The "i" of the iPhone

The iPhone is a very nice cell phone. For being a first generation product, it is quite good. But it isn't perfect; there are still advancements that need to be made. Without considering the bugs that hinder user experience, let's simply consider the purpose of the iPhone and how well it meets its purpose. But first we must determine the meaning of the "i" that makes the phone distinctive.

The purpose of the "i" in Apple's products since the iMac has indicated that it is Internet friendly. The iMac and iBook line was all about ease of use on the Internet. But then came the iPod. Now the "i" stood for something else--the individual. The iPod is a product where the user can place customized lists of music, videos, pictures, and other information that meet their desires. The "i" in iPhone has taken a bit of both of these meanings.

The iPhone is Internet capable, but it also is able to function like an iPod. The "i" represents, I think, a blended meaning. The iPhone is geared up for the Internet with the individual in mind.

This sort of evolution of the "i" is important. It demonstrates the background out of which the iPhone came forth and is therefore necessary for how it ought to be understood and how it ought to work.

The iPhone ought to be understood as a product meant for the individual. It is highly customizable. It is adaptable. It has a camera and an mp3 player. It has a calendar. It has all these features and more that are user-friendly. The iPhone excels in this aspect of the "i".

The iPhone ought to be used to meet the individual's needs with the Internet in mind. It is applied well to user function, especially in respect to the camera, calendar, etc. But when the Internet is also taken into consideration, the "i" is not quite so focused.

The Internet on the iPhone struggles in many ways. Safari for the iPhone crashes way too easily. Safari cannot view some of the most standard features of the Internet, such as java, embedded videos, or flash videos. Download times are quite long due to the Edge network by AT&T. The Internet friendly features found on the computers are not an option on the phone, such as drag and drop photo saving. Safari cannot run in the background, so a site cannot begin to download and continue it in the background as an email is being written, for example. As far as the "i" is concerned with respect to its initial meaning, the iPhone falls short.

The iPhone really needs AT&T's 3G network in order to improve the user experience on the Internet. Safari also needs to be enabled for actual Internet experiences. When the iPhone came out, Apple boasted that on it you could view the actual Internet and not a mobile version. Such is not actually the case. Media rich web sites are more and more common, which means the iPhone is not capable of showing the majority of the Internet as it really is. It is going to need to incorporate Internet standards before it can really do a good job.

Until the iPhone receives a better Safari and network, users will benefit from web applications designed for the iPhone. What is ironic and annoying about this is the initial claim about the iPhone, that it views the real Internet, was not true and that it does benefit from mobile Internet. Web applications are iPhone specific mobile sites. The Internet through Safari can be quite annoying in overall experience without these web applications.

I don't know if the "i" is meant by Apple to mean Internet friendly anymore. Perhaps it only means individual friendly now. If such is the case, they have excelled with the one exception of allowing the Internet to irritate the individual while using Safari. Perhaps they should have an "i" on the Internet like they used to.

What Would Be Enough?

Have you ever heard an argument against the existence of God that rests on the statement, "There is too much evil in the world"?

In my Hebrew Exegesis class on Saturday, we stopped for a moment to consider this kind of argument. The professor, Tony Petrotta, asked in response, "What would be just right? Fifteen percent less? Twenty percent less?" He was basically asking, "At what point does the amount of evil become enough, acceptable, or just right?" To say, "There is too much evil in the world," is to suggest either explicitly or implicitly that there is a level of evil that is acceptable. However, determining that acceptable level is purely subjective. Therefore, the question is not helpful.

So? What do you think of this response? Do you find it helpful? Frustrating? I don't know that I find it all that helpful. It may be a subjective matter, but I can see where people are coming from. The problem of evil is a problem nonetheless, even when we can't determine with an objective basis for an acceptable amount of evil. The truth is, no level of evil is acceptable. But evilness is evident. If the aforementioned question doesn't work, then it can be restated: "There is evil in the world." Upon this question, one could conceivably state, "Since there is evil in the world, and since God is supposed to be all good, there must not be a God." Although I would not agree, I can see where they are coming from.

I do find it helpful that the original statement rests upon a level of subjectivity. Most of the time the statement is parallel with contemporary issues of hunger, injustice, and war. But they are not ever considered as a result and consequence of human imperfection in an open system of cause and effect. It assumes that evil is entirely God's responsibility. But is it? I think not. Ultimately, we could say that God is in charge of all that happens and exists, and so he is therefore responsible to a certain extent. But humans also have a role and responsibility in what happens. Humans are not off the hook. Their role, action, and inaction need to be considered as the main reason for what happens in this world.

