City outraged at Nebraskan man for tearing down his own mausoleum

Custer, Nebraska –

They city of Custer received complaints from several outraged citizens, last Thursday. Their complaint: a man bulldozed his own Mausoleum. Fred Appleton, fourth generation Nebraskan, bulldozed his family gravesite, and made preparations for planting a garden.

“I didn’t like the idea of all those folks just lyin’ there, ya know?” Appleton told reporters. “Seems like they would feel silly if they saw themselves.”

Citizens of Custer take pride in their cemetery. They hold all their civic celebrations in an amphitheater located on the back lot of the burial grounds. Their Fourth of July parade begins at the town hall, near the north end of the grounds, and comes to a climax at the cemetery’s picnic fields.

“Our cemetery has been awarded the blue ribbon no less than 47 times in the annual Midwest Cemetery Extravaganza,” Joe Mitchell, Custer Citizen, claimed. “Every family has their own space, and the grave houses are absolutely beautiful. The architecture varies from Victorian to Modern to Classical. Half of them are two stories high.”

The town’s Mausoleum Architecture and Care firm is the most thriving business downtown. Not only are they responsible for designing and constructing the houses of those who have passed on, but they have teams attending to the daily upkeep. Fresh paint and new shrubberies are always in order.

So imagine the surprise of the town folk last Thursday morning when they woke up to the sound of Fred Appleton revving up his bobcat and leveling his beloved house of rest.

When asked what his plans were, he replied, “I’m thinkin’ of lots of flowers, maybe even an apple tree. I was thinkin’ of buryin’ my family underneath it all, so perhaps their old bodies will finally bear some type of fruit. They didn’t do much of that when they were livin’.”

The judge declined to comment on the direction the case is going. He did say that, “This rashness opens up a whole new can of worms.”

Mr. Appleton goes before the town council next Tuesday.

The Divine Abundance: Part Two

In the next section, Hart discusses the fellowship enjoyed within the Godhead. To say God is love, which we must, we automatically make certain tangential assumptions, which, when flushed out, show that our God is unique in being love. If God is love, and we take our former point that we are unnecessary for God to be who He is, then we are saying that God is love with or without us. Before the creation of time, God was God and He was love. But love, biblically understood, must have an object. It is not just a good feeling. Love must be directed outward. If God is love before the creation of the world, His love must have been directed at Himself. This leads us to the triune nature of our God. This is why no other god can be love. Allah certainly can’t. He is a monopod, and cannot show love before the creation of objects. There is only self-love, which is no real love at all, just another phrase for self-gratification, and self-service.
But our God is Love, true outward love, from before the beginnings of time. This outward love can be understood as selfless love, or rather, a giving love. The Father gives to the Son, and the Son gives to the Father, and Spirit gives to the Father and the Son. They are eternally concerned with the other. This is how it plays out in history. The Father, Son and Spirit together, as the One creating God, made the world. The world falls into sin. The Father gives to the world His Son, conquering. The Son gives to the world His Spirit, enlivening. The Spirit gives back to the Son, the world, transformed. The Son gives back to the Father, the world, robed in righteousness. There is no ‘keeping for self’ in this picture of God’s glorious drama.
Another way of describing this divine fellowship, is to touch on the presence of Speaker and Spoken. We cannot deny the unity of God, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” But throughout Scripture God speaks, and at the same time is spoken and spoken to. Take for instance the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. Jesus, the fullness of God, Immanuel, rises from the water, and is blessed by His Father, in a voice from Heaven. This voice is accompanied by a dove, descending. The Father speaks, the Spirit is Spoken, and the Son is Spoken to. This reveals that God does not only give, but also receives. Love must give, but love must also receive, and respond. Jesus immediately goes out into the desert, following this baptism, to complete the initiation of His ministry. He has heard His Father, and knows He must respond. He does not simply accept, but acts. Love is not given to the other for the other to have good feelings, but for the other to be equipped for action. Our love towards others must be so minded. God loved us, not simply to save us from sin, which He did, but to transform us into the image of Christ, which in God’s glory requires our action, or obedience. We do not simply accept salvation, and nothing else. We accept love with the purpose of responding accordingly.
What does this mean for our discussion of the Christian Aesthetic? Let’s first define our premises. Premise number one: God is the ultimate Beauty. If beauty (or anything for that matter) dwelt outside of God, His Godness would be immediately destroyed, and the world would spin helplessly into meaningless oblivion. Premise number two: God’s character and attributes are the standards by which we judge beauty. In other words, we look at the world, and can objectively say that something is or is not beautiful based on how well it reflects God’s nature. Hence we can call sexual fidelity in marriage a good reflection, and rape a bad reflection. Giving a thirsty man a glass of water is beautiful. Charging him for it is ugly.
If these assumptions are true, then beauty must necessarily consist of selfless love. This selfless love also must be given with the purpose of equipping. The result of this love, is a worldview which sees God’s love to us in everything, and leaves us therefore, with no excuse to sit on our duffs and watch it pass by. God’s love necessarily calls us to action. Whether that be translating the Word in Africa, or sipping scotch with a brother on a back porch, love requires action, and direction. In this worldview, life will be lived to the glory of God, and will necessarily be filled with the beauty of His Holiness.
This takes time to understand, let alone bearing fruit in our lives. Not just time either. It takes the Spirit’s gift of transformation. It is this gift by which all is understood, and life is completely and fully enjoyed.

