Optional page text here. The Beast's Lair: October 2006

Monday, October 30, 2006

The History of Halloween: Christian or Satanic?

Inevitably, every year I will get asked why I enjoy Halloween so much. I will get supported by some who say "Halloween is a Christian holiday in origin" and spurned by some who say "Halloween is satanic in origin." Perhaps I can briefly help here.

The church, at least in Baptist circles, have typically made one of two mistakes.
1) Claiming that Halloween is completely Christian in nature and boldly sites "All Saints Day" for their support.
2) Claiming that Halloween is Satanic in origin and boldly sites "The Lord of the Dead" for their support.

The fact is that neither of these assertions holds much water. What follows is an incredibly brief account of the history of the holiday, but my intentions are really just to focus on the two mistakes noted above.

Also, I want to note from the beginning that this post is not really intended to support or refute the holiday. I have some good friends who refuse to have anything to do with Halloween because of their convictions, and I respect that. It is important to know the accurate history of anything we do, but not as a tool to bash anyone who does not celebrate or respond in the same way we do.

So, with that being said, Halloween traces its roots back to the Celtic people of Ireland (The UK) and northern France. They celebrated a festival called Samhain, which is pronounced Sow-in. Samhain was a time that signified the end of the summer and harvest months and the beginning of the cold, dark winter months. This was celebrated on November 1st, and the day before the "new year", October 31st, was believed by Celts to be a magical time where the lines between the living and the dead were not so clear. Celtic priests, called Druids (a quick nod to Spinal Tap here), would light huge bonfires where the village people would come and allow the druidic priests to make predictions, sometimes called divination, about the future of the winter months. Tradition says that these Celts would dress up in wild costumes in order to confuse and scare away the spirits that would be looking for a nice, warm body to inhabit. Other Celtic tradition speaks of the priests burning humans at the stake to make a peace offering the wandering spirits. However, any serious Celtic study of history debunks these stories as myths.

The most important, and completely overlooked by most "church literature" on Halloween is the nature of Samhain. Walk into any Christian bookstore and pick up the pamphlet on Halloween and you will read this: Samhain -- The Lord of the Dead. The concept of Samhain being some kind of god or lord of the dead is the foundation for the satanic element of the origin of Halloween. The problem is that it is completely false. No where in historical records or archeology has there been any account for a god of this nature for the Celts. Rather, Samhain was the term given for the end of summer and the beginning of winter, a celebration to recognize the transition.

Rome and Greece also had their own versions of celebration during this time of the year, which I won't go into here. But, when Emperor Constantine declared Christianity a legal religion, everything began to change. Christianity started spreading around the world and once it met with the Celtic people, something interesting happened. The Christians knew they could not just "do away" with all the Celtic tradition, but they wanted to make it more "Christian." Ultimately, in the 9th century, the Church recognized November 1st as "All Saints Day" or "All Hallows Day" and therefore October 31st became "All Hallows Eve." This was a time to recognize the saints that had died the previous year. You can see how close this was related to the Celtic traditions of old. However, to say that the holiday began with this Christian idea of "All Saints Day" just isn't accurate. There were centuries of tradition that came well before the church had anything to do with it.

Finally, in the 19th century, the potato famine in Ireland brought thousands upon thousands of Irish immigrants to the borders of the United States. With them came their traditions. The holiday was tweaked more for children than anything, offering a night of "trick or treating" to take the place of "souling" that was found in Europe. However, in the last 20 years, Halloween has been claimed by adults. The money generated each year by this holiday is really unbelievable. You can't even go into a drug store without seeing isles and isles of Halloween decor, much of an adult nature.

So, what about celebrating it? Well, when you understand the history and what it is today, you have to ultimately ask yourself, am I comfortable participating in this holiday? It is absolutely true that Halloween is a holiday used by wiccans and other groups who use divination and rely on the spiritual realm, sometimes a dark realm, to fulfill their purposes. For me, Halloween is a wonderful time where the weather is changing from fall to winter, where the atmosphere is so wonderful and where both children and adults can enjoy dressing up, having fun and maybe even getting scared. I will never use Halloween as an opportunity to "scare" people into salvation, and I am completely opposed to "Judgment Houses" that churches offer. Let the holiday just be what it is, a fun time to dress up, enjoy the kids, go to a party, watch a horror movie and carve a pumpkin.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Worth Reading

Once again, Pastor Scott has written an insightful and helpful article (and I'm not just saying that because my name is at the beginning, but that does help.)

