’ names. I think they had way too many third-party people on there, too – I didn’t count, but it seemed to be something really excessive, like six. Peroutka, Badnarik, Nader… others I hadn’t heard of. And I’m glad I wasn’t doing a write-in, because that would’ve been really confusing – I’m not sure where you were supposed to write the name! There was no clear blank, just a word “write-in” and then a circle next to it to fill in.

So that was my first voting experience.

I thought I came to the polls somewhat prepared, having researched the US candidates (senators and representatives) and the local fellow (state representative, I think?) and decided who to vote for. Come to find out, we were also supposed to vote on school board appointments, circuit judges, some office having to do with soil management (that was particularly bewildering), and other things I’d never heard of. Along with a constitutional amendment.

Not sure how I missed the fact that Kentucky was one of the eleven states voting on gay marriage.

I voted for it, but I’m writing about it because it made me think. I’ve thought a lot about the concept of an amendment to the US Constitution, and while I definitely think that a definition of marriage is absolutely immoral if it includes anything other than one man and one woman, I’m not sure that such a thing ought to be the province of the federal government. I tend to think that the purpose of the federal government should be somewhat limited to enforcing the Constitution in all its lands and to national defense (also – I find Bush’s apparent idea that another purpose of federal government is to promote freedom elsewhere to be rather interesting). Anyway, I’m not entirely convinced about the idea of a federal constitutional amendment. But the idea of a state constitutional amendment was much easier to decide, because, well, that’s sorta what the state was invented for: to promote order. And promoting order includes declaring certain actions to be “crime,” and defining “crime” requires that one have some sort of moral base. In absolute monarchy, that moral base is determined by the monarch, and in democracy, it’s determined by the people. And I’m one of the people, so I guess I’m part of the moral base. I think gay marriage is wrong, so I voted to ban it. If the votes continue their current trend, then it shall be banned.

I should make another category and call it “job-related posts.” I think I will, actually, as soon as I’m finished with this entry.

Today was a very good day at work. It’s going well, to be disturbingly general about it; I’m turning out to be not entirely terrible at what I’m doing. I thought customers would have trouble understanding me (literally), but I’m not repeating myself too much, so I’m presuming that isn’t the case. Also, it’s rather fun to be nice all day… it’s hard to be stressed when one is being nice.

I’m getting even more used to the idea of working eight and a half hours a day… I kind of forgot about the weekend! Weekends are lovely things. I’m still kind of in disbelief that I actually get off work two days a week! (Yes, I’m being serious.)

One bad thing is that I’m not sleeping very well. I find myself needing an extraordinary amount of sleep (for me, at least), and I’m having a terrible time getting it. Last night it took me an hour to fall asleep, and I woke up about three or four times in the middle of the night. (Funny fact: I wake up when I nocturnally kick Seth, which is completely backwards since it doesn’t wake him up.) Anyway, I don’t usually have such trouble falling to sleep, but I do wake up a lot for no reason I can figure. This is very weird, because I never used to wake up in the middle of the night, and I didn’t during the first couple of months that we lived here, so presumably it’s not the regular neighborhood sounds that are waking me up. I fall back to sleep okay, but I’m coming fully awake every couple of hours, and I don’t think that makes for very useful sleeping. Thankfully my work performance (i.e., actual, measurable output) doesn’t seem to be suffering due to this, but I can tell that I’m making quite a few mistakes at work that I normally wouldn’t make, and, also, it makes it a bit harder to be in a good mood when I’m so tired!

The weather here is very funny. Oh, and it finally decided to rain!

God is so good to me. I am continually astounded by the good things that God does for me, and yet I see more and more of my failure to do His will. I have struggled this semester with my desire for school, and yet I have been much happier with all the wonderful changes that have come along with being married. Julie is wonderful, and I grow more in my delight for her everyday. Writing music again has also been so invigorating. I’ve also been encouraged to see myself mature. I have also grown to trust God more. But even after all these good things, I still feel a lack of direction. That clarity of purpose that I once had has faded, and I’m not sure why. I don’t like it–that’s for sure. I want to finish seminary, but my desire is little more than a basic motive to finish seminary. Numerous flames of passion have been put out by extinguishing disappointments. Julie has encouraged me continually about this, and for that I am grateful.