The Divine Abundance: Part One

One of the 7 or 8 books that I am reading right now is The Beauty of the Infinite by David Bentley Hart. It is an excellent book by any standard, though thick at times with a temptation towards headiness. Hart is of Eastern Orthodox persuasion, and has taught at many higher up establishments such as Duke Divinity School, so that may explain some things.

Regardless, it is an excellent book. Its purpose is to present a biblical paradigm by which we Christians may understand beauty. This is a topic which I will frequently be posting on, as it is one that is close to my heart and thoughts. But as I said, I am currently reading it, meaning I have not read it fully yet. I would however, like to comment on sections as they are being read.

The first chapter begins where all things begin: the Triune God. His first subheading is labeled the Divine Apatheia. In essence this section is explaining God’s complete and utter satisfaction in Himself, and need of nothing that is not already contained within the Godhead. This thought has at least two ramifications. The first is that God is complete. He needs no one, is dependant on no one, and finds utter fulfillment in the divine community.

Secondly, and logically following the first point, we His creation, are completely unnecessary to God’s existence. Any ontology other than this necessarily denies God’s omnipotence, and to do that denies the existence of God Himself. If He is not above all, who is, and so on. This statement has many implications, but I want to talk about only one.

If we are completely unnecessary, and if creation is completely, in an ultimate sense, unnecessary, what is the purpose of it all? In a very real sense, creation is superfluous. It is extra, it is divine abundance. What does this say about the Triune God we worship? One thing it definitely does not say is that God is a utilitarian pragmatic. If our God is not, why should we?
If God did not create the world out of some sense of duty, or some world shaped hole in His heart, why did He create it? The only other option is to say that God created out of pleasure, desire, and love. This is consistent with the Creation story, and all of Scripture.

It follows then that all of creation was given in love. All matter, both organic and inorganic, speaks to the love and pleasure of our Father. This is how we must understand creation. Out of any number of possible options, God chose to make the world this way. He could have given us one tree that grew one thing, which contained, nutritionally speaking, everything that was necessary to our survival. But He didn’t. He made apples and oranges. He gave us plethora of edible leaves. We only need one type of lettuce. But He gave us Red leaf, Green leaf, Romaine, Kale, Arugula, Red Kale, and so on. How many different types of fruits, vegetables, meats, grains, etc. are there? And those are just food groups. Look at the rock world, the tree world, the animal kingdom. The superfluousness is staggering. To our modern eyes, it is all simply excess or unneeded waste. But in God’s eyes it is Good.

What does this say about the God we worship? God enjoys difference. He enjoys playfulness. He enjoys interaction and community. Developing our understanding of these characteristics, and the many more that creation presents to us, takes us a step closer to developing a distinctively Christian Aesthetic. With this tool we will be able to have a clear understanding of what beauty is, why it is not completely relative, and how we are called to live and worship in such a way that reflects this beauty to the ugly and disfigured world we live in.

Archetypal Residue

That's the good stuff. Maybe not the best stuff, but really good stuff.

Bowmore, single-malt. From the oldest operating distillery on the island of Islay. The second oldest in all of Scottland.

Aged for 12 uninterrupted years in a single sherry barrel. Slowly, patiently absorbing the warmth of oak and salt air.