Seriously, I have been reading theologically based blogs for quite some time now and his site is still the only blogmark I have on The Beast's Lair. It's not that we always agree, but I just like the way he thinks.

In this particular post, he has correctly identifies a damaging issue in the church as a whole. Whereas the solution for many a folk these days is to "love each other and everything is fine," he understands the shortcomings of such a theology. But, I will let his words do the talking. . .

The Burr in the Burgh

Friday, October 27, 2006

The Beast Reviews: The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Somehow I missed this film at the silver screen and finally got the opportunity to view it. I have never been a fan of possession movies. Typically, they are poorly directed, poorly acted, and end up being a comedy more than anything. Emily Rose is an exception.

The story, based on true events, is about a girl who gets a scholarship to college, apparently something very different for her farming family. While at the school, she begins to experience some strange phenomena. Doesn't take long before everyone realizes she is flat out possessed. The family priest is called in for help and he does everything he can to help her. She ends up dying and the priest is indicted for neglect in the cause of her death because he recommended she stop taking a medical treatment that was prescribed for epilepsy and psychosis. In the end, the priest is found guilty, but the jury recommend that he serve no time. The judge accepts that recommendation and announced the priest "guilty, you are free to go."

The strength of the film is found in the portrayal of Father Moore by Tom Wilkinson. You might know Wilkinson from his role as General Cornwallis in The Patriot starring Mel Gibson. This is an actor's actor and just an obvious gentleman. He takes the role seriously, brings credibility to what can come across as nonsense, and leaves the viewer wishing that he was their local minister. The combination of courtroom drama with the flashbacks to Emily's story works well. There are legitimate scares and Jennifer Carpenter does an amazing job as a possessed Emily Rose in making her body do all kinds of weird things that really freaks you out.

Ultimately, what makes this film interesting, is that the religious element that undergirds the entire story is not hokey. There are a couple of confrontational moments between the demons in Emily and the presence of Christ that had me on my feet with my fists clenched. The film correctly portrays two important elements of this kind of confrontation: 1) Despite the confidence, boldness, and aggressive behavior of the demons, they always acquiesce to the presence of Christ. The first great example is when Rose, speaking through possession, says "I am the one who dwells within." Father Moore replies, "I am the one who comes in HIS presence." The demons attempt a quick comeback, but then quickly flee from that kind of presence. Then, during the actual exorcism, Father Moore, throughout he direct command of Christ, compels the demons to say their name, and it appears that Moore is gaining the upper ground, but must leave Emily momentarily to help his friend who had been injured, which caused the exorcism to fail. 2) The demons can quote Scripture. I thought this was a great asset to the film and is very Biblical. As Father Moore would be quoting Scripture, the demons would follow right along and even take the lead, seemingly in a sarcastic tone, but nonetheless shows their knowledge of Scripture. It is a solemn reminder that even the evil forces know God and are familiar with His Word. The latter of which most church members are weak.

This is just a good film all the way around.
The Beast Rating: 3 out of 4 Paws

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Recent Political Campaigns

What's the deal with the recent campaign ads? I hate election time just because of all the "smear techniques" that inevitably take place. They get old. But this year, I am amazed to be hearing this word thrown around: Immoral.

Since when do we care about morality? As long as the candidate does a good job, morality is pointless, right? That is their "personal life" and has nothing to do with their position as senator, president, etc.

I hope you can sense my sarcasm here. I, of course, believe that the personal morality of any candidate is important, I am just a little confused why all of a sudden the campaign trail is rallying around morality. Any ideas?

Saturday, October 21, 2006

The Beast Is Excited

I will have the opportunity this year to experience something I have never experienced. I will be viewing the original 1978 John Carpenter's Halloween on the big screen. For two nights only, the film is being released in 125 theatres across the country.

As most of you know by now, Halloween is my favorite movie of all time, not just in the horror genre. I have watched it too many times to count. I own 9 different versions of the original film. And now, for the first time ever, I will be able to view it in the theatre.

It was exciting when Star Wars was re-released and I was able to see that in the theatre, but that pales in comparison to this opportunity. I'm tearing up here.

This just adds more excitement to the 2007 (hopefully) release of the 9th Halloween film, this one directed by Rob Zombie, of whom I am a huge fan. My gut tells me that finally, after years of waiting, the Halloween franchise will provide another solid installment in what has been a rather shaky collection of sequels (Especially 7 and 8, good grief those were bad.) I have faith in Zombie, who has written and directed two of the better horror films in recent years, House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. Not to mention he has a song called "Black Sunshine." How cool is that?