David, Tyranny, Democracy

Was David a Tyrant Like Sudam Husein?

David was a warrior. He was kept from building the Temple because of the bloodshed he was involved in. In order to unify the people, was it necessary to have this kind of warrior-king? Was it necessary for a leader to come along and strong-arm the people? David used Joab as his hit-man, supposedly, for the "dirty work."

I ask if it was necessary because of who the people were. Clan based were the people of Israel, as are the people throughout the world we now refer to as Arab. They have never known democracy. It was only the likes of Nebachadnezzar, Senacherub, and, dare I say, Sudam Husein, that they can come under control. What do these people have in common? They were warrior-kings who strong-armed the people. The question is, was David any different? I think not.

This post is going to examine two things. First, was David tyrannical or was he the pleasant leader that fundamentalism portrays? Second, what does David's rule tell us about the people in that area in comparison with other leaders in that location, and what does that tell us about America's attempt to spread democracy to that region? To David's reign we now turn.

David was actually not a very nice king. He was more of a tyrant than we usually think. He killed or had killed disobedient people--people who threatened the well-being of his rule. The first person he killed as king (arguably) was the messenger who reported Saul's death. The messenger lied, saying, "I killed him." David had him killed but not for lying. He was killed for killing the king of Israel. Now that the king was dead, David had a situation to deal with. This messenger had apparently killed the king of Israel; if he has done it once, he can and may do it again. To keep that from happening, he has him killed. Although the text doesn't actually say that, I know some would want to see it and argue that this was the actual motive behind the messenger's death.

When David was made king, he had to face some opposition from Saul's descendants. His descendants were struggling to keep the throne. When there was a stand-off, David's men practically decapitated all of Saul's warriors to help secure the throne for David.

After those warriors were suppressed and it was clear that David was now in power, the commander of Saul's army joined David's side. All seemed to be well for the commander. But then, Joab, David's commander, took Saul's commander, Abner, out back and killed him. It seems as though David was further securing his position as ruler. If Abner once served Saul and opposed David, he can and may do it again. To keep this from happening, he had him killed. Again, the text doesn't say that, but I know some would argue that this is the real motive.

Then, the last few leaders of Saul's son's army became traitors and killed Saul's son. They took his head to David and tried to entreat David. But David had them killed. It seems as though they were traitors, so what was to keep them from betraying David too? So he had them killed to help secure his position as ruler. As before, the text doesn't say that, but some would argue this to be the real motive.

It seems that it wasn't until David had firmly secured his position as a proven warrior-king that Israel did not turn their allegiance over to him. When they did, he developed his own stronghold, Jerusalem, in the city of the Jebusites, which he took from them by force.

David also secured the boundaries by going to war with surrounding countries. But through those events David was responsible for the destruction and annihilation of those people. He used force to establish his position, both his kingly reign and his "capitol." It was also by force that he secured the nation. The Philistines he attacked and subdued. He killed thousands of Arameans at the Damascus border. Likewise, he killed thousands of Edomites. Others he destroyed in battle, such as the Ammonites.

But then came his famous mistake. He committed adultery (or was it rape, which is a forceful act?), lied, and then committed murder. He was likely securing his role as king by not allowing news that would corrupt his reign to be released to the public. He was keeping a hush on the matter. Not only that, but again, he seemed to have used Joab to do the "dirty work." He had Joab place the husband of Bathsheba, whom he had adulterous relations with, at the front lines and had him killed. But his relations with Bathsheba resulted in conception. The Lord, as a punishment, took the child from David. He seemed to mourn over it for a short period of time, but then suddenly dropped his weeping as if nothing happened. It seemed like the concealment was secure. With the baby dead, it could be that there was no illegitimate child to consider for bringing charge against the king, and therefore there was no reason to be alarmed. I realize this is conjecture, for the text does not say it, but I know some might say this was what was going on psychologically with David at this time.