Whatever is the outcome, I will press on, and look to God. I must and will follow Him during this time of unsettledness.

Ps – I know I’m not responding to comments, emails, etc. It’s not exactly on purpose… I just have been very busy and haven’t yet worked out how to deal well with what time I have.

A few things I’m learning from working:

• Eight and a half hours is a long time. At first, this was somewhat of a complaint of mine – I really have very little time left in the day by the time I get home – but today something snapped in my head and it turned from a complaint into a fact, which is an infinitely better thing for it to be. I’ve acquired a strange sense of realism that I probably should have had long ago: if I want to live the way we live, if I want to have a home and food and niceties, eight and a half hours a day is the price – and in some sense, it’s not really a very high one considering what comes from it.
• Being cheerful can make one cheerful. I need to be cheerful at work, even when I don’t feel like it – even more so than I had to be when I was student-teaching. It’s not so much about maintaining fairness and even-temperedness all the time (as teaching seemed to be about), but actually about keeping a smile on my face (and in my voice!) all the time, which seems much harder to do. It’s important to me, though; not only because it’s helpful to my actual job, but also because I am truly very happy, and that’s somewhat of a rarity, and it can make people wonder. Anyway, though: today it was difficult at points. And I was wondering – do I “use up” all my cheeryness during work, and thus not have the spirit to be so happy-tempered at home? But on reflection, I decided the answer to that was “no.” I suspect that being cheerful at work will simply make me into a more cheery person in general, especially if I strive for it to have that effect.
• I understand what people mean when they complain about never seeing the sunshine – finally! I haven’t seen the bright light of day since Monday. Yes, I could go outside on my breaks, but for some odd reason I haven’t (because it’s cold, perhaps). When I drive to work in the morning, it’s in the early dim light of still-dawning (which is better than dark, I admit), and when I drive home in the evening, it’s in the somewhat dreary light of dusk that comes just before the sunset begins to get pretty. I haven’t found the bright side of this yet, but I do like dawn very much, so it’s a nice time to be driving to work – very invigorating.

Well… my first day on the job went well, I think. I like my co-workers; they remind me very much of the folks I went to school with.

I signed loads of confidentiality agreements, so there the discussion ends.

I’m extremely, extremely tired physically, albeit not mentally. Got up much too early this morning (no, for real – I had an appointment before work).

So, tomorrow I’m off to work. Bright ‘n’ early, I might add.

I’m a bit scared. I’m a bit excited. And I have absolutely no idea what in the world I’m going to bring for lunch.

Also… Seth has midterms this week.

October is moving much more slowly than September or August did. It’s rather weird.

It’s very relieving to finally have a job. It’ll be more relieving once I actually start! I’m somewhat amazed at how “job-alert” I’d gotten – we were driving home this evening from the WNM, and I caught myself mentally going through the businesses we passed and considering just going into one of them to apply. Then it’s like… duh, got a job already!

Seth has an interview tomorrow.

I’ve been trying to figure out our taxes lately – which is a bit of a task! Federal is pretty straightforward, except that it took me forever to find the tax tables on the IRS website. I don’t think Kentucky has tables – it’s just a straight percentage plus a certain dollar amount (for instance: $280 plus 6%). Much simpler that way. Anyway, I was trying to figure out about how much we’ll pay this year and about how much we’ll pay next year, so we can get a sensible budget worked out.

Found out that Delaware has the 48th-lowest tax-per-income rate, which is why Kentucky’s 17th-lowest rate is seeming so terribly high to me – it is! It’s so nice, though, that they don’t tax food, and I think gasoline is cheaper here.

Speaking of food, we bought a gazillion (okay, more like ten) packs of Ramen (sp?) noodles today. Seth apparently likes them… I don’t believe I’ve ever had them, but for 14¢ a package, I’m more than happy to eat them even if I don’t terribly enjoy them! I also picked up a box of all rotten (er – au gratin) potatoes, ‘cause I like them, but I haven’t managed to make any from scratch yet!

I’m very sleepy, and therefore probably making questionable amounts of sense.