Islays are known for their intensely smokey, peaty aromas. This one is not as sharp as some (Laphroaig and Lagavulin reign as most distinctly flavorful). But Bowmore is full of character and flavor, while remaining extremely well balanced and very smooth.

It rolls around on the tongue, dangling a hint of honey behind rich smoke that disolves into flavors of pear and - if you wait for it - dark chocolate. Close your eyes and savor it, and you can smell the Scottish sea-mist wafting over the malting floor.

Bad scotch is like so much "Christian" fiction. Bland, convoluted, uninspired, soul-less. Great scotch drinks like Edwards reads. Resonating echoes of the better country. Steeped in archetypal residue. Passing from lips to tongue, evoking the depth of goodness and beauty that must been seen and tasted, not merely told of. Smoothly but resolutely warming as it goes down, it inspires contemplation of the mysterious currents of Word and Spirit.

The Beauty of the Gospel

Fear not, O ye of faint heart. That title sounds more exhaustive than I mean to be here. I merely wish to bring up another side of this toast and ode to Dispensationalism. In continuing this discussion on premil eschatology (as specifically endorsed by Dispensationalists) I wanted to follow up on the Blind Sage's comments (which were totally sagacious, dude!).

As committed Sola Scripturians, we are to rely on Scripture for interpretation. This means at least one thing, and that is this: reading post-revelatory history into revelation is bad. When the Holy Spirit completed the canon with Revelation, He completed the canon. There was nothing more to say. The entirety of Scripture was complete, sufficient, and thorough. Whether or not Israel has lived as a people group since that time, as apposed to say the Hittites, is irrelevant. That isn't proof of their Scriptural significance. It can be reduced to the old problem of the horse squarely resting behind the cart. The horse is Scripture and our understanding of it. The cart is our method of interpretation. I mean to tread lightly here, for all who seek to interpret Scripture are susceptible to this problem. Nonetheless, we are required to read and understand Scripture, and the Spirit comes along side us and enables our minds and our hearts to soak in its truth. But we must not allow our method of interpretation to be the absolute authority. Obviously we have to start from somewhere, but our methods are the malleable part, not the intention of Scripture.

The Word of God comes to us in different clothes. In Genesis it comes dressed as a tidy, three-piece suit of historical, reliable narrative. The Psalms come to us flowing in gowns of rich imagery, painful emotions, and the raw, unashamed truth of life. The Prophets approach, warily but with perseverance, the essentials barely covered with unadulterated animal skin. We cannot deny the differences between these styles/genres. They are as different as David and John the Baptist.

Here we catch a glimpse at the Triune Beauty. Does God reveal Himself to us employing only one method of revelation? Not at all. We look at the mountains and see His majesty, we enjoy the privileges of marriage, and are witness to the community of love our God shares in Himself. We read the Word of God and the Spirit enlightens our hearts, minds, souls, and bodies. In other words, we do not look at a mountain, or marital bliss, and literally interpret creation with respect to God. We do not look at the ocean and see God face to face. We see Him, but through a deeper beauty. God has revealed Himself to us in all of life, but restrained, and through veils of sign and symbol. That's what language is after all, verbal and written signs, signifying something real, and weighty. Therefore we see God in all of creation, or Natural Revelation, but through metaphor, and not by explicit, undiminished, raw vision. And praise God for His kindness in this. The same is true with Special Revelation. God explains Himself, as far as He does (Deut 29:29), through different forms, enabling us to see different sides of His glory. The mountain does not mean the same thing as marital bliss. Nor do we interpret it in the same way. Thus Ezekiel's vision of God in His glory, reveals a different side of God than Paul's Epistle to Titus, and thus needs to be interpreted differently.

Here we see an aspect of the beauty of the Gospel. God in His wisdom, spoke to us in His Word. But He did not speak to just part of us, the historico-grammatical part up in our left brain. He also spoke to our emotions, our desires, our hopes, our spirits. Every aspect of our whole body is given a mode to understand God in. To limit the interpretation of Scripture to one mode, denies the trinitarian make up of our own body. It places undue emphasis on one way of understanding, leaving the other ways weak and starved. But God did not intend for this to be. His Gospel, which extends from Genesis 1 through to Revelation 22, is full of rich and varied texts, all of them interacting with all of us, heart, soul, mind, and body. Here we find a Triune God not interested in one aspect of His creation, such as their historical sensibilities, but a God who loves all of life, and gave all of life to His creation. Here we find a God who enriches His creatures with not just a rational brain, but with emotion and senses as well. Here we find not a dry and arrid text, full of strict and literal non-sequitors, but the tremendous and humbling complex beauty of the Gospel.