Thursday, October 19, 2006


I assume most of you are familiar with myspace.com. It is the most popular website going right now where people connect with other people by adding them as "friends."

I just wanted to say, just to make myself happy, that MySpace is the worst website on the internet for actually doing what it is supposed to do. I mean, it never works. Every 2nd click, it will stall, quit loading, or give you this message "an unknown techinal error has occured." I mean, it's really unbelievable how this website that is so popular can be so terrible at actually working.

Have a nice day.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

HHN 16 Trip Review

Last Friday night, my brother Rex and I set out to Universal Studios to experience our annual trip to Halloween Horror Nights (HHN). We look forward to this every year. My sister and brother-in-law were not able to make it this year (hopefully next year), so it was just the two of us.

We arrived at the park in plenty of time, around 3:30 pm, so we went over to Islands of Adventure first to grab the greatest lunch on the planet at Captain America's Diner (see pic below of our yummy hamburgers). This place really does feel like home away from home. After a quick discussion on the sovereignty of God in Cap's, we headed on over to Universal Studios where we would basically hang out until the park officially closed at 5:30 pm and then re-opened at 7:00 pm for HHN. Now, here is the deal. If you are already in the park with a normal Universal admission ticket, you can just stay in the park and wait for HHN to open. They have "holding areas" for HHN ticket holders who were already in the park. The cool thing is that they let us go a few minutes before the outside gate opens, so we are able to get to a couple of the haunted houses before the crowd gets to them.

So, after a quick ride on The Mummy, we strolled around the park and ended up at Mel's Drive In where we took some pretty funny pictures. You can see one of those from my previous post. We scoped out a few of the scare zones to see how they looked in the daylight, and then made our way to the "holding area" to anxiously await our release into the houses. I will say that during our waiting period inside the park, people were paying close attention to Rex's shirt, which was a HHN 14 shirt. One guy even came from across the street to see it, and then asked us about all these other haunted attractions as if we were the experts on the subject. (which we of course are). Apparently Rex lucked out and bought some weird limited addition shirt or something because even the cast members (to steal a Disney term) were acting like they had never seen it.

Finally, we were given the green light and we set out to our first haunted house which was called "Screamhouse resurrection." This house featured a character called The Caretaker, which I think is my favorite character of the bunch. It was a good start and ended up being my 2nd favorite house of the night. After that, we went to "All Nite Die In" which was the best house of the night. It featured rooms from famous horror movies, including a spooky room from The Ring and Hellraiser. I was impressed that HHN was utilizing music within the scares of their houses this year and not just spooky background music. I have been saying for years that this was needed in haunted houses. The creators of HHN probably read The Beast's Lair and were paying attention. Just kidding.

After our first two houses, things started to go downhill in terms of quality of houses, but not in our fun. I was so excited about the Psycho haunted house, themed after one of my favorite movies. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the worst house of the night. Perhaps the coolest thing each year at HHN is what is called "Scarezones." These are not houses, but areas throughout the park that you have to walk through in order to get to the houses. The section off 4 or 5 areas and theme them. The best this year was "Deadtropolis" where zombies were walking around the streets with everyone else. There was also a "harvest of souls" where scary dudes in pumpkin heads were conjuring up some good scares. And lets don't forget "Blood Masquerade" where there were a couple of LV's.

The surprise hit of the night, however, was our viewing of the "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure Show." Don't ask me why HHN is still using the way out of date Bill and Ted from the 80's, but it worked! This thing was hilarious. The show consists basically of characters from movies of this past year coming out and interacting with the audience through music and dialogue. There was Superman, Jack Sparrow, Lex Luther, Davey Jones, Samuel Jackson's character from Snakes on a Plane (which was hilarious), Tom Cruise, Magneto, and an incredibly funny portrayal of David Hasselhoff. This was my first viewing of the show because I am typically not a show kind of guy, but we will definitely be making this a staple of HHN for years to come.

Over all, the experience was great as always. If nothing else, Universal knows how to create a great atmosphere that is just fun to be in the middle of. But the story doesn't end there.