Then he started to have to deal with some internal family issues. His eldest son raped one of his daughters. The brother of that daughter got upset with David for not making it an issue. Was David not making it an issue because he didn't want to draw attention to his poor family leadership, which could bring negative light on his kingly reign? So, Absolom, the brother of the daughter, Tamar, killed his half-brother, Amnon. David mourned over Amnon's death, but only for a short time, and then he moved on and mourned for Absolom. He seemed to have Joab do the "dirty work" yet again, for when in pursuit of Absolom, he speared him. This not only avenged the death of Amnon but also squashed Absolom's insurrection, thus securing David's position as king further still.

David also handed people over to others for appeasement. To the Gibeonites he handed over the remaining descendants of Saul, except for Jonathan's son, to be killed. In so doing, he won the favor of the Gibeonites and also removed more potential threats to the throne.

I would say that I do not agree with all of these points. David does talk about what Joab did to him when charging Solomon with the kingdom. He wanted Solomon to deal justly with Joab. It seems as though in David's mind Joab was not really his henchman. I would say that there are tyrannical elements in David's life, which is not clearly expressed in fundamental depictions of David as king.

So how much was David like a tyrant, and how similar was he to Sudam Hussein? I doubt he was torturous like Sudam, but he did allow for murder. He was a good king, but in what sense? He did allow for certain corrupt behavior. It seems like David did function as a warrior-king and did strong-arm the people at times in order start and maintain his reign.

If this sort of leadership was necessary for the people to be united then as it is now, what does that tell us about America's efforts to spread democracy to that region? I think it tells us that it won't work. That area has not known democracy in the last 5,000+ years. It is a region of clan-based cultures that are only "unified"--kept under control--through tyrannical leaders. David may have been a mild tyrannical king, but he was or exhibited tyrannical behavior. Sudam Hussein was similar. He used his tyrannical strong-arm to keep the Muslims under control. Yes, he was an extreme tyrant. Was what he did wrong? In our American idealism and ethnocentric minds, yes. But, when understood in light of that region, his tyranny was necessary. Now that he has been removed, the control is gone. Democracy has been substituted for Hussein and it is failing. Democracy is a foreign concept to them and it will not easily nor quickly have an effect. The clan-based system needs a tyrannical leader. I would say that someone more like David would be better than one like Sudam Hussein. But we are incorrect to think that democracy will work for that culture. Clearly it has not. Their way of life and their way of thinking is vastly different than ours.

What do you think? Was David a tyrannical king? Do you think as others do that David was an extremist and used Joab as a henchman, or are you more like me and you see David as being a warrior-king with some tyrannical behavior? Do you think democracy will work in that region? If so, why? Or do you think as I do, that democracy is not a compatible concept for their way of life and thought?

Mouw Muses on the Forgetful Messiah

Over at Mouw's Musings, the President of the seminary I attend talks about his theology regarding God's generosity. He says that while he believes one comes to salvation by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he does allow room for God's divine generosity. It is through this divine generosity that those who come before Jesus Christ when they die can acknowledge him at that time and be permitted to dwell with the Lord.

Mouw reports to have received opposition from two different sides regarding this theology of divine generosity. First, his evangelical friends have criticized him for this position. It is too inclusive for most evangelicals and it opts for an idea of salvation that does not require a relationship with God through Jesus Christ in this present life. Second, his Jewish friend has criticized him for his position. Why must Jesus Christ still be acknowledged?

I find this intriguing and I have often thought about it without forcing myself to come to a conclusion. I had a professor at Simpson University who said that we cannot tell God what to do, but rather, God will bring anyone he would like into heaven. The thrust of this statement is the thrust of Mouw's theology of divine generosity. God can commune with anyone he wishes. We cannot decide for God whom he will permit to dwell with him in heaven. Not only that, but the biblical evidence has support for a more inclusive stance when it talks about every language being represented in heaven. Every language is equal to every language from any and every culture throughout the history of humanity, including before Christ, does it not? If such is the case, perhaps Mouw is being more biblical by holding to his theology of divine generosity.

Caspian, Lewis, War - A Post at Ev Epheso

Mike over at Ev Epheso has looked at a post on Prince Caspian, women, and violence over at the Gender Blog. His post is here.

I like what Mike has to say. He points out that the arguments on the Gender Blog are ill-supported (proof-texting is not sufficient, especially so when the context is ignored). He also points out the Gender Blog's underlying assumption: men can fight in battle. But he is alarmed, and rightfully so, that the Gender Blog does not question whether or not Christian men can fight. I find this to be a very important question: can Christian men or women fight in war? The Gender Blog does not tackle this question. Instead, it presumes that men can fight, and it argues that women cannot.

