|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| Reformation Day! |
 On October 31, 488 years ago (1517 A.D.) Doctor Martin Luther challenged the nature of penance, the authority of the pope, and the practice of "indulgences" in the church. He did so by writing, and then publically posting on the doors of the castle church in Wittenberg Germany - "The Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" - otherwise known as his 95 Theses.
This date is, of course, contested, as is the posting of the 95 Theses to the church door. Certainly posting it on the church (nowadays at least) has a certain cinematic flair. But all symbolism aside, it was the traditionally accepted manner in which such a thing would be advertised on a typical university campus at the time.
In the 1450's Johann Gutenberg (arguably) re-invented the movable type printing press. A similar press had previously been invented in 1024 by the Chinese, but it used wooden or clay blocks instead of metal, and didn't really catch on. Likewise some credit the re-invention to a Dutchman by the name of Laurens Janszoon Coster - a contemporary to Gutenberg. Whoever was responsible for the invention - the printing press was a hit in Europe, and presses began to appear all over the place.
By the time Luther posted the 95 Theses, it was possible to rapidly print off copies, and distribute them widely - and without undue error. While you might be able to blow out a spark, you cannot blow out a fire. In this case, Luther's desire for cleansing in the church sparked off a great fire, and the corruption in Rome couldn't extinguish.
We often think of this as the start of the reformation, and because of that, the day is called "Reformation day"
So, Happy Reformation Day! |
posted by Daniel @
9:32 AM
9 comment(s)
 
|
|
|
|
| Unbreadened leaves... |
 The other day I wanted to see how much work it would be to move to a three column blogger template rather than the standard - and I might add, rather generic - two column variety that I presently employ. Rather than fiddle with my blog (which would be annoying I suppose to anyone who comes here regularly - I have made a new blog (the above image is linked to said blog) and done my fiddling there. The new template seems to work quite well (if anyone is interested in it, I can send them the template). Note the erudite, overuse of Latin? :-D
|
|
posted by Daniel @
11:03 AM
5 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Frappr thing |
 You may notice (if you are the observant sort) that I have a new feature on the blog. It hasn't been advertised much, but I wouldn't mind advertising it a bit - because I think it is cool, and I don't think Frank has done it yet (:-D).
Notice at the top of the right hand column where it says, Visiting? Add Yourself! - that is the link to Frappr.
Frappr is a mapping utility that allows you to post a pic of yourself and your location on a map by subscribing to a group. The subscription isn't like a mailing list or anything - it is just subscribing to be placed on the map. It is a fun way to see who is where. I first saw it used on Carla's blog, and thought it was pretty nifty. |
|
posted by Daniel @
7:00 AM
3 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Americans SUCK!! |
 I was watching the stats last week, and I noticed a tremendous boost in visitors on the day that I posted about Danny Bonaduce. It was a slow day otherwise - that is, I had nothing particularly interesting to say - but my number of unique visitors doubled.
It could have been a random fluctuation I supposed, but I suspect that some of the visitors came through Blogger via that rotating blog post thing you see. Since it only shows the title, and since Danny Bonaduce's name was in the title - I suspect that some of the influx came from people who were simply pulled in by a headline.
So I thought I would experiment a bit. Surely, Americans consume (or suck, if you will) a lot of pop each year. So I found an article that said as much and link to it here if you are really interested (Liquid Candy).
If you have followed this link here via the blogger rotating title thingy - welcome to my blog my little lab rat.., er, I mean friend. |
|
posted by Daniel @
11:31 AM
7 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| I know about |
 You get a letter in the mail one day - conspicuous for two reasons: it is stuffed full of things, and scrawled in ink on the front of the envelope are three words, "I know about..."
Inside you find incriminating evidence, evidence that leaves no doubt about your own involvement or even instigation of things that no one could possibly know about. The petty thefts, the minor frauds, the unfair business deals - it goes way back, following every shady thing you have ever done since you came to the Lord.
At first you are confused. Who could have this much dirt on you? Each item by itself is small enough that you have been able over these past years to singularly squelch their cry - who cares that twenty years ago you sold a car that you knew was not worth what you received for it? Who really cares that you took that pen from work and use it at home? Yet in that envelope are darker things - things that people would care about. That minor inflation you justified at the time you were pricing out things from the break in, or perhaps the vehicle accident. The things you forgot to return when you lost that job.
Contained here, recorded in the form of evidence from every moral failure that you have ever slipped into since around the time you came to the Lord, is a litany of charges against you that all your good deeds cannot silence. The courts may let you off the hook since most of these crimes happened so long ago that surely some statute of limitations will protect you from persecution - but that isn't what bothers you.
You are bothered because this evidence was collected by someone - and that means that someone somewhere isn't judging you by what you seem to have become, but has silently and carefully demonstrated that you are -not- the same inside as you are outside. That is, there is a reason no one knows about this stuff: it shames you - and for the sake of your good name, you have kept all the failure buried where no one sees but you and God.
It is funny what we will do to protect our own "good" name. We guard so carefully against any accusation that we are anything less than we appear to be. Yet these failures in our history - known only to us and our Lord - they are forgotten, we say they are "under the blood" - and if God has forgiven our debts, so should man.
The bible speaks of restoring what was taken. If a man stole a cow and it was found out, he had to make restitution for it. Those who despise the notion of restitution quickly point out that this is an "old testament" teaching - restitution was for Israel, and not for Christianity. Yet the teaching of restitution is not unknown in the New Testament.
There is that shameful and hackneyed old saying: "when I was a child I prayed and prayed that God would give me a bike - but then I found out that God doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked for forgiveness..."
While God is certain to forgive us for any act of theft or fraud, there is nothing in that forgiveness that transfers ownership of the goods or money to us. God doesn't forgive that way. John the Baptist wasn't imprisoned for telling Herod it had been wrong for him to take his brother Phillip's wife - but that it was continuously wrong for him to continue doing so. Likewise with us. We must not allow the enemy to convince us (as he surely did Balaam) that we can have our cake and eat it too.
May God help us to see that.