Rex and I had found through our trust Screamscape.com source that a new haunted attraction was going to be in Orlando this year called Nights of Terror. This was a 4 house event that was completely removed from Universal and was located on I-Drive. The website made it sound great, so we were anxious to check out another haunt in Orlando while we were there and see how it compared to HHN. Well, I won't waste too much time here with this review. Let me just say that I can't remember a time when I was more disappointed. Shocked is really the better word. These were simply the worst houses I have ever been in. I used to make haunted houses for trick or treaters when I was in high school and they were seriously better than these things. It was almost like we were in the twilight zone. Nobody was there except us. We had to wait for more people to show up before we could go into the houses. It was just awful. The actors were completely out of character. One girl, dressed as a zombie, was talking to another girl about orientation at work the next day. What in the world? Rex and I were glad we went just to experience how bad it was.

But that is basically it. Can't wait till next year and another great trip.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

HHN 16 Photos

Hey, here are some pictures from our annual trip to HHN (Halloween Horror Nights) at Universal Studios, Florida. I will have an in-depth review of our trip and the unforgettable experience of the other haunted attraction we attended, "Nights of Terror." I hope to have those reveiws up later tonight. Enjoy the pictures!

Monday, October 16, 2006

Another Beast's Lair Award

This is the most prized award I have received to date. Barry over at the The Inn of the Last Home has awarded me the "Most Consecutive Rides on The Haunted Mansion Without Singing "Grim Grinning Ghosts" award.

Goodness, what a honor. Thank you Mr. Barry!

Friday, October 13, 2006

Friday the 13th

I will be flying to Orlando, FL in a couple of hours for a quick one night trip to Universal Studio's Halloween Horror Nights. I hope everbody has a great Friday the 13th. This would be a great night to watch the original 1980 camp classic (starring a very young Kevin Bacon.)

Have a great weekend!

Thursday, October 12, 2006

The Tough Truth About Prayer part 2

This is a follow up post from my original commentary a couple of days ago. A reader, Tim Kuehn, is gracious enough to read The Beast's Lair and has raised an issue that, frankly, I didn't expect to come up. I am thrilled that he has mentioned it and I am happy to respond as best I can. This is a long and drawn out post that will send most of you to snooze town. But, I hope it is helpful to some.

The question was two fold: 1) What is the Scriptural basis for God hearing the sinner's prayer of salvation. 2) Isn't a person who prays a prayer of salvation already filled with the Holy Spirit by the time they have prayed it, therefore God is still only hearing the prayer of a believer.

First of all, let me clarify a few points. The subpoint 2 above is an idea that most of my readers, and Christians in general for that matter, have not considered. When I talk about God "not hearing" the prayers of unbelievers as I mentioned in my first post, I am of course not intending to portray God as being deaf to those prayers. In His omniscient nature, God certainly physically hears the prayers. The phraseology that "God does not hear the prayers" refers more to his inclination to hear with the intention of responding. As I also mentioned in the previous post, I am sure that God in His infinite wisdom and omnipotence has done that very thing, but I do think that is the exception.

Now, the issue that Tim has raised really takes a step beyond even our understanding of how God hears prayer to the issues of compatibilism vs libertarian freedom, Calvinism vs Arminianism (not to be confused with Arianism). Here is how it breaks down:

Compatibilism and Calvinism typically go together as do libertarian freedom and Arminianism. For the compatibilist, the doctrines of human free will and God's sovereignty work together, in other words, they are compatible. Compatibilists do not limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's free will. No good explanation can be made as to how this works, but in essence it says that God is 100% sovereign while humans still have free will and responsibility for their actions. This ties with Calvinism because the Calvinist views salvation through the lens of God's sovereignty, that He has elected some to accept Christ and those whom He elected will, by their own choosing, unite with Christ. They do not come to Christ because of what they have done, because of their great faith, because of their works, but only because of the grace of God who elected them.

In contrast, libertarian freedom holds the view that our choices are completely free from any predetermination by God, or for that matter, from the constraints of human nature. For the libertarian, this is the only way to view human freedom with the result of genuine moral responsibility. Both open theists and Arminianists hold to this view. For the open theists, God anxiously and eagerly waits to see who will accept His son and then welcomes them into His family once they have done so. Because God's sovereignty is not the final decision in salvation for the libertarian open theist, there is no way for Him to know who will ultimately accept Christ until it happens. The Arminianist doesn't go quite that far, but says in their understanding of libertarian freedom that God, after setting things in motion, looked ahead in time and saw who would ultimately, on their own free will, accept Christ. He then "elected" these people based His foreknowledge of their own free will. Nevertheless, even for the Arminianist, God still had a moment of "hoping" as He looked ahead in time that people would make that decision. (by the way, the issues of infra and supra lapsarianism can come into play here, but I don't think it is relevant enough for what we ultimately are discussing.)