I would say that Mike's own argument against Christians going to war is ill-supported. He says that the New Testament does not mention that Christians should go to war. But this is an argument from silence. It is something that should be considered, but in itself it is not a good foundation for an argument. Rather, the fact that Christians are to be lovers and messengers of God speaks against involvement in war. War is all about pride and selfishness. War is all about force and overpowering. Such things are looked down upon by the New Testament. Looking at war in light of the Old Testament, we see that God will sometimes use war as the means for bringing about his justice. And even in the New Testament we find God's wrath to be burning hot against the wicked. Look at Herod; God struck him down. The New Testament is not free of war or wrath support, but the overwhelming majority of the New Testament does motion towards love and peace.

Yet, Mike's argument about what Christians ought to be doing--saving people--is good. Let's not forget that in the early church Christians could not serve as soldiers. It ought to be taken very seriously. Love is key; violence is a detriment to love. The New Testament motions towards love and peace. Christians should take such a route.

One thing I would ask, however, is this: are Christians not dual-citizens? Both citizens of heaven and of this world? There is a tension, then, is there not? So, in light of this tension, how do we understand Christian soldiers--believers in Christ who long for love and peace, but who are also citizens of the USA and are soldiers in the United States Army--who get shipped off to war? Are we able to say that their lives are split down the middle and function as though they have one leg in heaven and one leg in this world?

EDIT: let's see if the pingback, backlink, trackback works with this link here.

Heavy Metal is Deep, I tell you

Killswitch Engage has yet another deep song. The song is "Reject Yourself" on the album "As Daylight Dies." Here are the lyrics:

Their cries are blown away with the wind.
How passive can we be before humanity is lost?
Turning our backs on those who need love.
We must not rest while healing is needed.

Tear down the veil.
That bars your heart from feeling this.
Dedicate yourself.
Give your soul to compassion.
With open arms, embrace this heart.
With open eyes, behold the truth.
Embrace this life.

So little time is left.
We must be relentless in our pursuit of those in torment.
Tear down the veil
That bars your heart from feeling this.
Dedicate yourself.
Become the voice of compassion.
With open arms, embrace this heart.
With open eyes, behold the truth.
Embrace this life.

Can you reject yourself?
Can you feel their agony?
In a world that feeds on disregard.
Heal the broken hearted.

What do you think this song means? Again, I don't know about the spiritual condition of the members of the band. I don't know their background. I don't know what their intentions are in this song. And yet, it seems open to discussion, doesn't it? The song is deep, and it is available for anyone to argue their case at this point what the song is saying.

What is the truth to behold? What is the heart to embrace? What is the life to embrace? Why reject yourself? Who's agony are we to feel? Who are the broken hearted?

From a Christian perspective, the lost, poor, and down-trodden are the broken hearted. The life to embrace is the life of discipleship to Christ. The life to reject is the current life that precedes discipleship. The heart to embrace is Jesus' heart, the heart that God has promised to give. The truth to behold is Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

I am not saying this interpretation is how Killswitch Engage meant for their song to be understood. But it is how I am interpreting it in light of my own experience with following Jesus Christ.

How do you understand this song?

Evangelical?

Scot McKnight talks a little bit about the term "evangelical" in relation to a book he is reading for his blog. His post, "Evangelical", gives a good treatment, I think, of the way the term is perceived. I can't say anything about the book he is reviewing as I haven't read it. However, I want to note how evangelical is perceived by my coworkers and how one of my professors at Fuller has talked about it.

My coworkers use the term "evangelical" to refer to right-wing protestants. If you are Episcopalian, then you are not evangelical in their minds. "Evangelicals" would be charismatics, baptists, etc., but not Catholics, Episcopalians, or Lutherans. I think this view is wrong.

My professor, Dr. Art Patzia, said that the term "evangelical" is used at Fuller to denote those Christians who do not take a left or right-wing approach to issues. If one is "evangelical," then he or she is basically agreeing to disagree on minor theological matters. He said that the term was not originally linked to right-winged fundamentalism. I find this to be true of the position my church takes. Bayside Church is affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church. Bayside's stance is simple: we agree to disagree on minor issues. I agree with this position.

Check out Scot's summary and see what you think about the use of the term "evangelical." 