 Some Christians wonder why they never feel the presence of God in any real and vibrant way. They read their bible and pray every day, and experience all the benefits of being a Christian except the greatest - fellowship with God. A Christian who is not in fellowship with God is like a hose that is filled with water that isn't connected to the faucet. It -is- a hose, and it -is- full of water, but the water isn't flowing out to anyone else because the hose isn't connected to anything.
May God help us to see that.
God is light and in Him is no darkness whatsoever; what fellowship has Light with darkness? None. Unless we are spotless, there can be no fellowship with God. I am not talking about justification now - we are justified the moment we are saved - that is, God accepts us as "uncondemned" because of Christ's righteousness - I am not talking about that - I am talking about God fellowshipping with the believer. Unless we obey, we have no fellowship - no power. God doesn't fellowship with Christians who pay him lip service, He fellowships with those who obey Him.
Consider the father who tells his son not to buy a certain video game because he doesn't want it in his house. The son disobeys and buys the game anyway, but later confesses. Forgiveness may be given by the father, but the rule still stands about the game - it must go. The forgiveness granted by the father does not imply a continuing acceptance of the status quo. It is intellectually dishonest to imagine that I can keep my neighbor's stolen car stereo just because I have confessed to God that I stole it (or perhaps purchased it knowing it was stolen.)
While some sins, by their nature cannot be recompensed for, we cannot throw the doctrine of restitution out the window. It is not an "old testament" thing, any more than loving your neighbor is an "old testament" thing. If there is room for restitution of any sort - we must go before God and make it right, both with God and with the neighbor whom we, as Christians, are called to love as we love ourselves.
Dear reader, consider what you have done, and continue to do for the sake of your good name. Had you received an envelope such as the one described above from some man - you would likely be very concerned about it. You would work quickly to make things right. Would you do less if God sent it? |
|
posted by Daniel @
5:20 AM
3 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Hmmm. |
Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean is perhaps most memorable because he was able to create the character of Jack Sparrow, without ever saying "Arrrr" - not even once! That is, the character was impressive in that Johnny portrayed a pirate in a way that no one else ever has - which is pretty remarkable considering cinema today.
I have heard that he based his character on Ozzie Osborne, though that is an unsubstantiated thing at this point. I have never seen an episode of the Osbornes, but I am told that once you make this connection, you see the muse.
But I am not blogging today about Jack Sparrow. Today I blog about another Jack, a real one.
As most of you are already aware, Peter Jackson - that New Zealander who gave us the Lord of the Rings - has been working on a remake of King Kong, and has cast Jack Black as some sort of "director" guy. It is this "Jack" that is of interest to me today.
I watched the trailer for King Kong (visit http://www.apple.com/trailers/) and I must say, the director portrayed by Jack Black seemed so familiar - what was it about him?
Then I realized what was so disturbingly familiar!
Jack Black (as near as I can tell) has based the character of the director on the internet persona of Centuri0n (Frank Turk). I found Frank's blog one day while reading the comments at Phil Johnson's blog (PyroManiac), and have been thankful to make the internet aquaintance.
Now, I have never met Mr. Turk in person (or Jack Black for that matter), but I am still pretty certain that Jack Black has been visiting Centuri0n's site - capturing the nuances as it were, that "cavalier bravado" that we all know and love - and bringing it to the big screen!
Granted Black looses the glasses and dons a fedora - but clearly, as you can see, jack has unapologetically borrowed Centuri0n's essense in order to bring the role to life...
You decide:
| 
| Jack Black
in King Kong | Frank (Centuri0n) Turk
Portrayed by Black? |
Seriously, I can't watch the trailer now without thinking of Frank. :-D
UPDATE: If you haven't already read Dan's latest blog entry, I suggest giving it a read - it is hilarious. Through means that I would rather not mention, I managed to momentarily acquire the Reverend JJ's Magic eight ball - reasoning that if it was able to give such profound strength to the Rev. JJ's arguments, it should easily be able to answer the question about Jack Black and Centuri0n. See for yourselves:
The defense rests. |
|
posted by Daniel @
12:58 PM
15 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Silly thing to do... |
Try this.
While seated lift your right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles with it.
Now while doing this draw the number six in the air with your right hand.
Your foot will change directions. Try it. |
|
posted by Daniel @
10:58 AM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| A quiver full... |
  There is real danger after a near sleepless night of dealing with crying children of being less than thankful.
A while back, whimsically mind you, I may have said in the presence of my wife something about going over the border for a weekend.
In Winnipeg, when you talk about the border, you are talking about the Canada/US border, and you usually mean going down to Grand Forks, Fargo, or perhaps, if you are really bent on spending money - even the twin cities.
When I made this comment, I had forgotten that my poor dear wife has just spent the first trimester of our fourth pregnancy being sick more or less all the time. That hasn't helped our homeschooling, nor has it given her much chance to be out of the house. It seems the comment I made - not unlike musing out loud that it would be nice to inherit a billion dollars, was received in my wife's heart with no less surety that Moses received the ten commandments. It became her constant hope, her mental escape from the moment - a gleaming ray of sunshine to look forward to. As she began to overcome the sickness, the possibility of going out and actually enjoying life for a change began to reshape itself in her psyche.
It was sometime around then that my wife began her dark, ... secret, ... plans.
As I mentioned, my remark was whimsical enough that when my wife mentioned it, I had to play smart - that is, I had to play along with her until I knew what she was talking about. I do this for three very good reasons:
1. She is a walking hormone - and anyone who lives with a pregnant woman knows, you don't do anything to rock the boat.
2. I didn't want her to see any chinks in my "caring, loving, husband" persona. I mean those things when I say them - I am sure I do - but the conviction lasts only until I forget about it. Then it seems like it is someone else's bad idea.
3. She is a walking hormone.
There is another factor involved as well. You see, while my memory is generally excellent, it is often a little wishy-washy about commitments. I never forget a commitment that I have made with anyone other than my wife - but it seems when it comes to my wife I am trapped in a "covenantal language" type of commitment - the kind where I make a commitment but don't even understand that I have done so until it is mentioned after months of (apparently settled)silence on the matter.