Toddlers and Elephants

Jolly Friar made a great comment about Fairsized's great post, regarding hermeneutics. This does seem to be one of the central issues in the debate between premillenniaism (especially the Dispensational variety) and the other main views (postmillennialism, amillennialism).

In short, different genres of literature require different reading strategies. If we don't employ reading strategies appropriate to particular genres, then we necessarily flatten those genres out and reduce all of them to the level of our (lack of) literary sophistication. Friar's point is exactly this - that a firmly held belief in the doctrine of sola scriptura includes a conviction that the scriptures are God's Word. If they are God's Word, then they need to be interpreted and understood as God intended when He inspired them. This includes the agency of the human authors who, under divine inspiration, penned the original texts.

The question is not - cannot - be, "What does it mean to me?" Or, "How do the principles of common sense determine the meaning of the text?" Interpretation cannot be primarily reader-centric. It must be governed by authorial intent. What did John intend for his readers to understand? What did God intend? How would those original, 1st Century Jews living in the Roman Empire understand the Apocalypse? Just like we 21st Century, post-Enlightenment, Western Americans understand it?

When you read Moby Dick for the first time, did you think of it as being primarily a great adventure story about a big whale? Maybe so - but if so, you missed much of what Melville intended to communicate to you. Maybe then you became better versed in literary symbolism, and were able to go back and re-read the story with an eye for all of the authorially intended messages below the shallow surface of the story itself.

God's Word is marvelously, beautifully, magnificently deep. Perspicuous, yes, as Dr. MacArthur is keen to remind us of, because he believes that a non-dispensational approach to interpreting books like Revelation and Zechariah are the result of denying the perspecuity of scripture. Not so. Perspecuity does not mean simplicity or shallowness. Look - just because when I look at a page full of Newtonian Physics, and all I see is a "muddle" (that's Dr. MacArthur's word to describe amillennial hermeneutics) of numbers and symbols, it doesn't mean that Newton has muddled the field of mathematics and physics. I mean, really. Someone standing back and saying that most interpreters of prophetic scripture - in the history of the church - including Calvin - until the 1800s - have simply muddled those passages, is a bit like a 5th Grader passing judgment on Einstein because he can't make sense of the whole General Relativity bit. As Leon Morris said of the Gospel of John, God's Word is a pool shallow enough for a toddler to wade in, but deep enough for an elephant to drown in.

Dr. MacArthur himself, in his lecture on the subject of Israel and Sovereign Election, acknowledged at least two distinct genres present in scripture - Historical Narrative and Poetry. His minor point was that we can't read the Historical Narrative passages as if they were Poetry. We can't read Genesis 1-3 in the same way we read the Psalms. His major point was that this is what amillennialism does to the book of Revelation, and to all of the OT promises made to Israel. But, see, he's assuming that those passages belong to the genre of Historical Narrative. Why? Because they're not Poetry? Are those the only two options? Are there no other literary styles employed by the writers of scripture?

The amillennialist says that there are, and that interpreters like Dr. MacArthur have been guilty of reading passages that belong to one genre as if they belonged to another. We all sort of sense that this is a bad idea, don't we? We don't read the newspaper in the same way that we read Chaucer. We don't read a love letter in the same way that we read a history book. Well, maybe some of us do, and that's the reason why so many wives are so frustrated with their husbands. The point is, there are lots of different flavors of literature, and exegesis is as much an art as a science.

One of the other genres employed in God's Word is the Apocalyptic, Prophetic genre. These would be passages like Zechariah's night visions, Daniel's dreams, Joseph's dreams, Ezekiel's magnificently indescribable visions, and major portions of the book of Revelation. Passages where God isn't just speaking to and through a prophet, but showing the prophet something through prophetic, apocalyptic vision. These visions normally carry a symbolic meaning beyond the surfacy appearance of them. They are normally intended to point us far beyond visual appearances - what something or someone looks like - to communicate on a very deep level what something or someone is like. And so, where the Dispensationalist says that scripture should be read according to the "literal wherever possible" hermeneutic, the Amillennialist simply says, "Amen. It's just not possible in apocalyptic passages where the intention of the author is to speak symbolically through visions." In other words, when we come to these portions of scripture, we need to read the author literally - that is, we need to literally understand that the author is writing symbolically.