Prince Caspian Was Great

It started at about 8:05 pm and I got back in my car at about 10 minutes to 11 pm. The movie was long, but I was not bored at all throughout the movie. At times I was on the edge of my seat. Other times I enjoyed what was going on in terms of visual effects. Still others I was enjoying the battle scenes. This movie was good. It was very good. It had humor, violence, plot twists and surprises, and very fine graphics. To learn more about the movie, click here.

Heavy Metal Can be Quite Beautiful

If you don't think heavy metal has a sensitive side to it, think again. Killswitch Engage has a beautifully written song, in terms of lyrics at the least, called "Rose of Sharyn." The song is about someone who died and the person is reflecting on the lost one. Here are the lyrics:

Numb and broken,
Here I stand alone,
Wondering what were
The last words I said to you
Hoping, praying that I'll find a way
To turn back time,
Can I turn back time?

What would I give to behold.
The smile the face of love,
You never left me,
The rising sun
Will always speak your name.

Numb, i'm broken
Here i stand alone.
Wondering the words,
The last words i said to you
It won't be long
We'll meet again...

What would i give, to behold
The smile, the face of love?
You never left me 
The rising sun
Will always speak your name

It won't be long, we'll meet again
Your memory is never passing
It won't be long, we'll meet again
My love for you is everlasting.

I mourn for those who never knew you
I mourn for those who never knew you

It won't be long, we'll meet again
Your memory is never passing
It won't be long, we'll meet again
My love for you is everlasting.

It won't be long, we'll meet again...
It won't be long, we'll meet again...
It won't be long, we'll meet again...
It won't be long, we'll meet again...

I think this song is profound. I don't know the spiritual condition of the writer of the song nor the band members of Killswitch Engage, but I can say that for Christians this song speaks much truth. The song praises the lost one for being a wonderful person, one that everyone else should get to know. So the song is of loving memory towards the one who has died.

It is my hope that when I die my family and friends will be able to think of me along these same lines. I hope that their memory of me will be a good one. I hope that they will think of me as someone worth getting to know. And, for my family and friends who are Christians, I hope that they will remember death is not the end and I will not be lost to the earth, for we will see each other again in heaven.

Saleen is Gone, Corolla is Here

I sold my Saleen. I am a Mustang enthusiast, so you might wonder why I would sell a sweet Mustang like the Saleen. Well, I am trying to take into consideration as many relevant factors as possible. One factor is in the long run the Mustang won't be helpful for a family. Another is 350 horsepower is too much power and they don't all get used enough to justify having such a powerful car. Another is gas. Another is maintenance, afterall, the car was 9 years old with 110,000 miles. All things considered, it was wise to get rid of the Mustang. It served its purpose and it was a good experience. But my desires and needs have changed.

I sold the Saleen on Tuesday, and an hour afterwards I bought a 2009 Corolla S. Do I regret the change? Not one bit. The new car meets the overwhelming majority of the factors I was considering. Sure, it falls short in power, but what it lacks in power it more than makes up for in gas mileage. Besides, it is blue, which is my favorite color; you can't go wrong with blue.

Now that you know a little bit of the purpose behind the change, let me describe to you about the events leading up to and after the change.

Several months ago, I tried to sell the Saleen because it was going to need some scheduled maintenance that I was not prepared to pay for. No one was interested. There was a lawyer who was prepared to pay cash for it, but for far less than what it was worth, and also for less than what I owed on the car. So, instead of forcing the sale and trying to figure out how to pay off the rest of the loan, I felt it necessary to keep the car.

Then I had the car checked by Ford. They tried to tell me that it needed $7000 of reconditioning, but they had no reasonable basis for their claims. For example, there was a clanking metalic noise coming from the bottom front of the engine. They tried to tell me that the noise was coming from the supercharger and it needs a $2000 rebuild. Not only were they wrong, but they didn't even take the supercharger off and inspect it! They simply "played it by ear." It turns out that the noise was my air conditioning clutch going out. I am sure 100,000 miles will do that.

So, I got upset with Ford for trying to squeeze money out of me. I decided simply to hold onto it for as long as I could. About a month ago, I realized I had kept it long enough. That metalic noise I told you about got significantly worse.

In the few months I kept the car, Saleen cars were seeing an increase in value. My car appreciated $1000. I decided to sell the car, and I asked for $2000 less than its value knowing that the buyer would need to fix the air conditioning clutch and get a new clutch for the transmission. So, I posted it on Craig's List, which is how I originally came to acquire the vehicle. Within 12 hours of posting it, I had a prospective buyer.