Okay, so what's with the crying baby pics?
Three of my wife's girlfriend's children came over last night (yes, on a weeknight) for a sleep over. Their ages are two, five, and seven. My own children are ages two, five, and seven as well. The tie in works like this: my wife is planning to have her girlfriend watch our children for a weekend, and in order to satisfy her guilt at leaving our children with her girlfriend, she offered to take her girlfriend's three youngest for the night.
Why on a weeknight you ask?
My wife's girlfriend's children (she has five altogether) have no school these last few days, and so they are having a movie weekend blowout with their two older children as a celebratory thing for something or other.
Now, for humor's sake I do like to flavor my tone so that I sound like the woe begotten and pitiable victim of an all out conspiracy, and I admit, I feel like it sometimes. But these kids are great and my wife and I would offer our home to them for such a sleep over any old time no questions asked. We love to give of our selves in that way, and such is our relationship with that family. So had my wife not offered to watch these children, and I was aware of even the hint of a need, I would not have hesitated to invite them all over no matter what night of the week it was - and I wouldn't be motivated by guilt or by guile either.
Having said that, I was caught unawares yesterday. For those of you who do not know it, I cycle to work. It is about 10 miles one way - and in Canada around this time of year it is close to freezing and rainy most of the time. That makes for messy, cold riding - and I come home drenched on the outside in mud and water, and drenched inside from the sweat of the effort. My routine is pretty simple. Stagger in like a drunk coming off a three day bender - my children tackle me at the door with hugs (I love that part), I try and get all my dirty wet clothes off and take them downstairs and throw them in the washing machine. Then I come up stairs and adjust.
For those of you who don't know that "adjust" means in this context, allow me a tangential moment to explain. When a man leaves the sanctuary of his own abode, he leaves those people in the world whom he loves the most, and enters into a nine or ten hour exile - locked away in the very place he generally likes the least. A place so vile and loathsome that they have to pay him money just to make him go there. In fact, that is why he goes there - trading off bits of his life - the best share of it in fact - so that he can stay alive and perhaps keep his family alive at the same time. Now as Christians we know that it is God who feeds us and not the fridge - but I am talking about a psychological reality and not a spiritual truth here. The happiest moments in a man's life (they say) are when any of his children are born, next in line would be his wedding day - but directly behind this (barring the winning of a lottery or inheriting a large fortune) is the moment the clock tells him he is allowed to leave work.
The time between leaving work and getting home is like an ethereal twilight on the edge of reality. It happens every day, but it is vaporous - it has no meaning. We may flip the page of a book hundreds of times as we read it - but never once give thought to the act of flipping the page - it happens but it is a non-action - it has no value. Such is the commute home. The commute to work is similar, but the fragrance of happiness can cling to a person right up until they get to work only to fall immediately to the ground as one enters the premises. The commute home however is like the no mans land between the borders - you aren't at home and you aren't at work -you are just ... just... moving.
So when you do get home there is a short period of mental adjustment - a time when your stressed out body - still cramped and clenching from the stress of a day at work, has to catch up with your mind that knows you are home.
Depending on the man, this may be the best, or the worst time to ask for something. The man has a focus, and the moment he gets into the house he wants to do his little routine (whatever it is) and stepping in at that moment and interrupting that can be like stepping between a mamma bear and her cubs, or like knocking a man out of a stupor - it can go either way.
Anyway, so I am in adjust mode - I go through my routine (put clothes in washing machine, wander around house (seemingly) aimlessly - in fact I am re-establishing my presence in my own mind (I am actually home!), then sitting down or laying down for five. It varies with each guy - except for the seemingly aimless wandering - we all do that. Like a man who has stumbled out of a train wreck undamaged - wandering around trying to wrap his mind around the thought of what he has come through unscathed...
That is when I notice the telltale carnival atmosphere of my house. Kids running around giggling - more kids than ought to be there - and consequently far more shrill and energetic. This particular day isn't so bad, and I roll with it.
See, my wife, after a day with the children is looking forward to the moment I get home because that is the moment she can relax her grip a little. She has been playing defense all day, and is looking forward to some bench time. Sometimes when I come home from work it is like the defenseman is skating for the bench oblivious to the forward who is likewise skating for the bench equally oblivious - both have been oo the ice too long, both want that bench - and when they collide it becomes a contest to see who deserves it most. As we have grown in the Lord this little game is less frequent, and less formidable - but still go through the motions once in a while.
I think I might have hip checked her on my way to the bench, but she slashed a bit, and really, neither of us had enough energy to really push it anyway. The result in real terms was that I said something like, "Hmmmm. lots of kids... I see a sleep over bag... how many we got?" to which she replied, "three more, all of them are sleeping over." There was a moments silence as each of us sized up the weariness of the other. Not unlike a spaghetti western where they do the close up of the one gunfighter's eyes, then the other's etc. After a pregnant silence, it seemed I won the mental weariness contest - and was allowed to continue with my adjustment.
That day while I was at work my wife took our youngest to the walk in clinic. She was crying last night saying "ow-ee on my eye!" though she was pointing at her ear. My wife suffered substantial and permanent hearing loss as a child due to a viral infection in her ear, and so she is proactive when it comes to our children and ear infections.
I mention this because by the time I got home we had a prescription for our youngest, and my wife hadn't got around to getting it filled. I was hungry as I hadn't eaten anything all day yet (I skip breakfast, and often skip lunch), so I was quite peckish. My wife was making spaghetti sauce, and supper would not be on the table for another fifteen minutes. I looked in the fridge and there was just nothing to chew on to bide the time, so I decided to go and get the prescription filled.
Okay - that is just background stuff. Supper was underway when I got home, and after supper all the kids all went simultaneously bonkers. Running around and playing as kids do - and of course accidentally hurting one another every few minutes. My wife wanted to plug them into a movie - but I really don't like doing that (redeem the time!). So we let them play, and put them to bed at 9:00.
Here is where all the crying photo's come into the picture. The moment our littlest one lays down - the crying starts. Her ear hurts her, and even with tylenol she is inconsolable. Her crying starts a chain reaction -and soon the other two year old, and one of the five year old's decide to get in on the action.