For example. Revelation chapter 1 records John's vision of the glorified Christ. He has eyes aflame with fire, glowing white hair, legs which gleam like burnished bronze, a sword protruding from his mouth, surrounded by lampstands, etc... Here's what far too many people reduce a vision of such magnitude to:

Maybe it's a nice, artistic rendition and reflects a fair amount of skill and talent on the artist's part. But it falls far short of what God want's us to know about His resurrected, glorified Son through this vision given to John on Patmos. Is our understanding of Him really to be limited to His visible appearance? Are we really to think that He has this sword poking out of His mouth, and that it's swinging around as He turns His head from side to side? Or like Melville's whale and the Pequod's crew, does the vision signify something far more important? Like the glory of His holiness, and His omniscient gaze, and the character and power of His Word (which, Hebrews reminds us, is "Sharper than any double-edged sword.")

Are Zechariah's lampstand and olive trees (Zech. 4) simply that? Literal, physical lampstand and olive trees? If so, then really, so what? So there's a Mennorrah flanked by trees in the Temple. Big deal. But it is a big deal. Such a big deal that the meaning of that vision, as stated by God Himself, is, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the LORD." (v.6) It's what they signify and symbolize that's important - not the things themselves. And that's the nature of Apocalyptic, prophetic literature. It employs imagery that points to something other - something greater - than itself.

Indeed, all of Scripture operates in this way. We must interpret the historicaly-narrative portions as history, as events that actually happened as revealed. But especially in the OT, those events themselves - those people and those things - were all significant of something far greater than themselves. Physical sacrifices that foreshadowed a greater sacrifice. A physical temple that anticiapted a greater reality (Christ's own body, John 2:19-21 - and His Body the Church, Ephesians 2:19-22). A priesthood that was but a glimmer of Christ's. On and on and on, God orchestrates His Word and history itself as a grand, spectacular revelation of His Son and His Kingdom. Not just what they look like. But what they are like in the beauty of holiness.

My one and only thought on Macarthur's lecture

As we were listening to the tirade against some form of eschatology, which can only be classified as non-premil, I was thinking about two of Dispensationalists biggest sine quo non's. Those of course being 1) the unwavering necessity of interpreting Scripture strictly literally, without regard for various forms of genre (beyond poetry and plain speech); and 2) that the nation-state of ethnic Israel is really, in the end, what the whole of special and natural revelation is about. Israel can mean nothing else than blood descendents of Abraham. Really, this second point is just a logical outflow of the first. There is no other possible explanation, interpretation.

My purpose here is not to refute this point by point. Others have gone before and have shown quite plainly that a strictly literal interpretation is indeed not necessary, nor even helpful. A study of the Prophets, both minor and major, Romans 9, Galatians, Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, and especially John's Apocalypse will show that there is something bigger going on than merely the restoration of an earthly temple.

In fact this is what I want to talk about. This view of Scripture, in the end, completely strips Christ of the glory of His work. The beauty of His earthly work, from advent to ascension, from incarnation to intercession, is reduced to the system He came to destroy. Christ, in His earthly ministry, did not hold back in His condemnation of where Judaism was headed. He stood on the Mount of Olives and prophesied their complete destruction.

These passages are the very passages which are contented I know. Consider though, the trajectory of God's Story. Man is created. From his side comes that which makes him complete, woman. They are given dominion over earth. They screw up. They choose love of self over love of God. Idolatry enters the picture. We raise idols (money, sex, power, all things revolving around self) and worship clay pots over the Potter. We, the virgin, have played the whore, and have spit in our Husbands eye. We were banished from our garden, and in our own strength, have been running away ever since.