Keep in mind that I was going to try to trade the vehicle in at Folsom Lake Toyota or Roseville Toyota, but they would only give me $3500 for it, whereas it is worth $15000. After I got home from taking the car to the dealers to have them appraise it, I put it on Craig's List.

The prospective buyer was coming from the Bay Area. We met two days later.

I didn't have time to wash my car, so when I got off work early, I thought, "I'll go over to Dad's house and quickly wash it."

When I got there, my dad insisted that he take me to the car wash and have it done. He also decided he would go with me to show the guy the car.

We arrived at a local McDonald's to show the car to the guy. The car looked spectacular. The car wash place did a great job. The guy was very impressed with the car, especially considering all the miles it had. We noted the problem with the air conditioning clutch and the transmission clutch. Then I took him for a spin. We went about 5 miles. As I was getting off the freeway to head back to McDonald's, I began to smell something--burnt rubber. I pulled into the parking lot and began to see white smoke rising out from under the hood.

Remember that air conditioning clutch? For all intents and purposes, it broke, and the air conditioning unit froze up, meaning, it seized, which caused the serpentine belt to melt as it was being forced around
the pulley on a non-rotating assembly.

I turned the car off and opened the hood. White smoke was still rising from the belt around the pulley for the air conditioner. During the test drive, the buyer made me an offer for $12000. I paused. I finally
agreed to it. Then this happened.

The buyer looked at me as I was looking at the smoke and he said, "Dont worry, we still have a deal. I will also cover half of the repair costs."

That was very fortunate for me, right? But wait, I couldn't drive the car to get it fixed. Remember who came with? Dad called AAA. The buyer gave me a deposit and I agreed to hold onto it for him. He went home
as my dad and I waited for AAA.

The tow truck arrived 30 minutes later. We took the car straight to Ford and told them specifically to replace the air conditioning clutch and to inspect the serpentine belt and the rest of the pulleys for additional damage. I also needed them to smog the car. This drop off occurred Friday afternoon. Ford did not touch the car until mid-day on Monday.

Meanwhile, the buyer called me over the weekend. He wanted to know about the car. I told him that we got it to Ford safe and sound and that it should be ready on Monday. We made arrangements to sell the car on Tuesday. He also brought up the purchase price. My heart sank.

He said, "You know we said $12000? Well, I was expecting you to come back with $12500, and you should have, so we will agree on that price instead."

My jaw dropped. I kindly agreed to the new purchase price of $12500.

We met at the same McDonald's on Tuesday. From there, we went to Ford to pick up the car. The buyer made good on his word--he paid for half of the repairs and even half of the smog. I protested, saying the smog
was my responsibility, but he wouldn't have it. Then we got the car and inspected it for ourselves. Th serpentine belt was our foremost concern. It was very dry and badly cracked. It was plainly evident that it needed to be replaced. I asked him, "Are you sure you can make it home?"

He replied, "Yeah, but I will need to take it easy."

I asked him again, "You're sure you can make it home?"

He affirmed that he could. From there we went to the bank to finalize the purchase.

At the bank, my wife and I signed the car over to the buyer for $12500, paid off the car loan and had a little bit left over. We went out to the car and I cleaned out my belongings and the guy took off. As I was cleaning out the car and showing him the trunk, we found a spare serpentine belt in with the spare tire, which was placed there
by the original owner. He had a spare belt just in case.

Later that night, as I was about to leave Toyota with my new car, the buyer left a voicemail for me, saying, "Well, that belt went on me . . ."

Fortunately, he had a buddy with him and he was not stranded. He is also a mechanic and a car collector. He made it home. I don't know if he used the spare belt, but I do know that he got home okay.

What I want you to notice is the series of events. When I first tried to sell it, I couldn't. When I went to trade it, I couldn't. I had been praying earnestly for God to help provide away to get rid of the car without placing me into deeper debt. All the doors seemed to be shut and I felt helpless and hopeless. I felt trapped and scared. I felt like I was doomed financially and I was stuck with a car that was expensive to own, maintain, and drive, and if it broke, I would be up a creek without a paddle.