By 2:00 a.m. I still hadn't fallen asleep. The kids were doing a round robin - as one would settle down, you had enough time to feel that blissful grogginess that precedes sleep, only to have the sandman's legs kicked out from under him by the next round of crying.
My poor wife was really taking the brunt of it - she is pregnant after all, and the kids never want the "daddy" to comfort them - they always prefer the mommy. So she was run pretty ragged too. Yet by 2:00 we both took another run at the bench, and this time I won.
To be sure, when our ear infection girl began to cry again, I told my wife that I had already missed enough sleep to more or less make no difference if I stayed up all night. So I said I would stay up with her, and bid my wife get some sleep. My tone however said, "I have to get ready for work in a couple of hours and you get to stay home - and maybe even catch a snooze" so she refused to allow me to stay up. So I grabbed my pillow and went to sleep in the basement with the door closed. I didn't get much sleep though - all I could think about was this trip to the states that I had volunteered to take my wife on... |
|
posted by Daniel @
8:51 AM
3 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| I don't think it is the real Danny Bonaduce, but... |
 It's still funny.
I didn't really watch much of the Partridge Family when I was growing up, nor did I follow Danny Bonaduce's career after the show.
I do believe that he did some martial arts movies for a while (he has studied under Chuch Norris for over 20 years, and holds blackbelts in the following marial arts:
Okinawan Chinan Ryu;
Tae Kwon Do;
Tokyo-Ryu;
Shorin Ryu.
He also won the 1980 and 1981 International Championships!)
"When I was living on the street I would be standing out in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater, leaning against my car and signing autographs and nobody had any idea that I was living in it. No one had any idea that I was going to pull my car around the corner and go to sleep." - Danny Bonaduce.
"Most child actors were lucky enough to get the part in the first place. They cry and complain that now they are no longer little and cute Hollywood has no use for them. What we often fail to appreciate is that being little and cute may have been their only skill. Now that we are not so little anymore, and certainly not cute, some of us may have to face reality, stop whining, and get real jobs." - Danny Bonaduce.
Rock on Danny, rock on.
 Speaking of silly pictures... I don't care how many times I see this picture of David Hasselhoff and Gary Coleman I still break out chuckling.
Here are two "superstars" in their hey-day captured on film at the same time in the same place.
Wow.
Okay, okay - I am really bored right now. |
|
posted by Daniel @
2:08 PM
3 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Water Baptism vs. Spirit Baptism. |
 Centuri0n, in discussing infant baptism, made a side comment about membership in the church (see the comments section), that I felt could use a bit more light.
"As for "unequivocally wrong", I think that anyone who requires baptism to be a member of the church is unequivocally right -- because that's what Scripture teaches. No question. "
To be certain, I think Centuri0n is talking about water baptism, and when he says "the church" he means a local congregation. It is worded however in a way that leaves a question mark floating in the ether with respect to what moment of time a believer actually becomes a member of the universal church.
John the Baptist, in heralding the coming Messiah says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." - Matthew 3:11 (c.f. Mark 1:8 "...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit", Luke 3:16, "...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and Fire", John 1:33, "...this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit")
We see in John the Baptist's declaration, which is echoed in all of the gospels, that Jesus Christ personally baptizes men with the Holy Spirit. This is the same baptism spoken of by Paul in Romans six, the baptism "into Christ" The moment that a believer enters into the "New Covenant," through faith in Christ - that believer is sealed unto the day of redemption with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ Himself. John MacArthur describes it in better detail than I can here, but the gist of it is that the "Baptism of the Spirit" takes place the at the moment of justification.
If this is so, and I contend that it is, then one becomes a "member of the church" the moment one is justified, as that is the same moment that one is spiritually baptized. Water baptism is therefore an act of obedience performed upon someone who is already part of the body of Christ.
Perhaps Centuri0n holds water baptism as an "unequivocally right" prerequisite to membership in a local assembly because at some point in his understanding of scripture he has interpreted "baptism" in a technical sense? That is, perhaps he has read "baptized" in scripture and presumed the term was referring to "water baptism" (Carson, in that wonderfully concise work, Exegetical Fallacies, refers to this sort of assumption - whereby one presumes a technical meaning when no such meaning is required - as an exegetical fallacy). I am not trying to put words in Centuri0n's mouth however, I am merely speculating (not to be confused with a straw man :-D). As John the Baptist announced that Spiritual baptism would be the sine quo non of the Messiah, it seems right then to allow room for that interpretation of baptism in some of the texts we examine. Thus when Centuri0n says, "because that's what Scripture teaches. No question" I am inclined to say, that there is room for question - even by those ( I am referring to myself ) who are not trying to be obtuse about it :-D
I agree that "water baptism" should be a prerequisite for legal association with a local congregation - it is just easier that way. But if I were to split hairs, that is, when I talk about the ideal over and above the practical, I must make this distinction - if Christ has already accepted a believer into the body of Christ through spiritual baptism - that believer is already a member of the church whether he is affiliated with a local assembly or not, and whether or not he has obediently followed the Lord in water baptism.
|
|
posted by Daniel @
10:16 AM
4 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Phil Johnson's blog. |
The questionably "Reverand" Jackson James (not to be confused with even more questionably "Reverand" James Jackson) just made a wonderfully concise post about Phil Johnson's blog on his blog.
They say that brevity is the soul of wit - which means that I am not terribly witty, and that Jackson James is.
I, for one, anxiously await Phil's return on the 21st. |
|
posted by Daniel @
9:20 AM
2 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Temple idols... |
 There are not many of us who would look upon a temple idol in India and desire to bring it back with us and set it up in the building where our congregation meets.
Some might argue that there is nothing inherently evil or sinful about the idol as long as it isn't worshipped - and sincer there is nothing wrong with it, it makes a fine ornament in any local church building. They might even argue that having such an idol displayed prominently on the church grounds may help to draw in the local Indian community.