But God's great mercy is this. From the very beginning He has prophesied that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. As mankind grew, God continued to reveal this promise to men of faith: Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets. Over and over again, God tells His people, I will be your God, and you will be my people. This promise came in the middle of different contexts, and built on the previous promise. To Noah was promised salvation and a new World. To Abraham, salvation and a new People. To Moses, salvation and a new Priest. To David, salvation and a new King. To the Prophets, salvation and the coming of the Prophet. God's Story played out in the context of the Jewish nation, but it did not originate there, nor did it remain there. From the very beginning, the trajectory of God's mercy was for the whole world. "In you all the families of earth shall be blessed." Even in the Mosaic era, Israel was a light to the nations, to the gentiles, to the World. God blessed Israel with His personal attention. He sanctified them, and blessed them, making them a royal priesthood. He dwelt in their midst. Through separation and shadow, the thrice-holy God of the universe pitched His tent in their camp. He surrounded Himself with pictures and copies of His own throne room. But the whore still played her games. Israel as an ethnic nation was the bride of God. They were married at Sinai. Those vows, she broke. That covenant, she despised. And so God picked up His tent and moved out. The marriage was over. However, God's eternal plan was unhindered. His vision was never limited to simply one ethnic group. He was never that focused. His vision was for the world.

Enter Christ, the fulfillment of all God's Promises. He is the ultimate Priest, the everlasting King, and the eternal Prophet. In Him all things consist. He is the seed of Abraham, and in Him salvation is brought to the nations. The covenants all point to Christ, from Adam through to the prophets. All look forward to a New Covenant. Israel was finished as God's bride. Jeremiah makes that plain. But they were never the final show anyway. They were a picture, a shadow as all the accoutrements of their priesthood were. They as a people pointed to a new bride. A second Eve that came from the side of her husband, as water and blood flowed from the pierced side of Christ. This is the trajectory of God's Story.

This was the message of the Apostles. Paul over and over again explains this. John, in his Apocalypse shows in graphic, pictorial detail this entire history. The great Divine playwright has given us the first two acts of his play. The first act tells the story of the whore, who was an outcast on the side of the road, rescued and nourished by her future husband. She rejected her husband. The second act portrays the Husband himself dying to make her clean again. In making her a virgin, he grants her great glory, and increases her scope. To say that the third act reintroduces the whore as the final heroine, who all along is the star of the show is nigh unto blasphemy. It misses the glory of God's grace, and rejects the story of Scripture. Christ has fulfilled all that was spoken in the name of Israel. In Him we find our Husband. In Him the story finds satisfaction.

What would Calvin say?

We also hope that our contemplations transcend those of the monkey, fair as it is. Yes, much luminosity and pulchritude indeed. Boy, I've always wanted a proscenium arch.

Speaking of simian musings. The Minstrel and I were just listening to the MP3 of Dr. John MacArthur's opening address at this years Shepherd's Conference. It's caused quite a flap, which is understandable just given the title. "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist". Hmm. Indeed, as early as the 11 minute mark (of nearly 80), Dr. MacArthur states his title and comments, "Now, it's too late for Calvin, but it's not too late for the rest of you. And if Calvin were here, he would join our movement."

As I was listening, I thought to myself, "Too bad Calvin's not here, because it sure would be great to ask him if he would, in fact, join the premillennial ranks."

I thought, "Perhaps if there were something that Calvin wrote, indicating his sympathy for premillennial eschatology."

Then I remembered a little book that he wrote called "The Institutes of the Christian Religion"

In Book III, Chapter XXV, Section V, Calvin speaks briefly about the Chialiasts ("millenarians") of the early church. They were the ones who, beginning in the first Century, held to a belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth, subsequent to His second-advent (pre-millennialism)

Let's see what Calvin says about them;

"Their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation."

Oh, dear. That doesn't appear to be very sympathetic at all. At least not according to the "normal meaning" of his words. Maybe I need a new hermeneutic. Or perhaps I missed something. Let's see here... oh, yes. He refers to the book of Revelation.

"And the Apocalypse from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error does not support them. For the number 'one-thousand' (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church, but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on the earth."

Now just wait a minute. "The number 1,000 applies to the various disturbances that awaited the church." Not a post-millennialist. "That awaited the church while still toiling on the earth." Prior to the second advent. So... not a pre-millennialist either. Calvin was born in 1509, Church still toiling and all. Not a 'literalist' then either, exactly. Hmm.

Well, maybe Dr. MacArthur hasn't actually read the Institutes. It is kinda old.

Pulchritude and Luminosity

A fine example of male pulchritude and luminosity. Obviously contemplating his global perambulations to this proscenium arch.

All the better to listen with, my dear.

Thus we begin this inagural post on this inagural posting page. It begins with contemplation. On this page we will seek to aquire the position and attitude of this fair mammal. Our one wish is that while assuming this particular posture, we will not go too far, and allow our ears to grow three times the size they already are.