But then this buyer came along. He was quite generous, needless to say. And what about Dad? I had no plans to go see him or have him join me. It was on a whim that I went to go see him and he decided to join me on a whim too. He said later that he felt like he was being urged to go with me, like God was telling him to go. You have to understand the great measure of that statement, for both my dad and I are not very "spiritual" and we do not typically think or speak in such "spiritual" terms. Yet, the whole situation seemed to be orchestrated, and in retrospect it was an answer to prayer. What originally seemed to be failure was actually God saying, "Wait."

When I was denied the ability to trade it in, God was saying, "Let me handle this. Trust me, you'll like the results."

So, he brought a buyer along st just the right time. The economy was causing the car to gain value, so it was a better time to sell than a few months ago. It was also time to sell because I cannot handle the maintenance that the car now needs. It was perfect timing in regards to the clutch and the patience and generosity of the buyer. It was perfect for my dad to be there so that I would not only be safe but also for me to be able to get the car there. And it was the perfect time to get rid of it because I would not handle nor know how to handle the belt breaking while I am driving.

My heart had been heavy over my car for a long time. I prayed for a long time, and while I was praying the Lord was in the process of working it all out. How sweet is the loving provision of the Lord, who's timing and ways are better than what we imagine!

Why Saleen Cars Are Not Smart to Buy

Specialty cars like Saleen sell for a grand price, but once they hit a certain age or mileage, they become the same value of a regular Mustang. In all practicality, they are special at first because of the high price they go for, but in the end they are worth nothing more than a regular car.

So, if you took out a loan on the vehicle while it was still under the "specialty" label, and then you have it for a couple of years and take it beyond the 100k mile mark, then you just got yourself into a bind.

My own advice on purchasing a Saleen vehicle or any specialty vehicle similar to it would be not to buy one. They are a hassle and they depreciate like crazy. Unless you are a collector, owning a specialty vehicle like the Saleen is not worth the hassle nor the cost.

Greek Roundup #1

Check it out--Mike at ἐν ἐφέσῳ, wrote up a nice "roundup" of relevant Greek posts around the blogosphere. It is really helpful and is quite entertaining considering it is a summary-style post. Check out the first official Greek Roundup here.

Problematic iPhones?

My wife has (or had) one of the first iPhones available. She got it nearly 1 year ago. She has been experiencing a lot of problems with it, as have several other friends who bought the iPhone when it first came out. It took Apple four or five months to work out the bugs, so when my wife bought my iPhone for me in December, I was fortunate enough to not experience the same difficulties.

What difficulties did she have? One bug was the camera not saving pictures that she would take. Another, the photo library on her iPhone would wipe out, leaving the screen a grayish white and the pictures would not be accessible. Other bugs, which even I have sometimes, include applications closing unexpectedly. I have found that media-rich web sites will likely cause Safari to close unexpectedly, especially BeenUp2.com. Also, her iPhone would no longer register on a computer. Nor would it register as being plugged in to an electrical source.

I told my wife to wait until the June software update comes out, but what she did instead was a better decision. She made the trip out to Arden Fair Mall and Apple replaced her phone. She was within the one year warranty and she had been experiencing these problems on an ongoing basis. I was able to fix her phone when she first came across the photo screen wipe by reformatting her phone, but since it was no longer responding, I could not reformat it for her this time. She did the right thing--she took it back to Apple. Their superb customer service kicked in gear and she walked out of their with a brand new iPhone replacing her old one.

If your iPhone is experiencing the same problems, perhaps you should consider taking it in to the nearest Apple store. As long as it is within the 1 year warranty, they should help you. They have very good customer service. I don't know why they wouldn't help.

Is It Okay to Ask A Classmate for Food?

I'm sitting in class right now, and we are taking a short break. I am thinking that I am super hungry. I'm also staring at a large bag of Doritos and a box of donuts, both of which are unopened. The classmate who brought them in offered them to the rest of us at the start of class, but no one wanted them, so they were not opened.

I am wondering if it is okay to ask him for some food. I am not sure if it is okay, because I don't know him. How rude would that be? "Hey, buddy (you have to use 'buddy' when you don't know his name), I don't know you, but could I have some food?"

So, is it acceptable or not?

I don't know, and class is starting again, so I lost my opportunity, and now I'm even more hungry than at the beginning of this unusual post.