Some however might object to bringing in an actual idol. They would argue that using a real idol would be wrong, but it would be okay to make our own version of the idol - a facsimile that having never actually been worshipped in a temple would be okay. This Christianized idol, because it was made by good Christian idol smiths and not by the heathen variety, would therefore be sanctified and even holy.
Most of us are still sensitive enough to the Spirit of God to instinctively reject either idea. We have no personal bias to protect, no cherished opinion that might be bruised if we jump on the "no idols" band wagon. And because it is a black and white example so far removed from anything we might associate with it - we might agree in principle immediately that it is not the best idea to bring an idol or even a facsimile into our church property.
Now lets apply the same principle to "Christian Music™."
Can we juxtapose Christian lyrics over the vocal track of Marilyn Manson's "Antichrist Superstar" and thereby sanctify it? What aboutwritingg our own music that only emulates Manson's music - if we use Christian lyrics isn't that good enough?
Likewise, can we not apply the same principle to church growth? Or are the two already so intertwined that they can no longer be separated? |
|
posted by Daniel @
8:47 AM
8 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| James vs. Jackson |
 Those of you who frequent the right kind of blogs will have noticed a person calling themselves Rev. James Jackson.
At first his comments were entirely gainsaying - the sort of determined and contrary spirit one might find in someone who is strongly opinionated against some particular thing - certainly such a posture is not uncommon in the blogosphere. But in time, it seemed that every such comment made was equally contrary - that is, unless he was gainsaying something, he wouldn't bother commenting.
It wasn't too long before that well known heraldric motif - "argent, a crown sable" was suddenly inverted: "sable, a grown argent!"
I didn't catch it at first. But as it turns out - this was not our beloved Rev. James Jackson. I would have missed it entirely had the genuine "rev." not pointed it out.
To be sure, my first hint was the inverted icon, but then I noticed that the name was also inverted (Rev. Jackson James instead of James Jackson).
But there was more - the commentary was all wrong - this new, "improved" reverand was not contrary, but all his or her posts were in fact harmonious - instead of disagreeing about everything, he or she seemed most agreeable.
I do confess, the "real" Rev. James Jackson is, in my opinion, most likely a fictional persona intended as a parody of a particular genre of posters. All signs point to this (poor spelling, poor photoshop skills). Which is why (I assume) someone decided to create a secondary Rev. - this time a Rev. Jackson James (white crown, black background). The "other" reverend even created a parody blog mirroring the original - except more or less opposite in every respect.
Apparently this sort of satirical scrutiny was not appreciated by the original "Rev." - who wants to bring the false "Rev." to justice for "identity theft." The counterfeit "Rev." doesn't seem too concerned.
I can't help but be reminded of the bizarro superman - remember he was strengthened by the red sun or something like that?
I would link one way or the other, but I don't want to get involved other than commenting from the sidelines. Is the Rev. genuine? |
|
posted by Daniel @
2:55 PM
9 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Slithering Reptile |
 I had no idea my shaving my head would be so beneficial to the evolutionary progress of my blog - but c'est la vie.
I like the image - it seems to say, "You will surely not die..." - the subject of this morning's bible study.
The study was on how we fail to really trust in the truth that obeying God will bring us more joy than disobeying God. One of the main reasons Christians remain spiritually immature is because they wear themselves out trying to obey when they really don't want to obey from their heart. After failing for a while they simply start to make excuses for their failure, or presume that failure is normative - or worse, that their failure is in fact success - or as close to success as a Christian can get. The reality is that not only are we to live for God's glory, but we are supposed to find a great joy in doing so.
I like a study that ends in a challenge and this one did - the challenge was to get honest with God about where we really stand. To stop pretending we are such great Christians if we aren't, and to talk to God honestly about where we are at, and where we are not at, and why that is. To face soberly our inability - and to give it up to God for real.
I really enjoyed it. |
|
posted by Daniel @
11:25 PM
2 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Worship... |
 At some point in the very recent history of the church, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs became "praise and worship" - and around the same time the music stand began to replace the pulpit as the centerpeice of the congregational assembly.
 Perhaps this was around the same time that it became vogue to raise your hands over your head as you sang. I don't know why anyone would do it, but my suspicion is a misunderstanding of those verses that speak of lifting up holy hands. In psalms 28, 63, and 141 we read about hand lifting, and again in 1 Timothy 2. Here Paul commands Christians everywhere to lift up holy hands. My suspicion is that these people do not understand that in Jewish synogogs, men prayed by standing with raised arms. The call to lift up holy hands therefore is a call to pray - and not only to pray, but to pray with "clean hands" - that is, to be spiritually "right with God" when we do pray.
I could be mistaken, but I suspect that is was likewise around the same time that people began to shop for churches that either raised hands, or didn't raise hands - according to their preference.
What are we to think of all this?
That depends on where you are coming from I suppose. Every denomination presumes that the way they sing congregationally is "the most biblical" - at at least biblical. It seems that there are now two types of church - the hand raisers and the "non" hand raisers. There are also some transitional churches too - where there are some hand raisers and some non hand raisers who are engaged in a shunning contest.
The hand raising churches typically have louder music than the non hand raising - perhaps the hand raising began (and this is just my own take on it) because of the louder music; singing out loud when you can't hear yourself sing is somewhat pointless - ipso facto - I can envision someone in the front row trying to flag down the sound guy to tell him to turn the music down because he can't even hear himself singing - but the gesture is misunderstood by others, and interpretted as a sort of pious silent "worship." Not to be out-pioused, these in kind raised their own exceptionally pious hands - and butta-bing butta-boom: insta-zeal, no heart rending required.
The "non" hand raising churches are likewise divided, though both are usually quieter. In the one they are so stoic they are practically dour, such that the slightest raising of an arm is accompanied by a chorus of raised eyebrows, and much nudging and pointing. The other variety, and I believe this would describe my church - have some "would be" hand raisers who are held in check by some of the more dour non-hand raisers - such that no one raises their hands - but the common weal could care less - they just follow the crowd: "Look! there is music playing and words are being put up on the projector. I must sing now. They will sing anything as long as everyone else is. I wonder how many people sing "It is well with my soul" every Sunday, when what they really ought to be singing is, "I am a treasonous dog who refuses to humble myself day in and day out - yet I am singing here in the congregation because that is what we do on Sunday mooooorrrrnning."