So what does all of that have to do with the Holy Spirit filling a person before they say the sinner's prayer, whereby God is still only hearing the prayers of believers? Well, for the open theist in their libertarian freedom, this concept is completely out. The only way God could fill someone with the Holy Spirit before a prayer of salvation was made is if He knew with certainty that the person would make that prayer. Now, this process of being filled with the Holy Spirit before the prayer is actually said is basically an instantaneous process. Those who support this idea understand it to happen pretty much at the exact same time, but that a millisecond before the prayer is made, that person is filled with the Spirit. Nevertheless, if you hold completely true to libertarian freedom, that millisecond is just enough time for the person to change their mind. Arminianists are able to say that through the foreknowledge of God, He knew they would accept and that is how He can fill them right before they pray. But then, the Arminianist is on dangerous ground of actually being a Calvinist. Because even if you say that God foresaw their free will, you are still implying that the free will He foresaw is now determined. So, when the person gets ready to make their decision, they have no ability to change their mind because God already foresaw their actions.

For the Calvinist, there is no problem with this idea. God elected those who would be saved by His sovereignty and grace. Therefore, He knows with certainty who will accept Christ and when. He is therefore able to fill that person right before or as they are saying the prayer, whereby He is still hearing the prayers of believers.

Where do I come down on this issue? I don't know. This is a very specific understanding of salvation on which I just haven't reached a conclusion.

However, Tim, in reference to your question, let me finally get to the heart of what I meant by my original statement that God hears the prayers of sinner's when they ask for salvation. Here is the point: A sinner who hears the Gospel of Christ really only understands one thing. They are lost and need Jesus to get to God. For them to even begin to understand the implications and nature of all this stuff we have been discussing is just simply impossible and not needed for salvation. In that regard, whether or not the Spirit fills the unbeliever right before the prayer or right after, the point that I wanted to make to unbelievers reading my blog is that God will hear and respond to that kind of prayer.

The Scriptural support for this is endless. You may read it through the lens of God filling unbelievers with the Spirit before they pray, but nevertheless the entire Bible is really a message of the lost calling out to Christ and being redeemed. The ultimate passage is Luke 18. The prayer of the supposed righteous Pharisee is apparently all but worthless while the prayer of the sinful tax collector results in him going "down to his house justified." There are even examples of entire nations praying to God in recognition of their sin and God hearing their prayers with action. The story of Jonah is a great example. So does God respond to the prayers of those confessing sin? Absolutely. How He does that exactly is a subject to continued to be discussed.

Thanks so much for your question and your insight. Blessings to you.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Only 2 days left.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Tough Truth About Prayer

So much of our theology, in particular our Doctrine of God, stems from what we as humans understand to be reasonable. At any point in our theological construct if we find ourselves replacing Scripture with human intuition then we can be rest assured that our conclusions will be faulty, and perhaps even damaging. That is not to say that we should avoid harmonizing Scripture or allow proper rational thinking to fill in the gaps when Scripture is unclear or simply void. Obviously, the practice of interpretation is extremely important and varies. But even interpretation needs to be kept in check by Scripture. In other words, we cannot rationalize an interpretation of a passage that makes complete sense to human standards and yet compromises a clear teaching found elsewhere in Scripture.

The examples of how this happens are endless.

The one I want to discuss today is prayer, specifically, God's answering of prayer. This post will offend some and simply make others mad. The theology represented here goes completely against what "feels right" to us as humans. The question is this: Does God hear and then answer the prayers of unbelievers?

The question goes directly to the heart of what I consider to be one of the most deadly misconceptions about God and religion. The scenario is that a person who recklessly avoids the Truth of Christ and His redemptive blood finds himself in a hopeless situation. After admitting to himself that he is trapped in a corner, he turns with a sincere heart to seek help from God by praying. He knows that since he has got to the place in his life where he has no where else to turn that God will surely listen and answer. His assumption is incorrect.

There are so many Scriptural problems with this scenario that I can't go into full detail here. But here are a couple of points that need to be emphasized:

First, all prayers come through Jesus Christ and his redemptive work on the cross. Hebrews 10:19 discusses our confidence to enter into the Holy Places by the blood of Jesus. That confidence is not assured by earnest prayers. Psalm 24 asks the question, who is permitted to enter into God's Holy presence? The answer is given in verse 4, "he who has clean hands and a pure heart." So, who has clean hands and a pure heart? No one, except the Son of God who came to redeem. Romans clearly teaches we are all in the same dirty state of sin, but provides a way to have that righteousness, those clean hands and feet imputed to us. And that way is Jesus Christ. Jesus set the record straight in John 14:6 when he says that "no one comes to the Father but through me." We typically read that with the understanding of salvation, which it is, but the same verse is true for prayer. There is no un-mediated access to God.