Lincoln's New CD Release Date is Set

September 23 of this year will see the release of Lincoln Brewster's new CD, which is called, "Today is the Day." Check out the news at his new web site by clicking here. Lincoln is quite gifted and his work is inspirational. You can check out his work on iTunes if you haven't already. "Today is the Day" was recorded live at Arco Arena, Sacramento, California, when his home church (and mine) got together into one celebration service in October 2007. I can't wait to hear the CD! Oh, and the main feature of the CD, the song "Today is the Day," is going to be released at the end of May.

Ephesians Sentence by Sentence: 4:1-6

Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ πραΰτητος μετὰ μακροθυμίας ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν εἷς κύριος μία πίστις ἓν βάπτισμα εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. I urge you, therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, worthily to walk of the calling of which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

In chapter 4, Paul begins his section of exhortation in this letter, although it is not without its own bits of theology. In this sentence, we see a mix of both exhortation and theology.

In light of all that he had talked about--such as the work God has done on our behalf through Jesus Christ, and the unifying of the Gentiles with the Jews in Christ--Paul has some exhortations to make. He appeals to his condition as being the prisoner of Christ. He exhorts his readers to walk worthily of the calling that they were called to. The infinitive περιπατῆσαι does mean to walk, but in this context it has bears the idea of living. Paul is exhorting his readers to live worthily of the calling. They were to live a life worthy of the calling with all humility and gentleness. They were to live with patience. How were they to live with these inner qualities? By bearing with one another in love, which is the counterpart to patience, and by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit, which is the counterpart to humility and gentleness. Patience is required for bearing with others; humility and gentleness is necessary for keeping unity. But this unity that Paul mentions is quite extraordinary. It is the unity of the Spirit, which is bound together by a common peace. Paul goes on to explain what the unity is by identifying the contents of the unity of the Spirit.

The Greek is interesting here. The editors of Nesle-Aland's 27th edition place a semicolon at the end of verse 3 and begin a new sentence in verse 4. However, since there is no conjunction in verse 4 and because the content of verse 4 and following explain what is meant by the unity of the Spirit in verse 3, it makes sense not to think of vv. 4-6 as a separate sentence. What comes in vv. 4-6 are all part of the same thought as vv. 1-3. In terms of translation, it is possible to separate it into different sentences, but such practice will not be utilized here in order to preserve the connection between the unity of the Spirit and the essentials laid out in vv. 4-6.

According to vv. 4-6, the unity of the Spirit has some common ground. There is one body, the Church, and one Spirit. In the same way, there is only one hope in the calling that the readers were called. If there is only one hope in the calling, then there is similarly only one group of called out ones, and there is only one Spirit that tends to them. In the unity of the Spirit, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, one faith, trust and belief both in God and his work on our behalf, one baptism, the common practice of water pouring, dipping, or sprinkling to signify a new life out of an old, and one God and Father of all, who is over all things, through all things, and in all things. God is identified as the one in authority over all things, the one who works through all things, and the one who is associated with all things. Together, the one body, the one Spirit, the one hope, the one Lord, the one faith, the one baptism, and the one God are all the bond of peace that make the unity of the Spirit.

Therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you to live worthily of the calling, of which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, by bearing with one another in love, by making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one Spirit, just as you were also called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all things, through all things, and in all things.

Unity is important. Unity is part of living right--to live worthily of the calling. How often do we divide and forsake unity over issues that fall outside the bond of peace? Brothers and sisters, we should not divide over issues that fall outside of the bond of peace. So long as we hold to the one Lord, the one faith, and the one baptism, to the one God and the one Spirit, we should not be dividing up amongst ourselves. It is heartbreaking to hear of schisms in churches on the basis of systematic theological issues, such as, "Are humans predestined and without a choice, or does God not know what choice they will make?" Such an issue falls outside the bond of peace. We need to preserve the unity of the Spirit by bearing with one another in love, patience, and gentleness in regards to such issues. Unity does not mean full agreement on every aspect of biblical interpretation. In such instances, we should agree to disagree, so long as the basics--those fundamentals of the unity--are not violated. Ask yourself, "Am I living in a way that is worthy of the calling? In what ways am I causing disunity in the Church and how can I correct it?"

Biblical Studies Carnival XXIX is Up

Jim West put the new Biblical Studies Carnival together on his blog here. Sadly, my posts on Ephesians did not get referenced in the carnival. Perhaps it is because I did not submit them until yesterday. Considering the length of his post, I bet he has been working on it for a while and had it done before he received my posts. Oh well. Maybe next time.