Okay, that might be a bit harsh, but you get the picture.
Whatever posture we assume (or refuse to assume) the important thing is that we bring God glory. It seems to me however that we are moving more and more away from God's glory, and in part congregational singing - because it is such an over-stated part of many a church service, has become nothing more than entertainment (at worse) or transitional filler between each part of the service schedule.
Welcome
(sing two songs).
Announcements
(sing two song),
Communion (instrumental music during - closing song afterwards)
Then begins the worship part of the service:
The "song leader" talks about some verse that spoke to him this week
(sing two songs)
The song leader reads a psalm from scripture while the band plays softly
(Sing a song that has at least one line from the psalm just read in it)
(Sing another random song)
At 11:45 the pastor finally has the pulpit, and attempts in fifteen minutes or less to communicate the message God has put on his heart for the week.
(Sing two more closing songs)
I am only slightly exaggerating.
Wasn't there a time when people came to church to hear sermons- and (gasp) even to pray? When did the music stand take over the pulpit? Why do christians in general press themselves into the "godly" mould while denying the very power of God to change their lives?
Sigh. |
|
posted by Daniel @
1:51 PM
10 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| A Close Shave... |
 When I was growing up (before I had ever heard the gospel) I was a fan of what is now called "classic" rock and roll. When I learned to play guitar, I began playing Led Zepellin and Pink Floyd tunes - almost exlusively. Later I discovered Hendrix, and then Stevie Ray Vaughan (who was responsible for turning my attention from Rock and Roll to the Blues. After SRV, I was into all the old delta blues guys, Howling Wolf, Blind Lemon Jefferson , Blind Willy Johnson, Blind Boy Fuller (apparently blues wasn't good for the eyesight...), Big Bill Broonzy, really everyone on the chess label - and of course, Robert Johnson. Nevertheless, my taste in hair cuts remained true to my "classic rock" roots - that is, I have always liked having my hair "long."
My Christian testimony begins at about 19 - that is when I first heard the gospel and believed, but that is not when I was empowered to obey. I didn't read my bible, didn't really know how to be a Christian, and the first time I sinned after I had given my life to Jesus, I thought that I had somehow "blown" my salvation - that by giving into temptation I had somehow destroyed my only hope. I wasn't in a congregation and I knew no other believers, so I didn't have anyone to set me straight. I still loved the Lord, but I felt that I was certainly going to go to hell now because I knew for certain that God's Spirit had witnessed to my spirit that I was saved, but now that fellowship was broken. I didn't know enough to realize that the fellowship could be restored through repentance - and so I just gave up. The next dozen years of my life you would never have known that I had ever heard the gospel. Thank our Lord who is rich in mercy and kindness because years ago he brought into my life believers through whom Chirst was able to direct me in the way that I should go.
It is also relevant to note that when I was a lad I was in "cadets" - I don't know what you call it in the states, but up here in Canada children aged 13-18 can join cadets (army, navy, or air) and train in all the art of soldiering - by that I mean marching, marching, and more marching. There were some cool benefits to being a cadet (I was an air cadet) - most notably you could use the rifle range, you got to go on familiarization flights in cool military aircraft left over from world war II, and you could even get your pilot's license (I was a fool to quit before I got mine). Mostly however, you just learned how to march, and how to stand straight. There are many cadet stories I could tell, but it is enough to say that I was given demerits for my hair length once, and so I shaved my head for the next week. Even the cadets laughed. It was hard to take at school - but you would expect my fellow cadets to cut me some slack. But no.
I kept the hair short until I had a falling out with the commanding officer, and left the unit. After that I let it grow. My hair grew to shoulder length when I was still fifteen, and remained that way until I was about 28 or so. At that time I began to go to college, and on a whim I decided to shave bald. My wife was not impressed.
Five years ago I started working for the government - and because of equal opportunity and tolerence I was allowed to grow my hair as long as I wanted. However, in the mean time I had returned to the Lord and joined myself to a conservative church - one that felt that long hair on a man was effeminate.
This last year however, I began to let my hair grow again - mostly because my schedule wasn't lining up with the barber very well - but partly in rebellion against the legalistic mindset in my church. There were a few people who were already starting to comment on it (especially as I am a deacon). I don't buy into the "God hates long hair on a man" mentality (remember the Nazarites?), but I also don't want to be a stumbling block to anyone - and as one of the other deacons seemed to have a real problem with it, I was waiting for an opportunity to cut it.
So yesterday, my wife gave me permission to shave my head. To be sure, my wife who formerly hated baldness, now likes it, so I say "gave me permission" but in reality I knew it was something that she would prefer. So I shaved it all off.
Pretty spiff eh? I wish I had done it earlier as part of my "this is what I look like right now" post - but better late than never! |
|
posted by Daniel @
9:09 AM
10 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| What it means to be Dutch. |
 My Father's family came from the province of North Brabant (it was once a duchy) in Holland.
The province is divided into very small townships/municipalities and my ancestors lived (at separate times) in three such townships: Helmond, Asten, and Someren. Asten and Someren border one another east to west (Someren on the west), both border with Helmond to the north. All three townships combined would fit into a circle ten miles across.
To give some perspective to this - that means that for somewhere around 20 generations my ancestors lived and died within ten miles of where they were born.
My lineage is nothing special:
Myself (Daniel) Born in 1966,
the son of Franciscus (1947),
son of Franciscus (1920),
son of Marinus (1888),
son of Johannes (1863),
son of Johannes (1824),
son of Lambertus (1800),
son of Lambertus (1774),
son of Franciscus (1738),
son of Lambertus (1691),
son of Walraven (1656),
son of Johannes (1615),
son of Walraven (1590),
son of Jan (1556),
son of Lambert (1505),
son of Walravens (1465),
son of Meeus (1435),
son of Arnt (1400),
son of Henric (1365),
son of Wouter (1335),
son of Wouter (?).