Secondly, what is the unbeliever actually saying to God through his prayer? He is saying, without full realization, that they are in need of God's miraculous hand during this hour, but not in need of the greatest work God has ever done, the sending of His son to die. The prayers of unbelievers are a way to remind God that they don't need His Son for the majority of their lives, a Son that he watched die for them, but that they could sure use some help in the next couple days. This is why God says in Revelation 3:16 that He spews out the luke warm. God has more patience for those who completely reject Him than those who call on Him only in times of need, with no concern for Christ or submission to Him.

Thirdly, the Bible is clear about what these kinds of prayers are to God. Proverbs 28:9 says that "He who turns away his ear from listening to the Law, even his prayer is an abomination." Of course, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. But even in OT Scripture, we find very clearly the notion that God will only answer the prayers of those who are united with Him.

So why does this matter? First of all, I would say that we have to be very careful when discussing this issue. If an unbeliever is praying over their mom in the hospital, you shouldn't just bust out with "ya know, that prayer is worthless." The one prayer God will hear, as Scripture teaches time and again, is the prayer of salvation from the repentant sinner. Our hearts as believers should be bent to those who need to come to the Truth and who need to avoid the sole observance of religious activities that deludes and keeps them from seeing their need of Jesus Christ.

This, of course, should all be qualified with the fact that God is God. I dare not assume on God that He has never answered the cries of those who are unbelievers. But from what I have briefly mentioned above, along with countless other Scriptures and scenarios, we can safely say that, in general, God does not answer the prayers of unbelievers.

If you are reading this post and are concerned that your prayers are not being answered by God, I would love to talk with you about that. Email me or leave me a comment and we'll chat.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles?

An interesting theological debate that seems to be gaining momentum is the understanding of the function of the Trinity. Although almost all will agree that the Trinity are equally Divine in essence, there is a question as to their function. That question is then tied directly to social and cultural issues, the most important being the roles of men and women, egalitarianism vs complementarism.

Now, let me sort all of that out. Contemporary discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity will agree that the God revealed in Scripture is by nature Trinitarian, that is, one God yet three distinct "persons" who co-exist eternally. The question for today is if the Divine order is divided hierarchally. In other words, are any of the persons of the Trinity subordinate in eternity to the others? As liberal and moderate theologians, and even some conservative evangelicals, are insisting on the co-equality of the Trinity, many conservatives are moving in the opposite direction, understanding that the Father rules over the Son and that the Son is in an eternally subordinate position to the Father. Hopefully, taking the next step to the social implications of these positions is not difficult to see. Those holding to the co-equality of the Trinity are blaming the other side of holding to their particular view of the Trinity as a means to resist social change and female liberation. Those holding to the subordinate position are accusing the other side of searching without merit for reasons to support the idea of egalitarianism.

What brings the discussion home for me is that one of the texts that issued in the full fruition of the debate is "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine", and it just so happens that I am currently reading this text for my systematic theology course. I attend the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a reformed conservative institution of higher learning. Although I have found the professors to be much more open to other ideas than the popular opinion among moderates, I am nevertheless assuming that I do not have to tell you which position the book takes.

I will be attending a faculty address in a few weeks where both sides of the argument will be made. The address is titled "Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead." (I love Seminary. Where else can you learn how to best serve the church by learning all these cool words that a church layperson would never understand.) Anyway, I will follow up after those lectures.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Busy Busy Busy

For some reason when I wrote that subject line I thought about Professor Winkle in Frosty the Snowman. "Messy, Messy, Messy." Nevermind.

Sorry for the recent delay in posts to The Beast's Lair, things have been kind of crazy lately. I preached my first sermon at my church this past Sunday and I had the blessing of some friends from my previous church come up to hear me. It was a great weekend.

Andi and I also celebrated our 1 year anniversay! It is so hard to believe that a year has already passed, and I know that things will just keep going by faster and faster. We had a great time together yesterday and I think we have completely finished our Halloween decorations, which I will post on here eventually.

Have a good one, I will be posting more this week.