As you can see my ancestral line gets hazy before 1335, which makes a lot of sense, since Holland's history prior to that is likewise hazy.
Apparently the names, Lambert(us), Walraven(s), Johannes, and Franciscus were favourites of my ancestors - I would have been Franciscus myself except my mother didn't want me to have a Dutch name. Daniel Boone happened to be on television at the time they were thinking of names for me - and well, that is my own ignoble start to life.
If showing people your photo albums is boring - showing people your family tree is even more boring. I mean I am practically falling asleep typing this thing up.
 The worst part is that my dad always told me that there were some interesting things in our family history. He spoke of pirates and Spanish princesses. I think the story goes thus: somewhere in our family tree someone (a pirate no doubt) kidnapped a Spanish princess on the high seas. The princess was either ransomed back or became an unwilling participant in my family tree - the details were always obscure. After all my effort however, I haven't found any such thing. Just a bunch of peasants living in obscurity for twenty generations.
On my mother's side there is also supposed to be pirates - arrrrrr! I confess however, I haven't done the homework. Let's just say that I am satisfied to believe that there are pirates. If I don't do the homework I won't have to find out that for twenty generations on my mom's side they Iikewise lived and died within spitting distance of where they were born. |
|
posted by Daniel @
4:19 PM
9 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Carnal Christians |
 In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul introduces the idea of carnal Christians – describing them as genuine believers who have not yet progressed into a spiritual walk with God. They are saved, but continue in the strength of the flesh and not the strength of the Spirit.
The term “carnal” describes what is empowering them in their walk with God – the flesh. They fail to walk consistently with God because they are still in their flesh and not spiritually minded.
Said another way, Carnal Christians are genuine believers who have either fallen from an understanding of grace or have never understood grace fully to begin with. They, like the foolish Galatians, have set about trying to sanctify themselves through works of the law. Of course they fail because they can’t keep the law which causes them to eventually burn out and/or give up. Falling from an understanding of grace does not mean that they have lost their salvation; it means that, for whatever reason, they were trying to please God carnally instead of spiritually – a thing that cannot be done. Such ‘carnal’ Christians Paul describes as babies – still needing milk, being unable to handle meat yet because they are still in their flesh. They are genuine born again believers – but spiritually speaking they are babes because they still walk in the flesh.
Paul did not consider staying a babe an “acceptable” form of Christianity, and I dare say I have yet to meet a genuine believer who desires to remain immature. Yet we must be careful to admit that most Christians today are carnal and not spiritual.
That being said, we must also recognize that there are some (many?) amongst us who are not saved even though they claim to be. There -are- tares amongst the wheat, and we do well to remember that. Tares are not necessarily anti-Christian, they are more often than not deceived and truly believe themselves worthy of the label they have taken for themselves. Perhaps they have never heard the gospel preached right, or perhaps they understood it but haven’t applied it to themselves – they give that intellectual assent to the truth of the gospel without actually trusting God to save them personally. Whatever the case, they can look as “fruitful” as a genuine believer, differing in their motivation, rather than their practice.
The important thing to note is that non-believers can look like genuine believers, and genuine believers can look like the unregenerate. It is therefore a great folly for any believer to attempt what God Himself won’t even entrust to the angels (who are presently wiser and more able than we). Recall how the Lord forbid the angels to remove the tares from amongst the wheat in case they should err in their judgment.
Scripture teaches that [we] will know [ravenous wolves/false prophets] by their fruit (Matthew 7:16). This verse instructs the believer to examine the fruit of those who assume the role of teacher/preacher, and if the fruit is worldly, we will know that the prophet is false - a ravenous wolf. When the doctrine of a preacher tears the flock apart (not dividing the church, but separating believers from God by their doctrine) instead of building believers up in their faith – then we know the preacher to be a false prophet.
On the one hand we are to purge out the leaven – that is, separate ourselves from anyone who is teaching false things - trusting God to deal with that person or party. On the other hand we are to come along side the weaker brethren who may be carnally walking but genuinely saved, or perhaps even a deceived counterfeit – our job is the same – come along side and support them. Many a counterfeit Christian has found genuine faith when a true believer took the time to instruct them rather than judge them. I think of John Wesley and the Moravians. How few there are who are willing to gently instruct the lambs. |
|
posted by Daniel @
11:57 AM
12 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| This is what I look like now! |
Frank Turk made a wonderful observation from his blog that if you are going to post "this is where I am right now" sort of posts you may as well give up going for stats because no one cares where you are right now. Or something like that.
Clearly that does not include the inane, "this is what I look like right now" style of posts - so in the flavor of the month category I give you - this is what I look like now!
One of the dangers of posting your own image on the internet is that you naturally want to select the "bestest" image you can come up with - either the cutest, the funniest, or the most glamorous - and that practically eliminates the "this is what I look like now" style of photo - really, who looks good all the time?
Yet in an effort to cover all my bases, I have selected a few photos - most of which are between 10 minutes and a couple of weeks old. I have tried to select the good along with the bad - but it does give a good cross sectional view of what I am presently looking like.
 Something Art Nouveaux? This is me at work in the men's bathroom blowing the hand dryer up into my hair as I glance over artistically. Thankfully no one came into the bathroom while I was holding my palm pilot taking a photo of myself fluffing my hair up in order to look casually windy. Notice the Erudite glassess? Clearly the urban professional look.
It isn't my personal favorite.
 I had also considered doing the patriotic cowboy motif. You know where I put on my cowboy hat and cut out the background stuff and juxtapose a Canadian flag behind me - as though I were perhaps artistically glancing out at something patriotic - like a beaver (see our nickels), or perhaps the bluenose schooner (see our dime). Or maybe some canadian wild life - we love our wildlife up here - usually with mashed potatoes. Anyway - I tried to keep my face from looking too happy or anything - I am after all supposed to look like a cowboy who is affiliated with his country by means of a background flag image, and I don't want to take away from that by looking all cheerful or something. Best to just stare off blankly, as though someone else were taking the photo while I was deep in thought, and not me holding out my palm pilot at arms length and trying to look thoughtfully unawares...
 But then I thought - Hey! I could also do the whole "dark trip" too - the somber, sort of Johnny Cash thing, so instead of chopping out the background, I could just do a touch of "darkening" and butta-bing - I am the brooding, or perhaps thoughtfully brooding, but ever so mysteriously somber guy. Begin married however, I have no need to really put on the whole "misunderstood tough guy" thing - you know all tough as nails on the outside, but secretly soft as a kitten inside - the girls always ate that one up (I have said too much already - forgive me all you single guys who are still using this one).
 Then I thought - what about the plain Jane cap on backwards look? You know - the direct face full into the camera look. It works well enough for the photogenic - but come to think of it - it makes me look even more brooding than the one where I was actually trying to look brooding. Besides, it looks like I am wearing some kind of funny hat - not a baseball cap on backwards, but maybe one of those mechanics hats or a painters hat or something. Not the urban professional or even the urban cowboy - just I don't know - french? And it is a pretty small pic too - and while I am at it - whose skin is that color in real life??
 I could try a variation on the theme - the sort of upwards glance with the 1/8 head turn that demonstrates the "baseball cap-ness" of my chapeau - and isn't that a hint of a smile? Not Mr. Brooding anymore, now I am Mr. Suavé. I should have cocked one eyebrow - but Frank Turk would cite me for copyright infringment. I didn't want to over do it either
The bonus from these little pics isn't that you face is so small that no one can really see it clearly enough to complain - though that is a plus - the big bonus is that the little pics don't get distorted by the Google uber hash - that program that seems to hack good photos down to size so that they can be viewed in comments - but in hacking them down to size really butchers the clarity.
 Then there is the old archive footage. This is put in for comparison- I hate to pull it out because it is practically dishonest - this is the "Me" from -like- fifteen years ago, before age-related- sag™ set in. The internet is rife with people whose images are reflections of them in that small window we refer to as the "glory days" - years before the desk job and hard weather ruined their all-state good looks. My wife took this pic when she was in school planning to be a photographer - I went out to her friends barn with her to be her subject (she liked my ripped up jean jacket - good texture she said) . We weren't married yet. In this pic she caught me just as I was licking my lips, but even with that - or perhaps because of it Calvin Klein is still asking me to model their underwear.
Never the less I can't really post a pic like that without quickly adding that I don't look that way anymore - now my jean jacket has no rips.
By now you should all be familiar with this one.  I kinda liked it for a while - I just stuck my head under my work lamp and snapped a quick one with a lame-o quarter-grin. That sort of sounds like an olympic dive? "Now on the center platform, Daniel steps up with a reverse tilt quarter grin inverted smile - he executes it - no splash- the judges are estatic, except for the obtuse one who just plain hates smiles. " What I like about it is that I don't look angry, bored, or hopelessly fool-like. I would say foolish - but I think that word is overused.
One problem in presenting these "up to the minute pics (most were taken today) is that my sony (a TH-55 palm pilot with a 0.3 Megapixcel camera in it) doesn't work well in poor lighting - and the lighting at work is poor at best. We keep the lights out all the time (we are programmers after all - and allowed to be weird, ...er excentric), and if I turned the lights on to take pictures of myself, well, lets just say in Canada you don't do that, not if you want to be called a manly-man at least.
Likewise with my palm pilot you have to be about 18 inches from the lens if you don't want a super grainy image. So it is not exactly the best medium for "this is what I look like now" sort of pics - nevertheless - this is what I looked like today.
|
|
posted by Daniel @
3:52 PM
7 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| A Christianity That Really Works! |
You won't find this book on Amazon.com.
Humph. Okay, I did a search, and you actually will find it on Amazon.com - but that isn't important - you can also download a free copy from Ron Marr's website.
What is important is that I am reading this book, and so far I have to say it is very practical. After reading the first five chapters, I immediately went out and bought another copy, anticipating how I would be lending it out, but wanting it back.
The fellows who are involved in the revival meetings sponsored by our church (The Sutera Twins, Ralph & Lou) recommend it very highly, and upon their recommendation I bought the first one. I found out afterwards you can download it for free, but I prefer to have a hard copy.
I mention it because anyone who is inclined should get themselves a freebee copy and give it a look. I haven't read it all - so buyer beware, but what I have read has been sound, practical, and spiritual - a rare combination.
The book reads pretty easy too, the chapters are not too long, and the tone is conversational - really a easy read. But it is tasty too.
Give it a try, what can you lose? Skip the intro and whatnot and read a chapter or two. |
|
posted by Daniel @
3:52 PM
2 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Why me Lord? |
 Sometimes unpleasant things happen to us in order for God to grow someone else. Our suffering, sometimes at least, is entirely for the edification and instruction of another.
Always there is a lesson for us as well, but many times we are afflicted on account of someone else needing to grow in some way.
In our fellowship we know a couple who is notorious. Narry a week can pass without some calamity befalling them. Bizarre and rare illness, unfortunate happenstance, every sickness under the rainbow, etc. Were we living in first century Palestine I am certain we would be asking, who sinned Lord? Them or their parents??
We do well if we begin to understand that it isn't always about us. |
|
posted by Daniel @
2:11 PM
3 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Crawly Amphibian! |
 Evolution strikes again! Yay!
I am amongst the vertibrates at last. No longer pond scum, but not far from the pond...
I owe it all to Pope. |
|
posted by Daniel @
1:44 PM
1 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| Hats Off To Frank! |
Frank Turk - a.k.a. Centuri0n, is largely responsible for many of my "hits" - and I just wanted to say what a sweet guy I think he is.
It might be the shekinah of glory that emits from his saintly head, or perhaps it is his bouncing eyebrow, or maybe his theme music - but we all love him.
Hats off to you Frank! I made a quick comic book sketchy thingy - colored it but it looked cheesy, so I just went with the classic b & w instead. |
|
posted by Daniel @
5:22 PM
7 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
| A Pictorial Essay... |
Some blogs require verification words in order to make a post. I have decided to post suggested pics that I think articulate the words...
 "Blurdee"  "bazjoe" |
|
posted by Daniel @
12:26 PM
10 comment(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
