the new car

here are some shots of our new car. no, it doesn't exist in america. its called a dacia logan mcv. put out by renault (french company). its a 7-seater which comes in very handy for all kinds of church stuff.

celebrating the new year ukrainian style

for our church's pre-new year's talent show, lena and i decided to sing a traditional ukrainian folk song called "Pidmanula, Pidvela" in full-on ukrainian garb. anyone living in ukraine will know this song. for those of you who don't, its basically a guy singing about how he was supposed to meet this girl on each day of the week and she doesn't show. the translation is something like this (attempting to keep some sense of the rhyme):

on monday you told me
flowers we will go to see
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on tuesday you told me
forty times you will kiss me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on wednesday i was told
we'd walk among the marigold
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on thursday you told me
in sorrel walking we will be
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on friday you told me
we'd walk among the blueberries
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on saturday you told me
we'd work together, you and me
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

on sunday you were saying
we'd be going to a wedding
i showed up but you weren't found
you set me up, you let me down

chorus (repeated between each verse):

you set me up
you let me down
you've turned my young mind upside down

next, the skit part we added. the guy (me) asks where she's been all week, and she tells him she's been at Bible studies and invites him to come to church on sunday. his reply is, "lena, i'd follow you to the end of the earth!" (that's where everyone cheers :) then the last refrain is our addition, where i sing:

on sunday you told me
at church service you'll meet me
i showed up and you were found!
you didn't set me up, didn't let me down!

hope you enjoy it!

is Allah the God of the Bible?

a fascinating article on contextualizing the Gospel among muslims and the name of "Allah". any one who is interested in missions would probably find this fascinating (at least i did).

Who is Allah?

any thoughts?

a call to fast and pray for iran

this weekend, nov. 21st-23st, christian leaders in iran are calling on believers in Christ worldwide to pray and fast. recently a law was submitted in iran that would make death the mandatory punishment for all men that convert from islam to Christianity, and mandatory life imprisonment for women. the bill has passed one vote with an overwhelming majority, but has to go through a few more proceedures to be put into effect, including a second vote. please pray for our brothers and sisters in iran to have strength of faith, courage to share Christ and, if it is God's will, for this new law to be stopped. you can read more about it here. thank you.

obama vs. osama?

an interesting article from the la times on how obama's election may actually pull the rug out from under radical islamic aggression towards america (yes, pun intended ;). read the full article:

obama could change dynamics in the arab world

any thoughts? (only please spare me the "obama IS a muslim" junk, okay? ;)

for the love of gays

perhaps you caught the latest public plea for the legalization of gay marriage in the united states. if not, you can read the full text/watch the video of MSNBC news anchor keith olbermann here. these are some highlights from his impassioned plea for gay marriage and mourning the passing of proposition 8 in california:

"If you voted for this Proposition [against gay marriage] ... Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? ... these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world... What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love... tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

his plea certainly asks a number of good questions. i really only began thinking about them because my friend josh posted this video on his blog with some comment. the following are excerpts from my comment on his post and on this video/transcript:

now, as for olbermann’s commentary ... i don’t live in america, so i’ve not been subjected to whatever prop 8 adds were run, picket lines, etc. i hope this allows me to look at it with less of the possible cultural bias that i might have living in the states (or ca particularly). i’d also like to think that as someone who used to BE bi-sexual (before i met Jesus), i could be less biased than maybe someone who’s been straight from day one.

my first question is, on what ideological basis is the whole idea of gay marriage being put forward?

olbermann goes off about how this issue is all about giving love a chance, etc. without questioning his definition of love (yet), how does not allowing people to marry hinder love? throughout much of history there have been situations where certain classes or races were disallowed to marry by the ruling class, or only with some heinous condition (anybody remember braveheart? :). in such cases, those people have always simply been content to be married in the eyes of God, ignoring the state because it was unjust. and i guarantee you that the slaves who were only married in God’s eyes never loved each other less than the white couples who were married legally. this is not a question of love. sorry, olbermann. (btw, that is NOT to compare the situation with slaves being disallowed marriage and gays not being granted “marriage”. the two are entirely different for reasons i’ll get to.) and we must be able to see that it is NOT even about legal rights (as olbermann highlights), since many states and politicians have offered “civil unions” which give the same legal rights without the title of marriage. what then is this ideological hurdle of “marriage” that many in the gay community are so intent on jumping? here is where we get back to the root: we cannot talk of marriage without talking of God. as olbermann himself brings “the creator” into his reasoning, i’ll assume its fair game in the discussion. but just for a moment, let take the atheist/darwinist approach:

is there a basis for homosexual marriage on a purely humanist/evolutionist level? certainly not. richard dawkins once said that the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, is to pass on one’s genes. the homosexual automatically by his choice rules himself out of the “survival of the fittest” by his behavior which, if observed by a darwinist in an animal, might simply be described as an anomaly, mutation, self-destroying defect, etc. that sounds really harsh, i know. fortunately i’m not an atheist and my worldview doesn’t constrain me to view homosexuals as any less “worthy” of survival than i am. but it should be clear that there is NO ground in any purely humanistic, sociological approach that would justify gay marriage. it is darwinistically irresponsible, socialogically self-destructive.

so, we HAVE to return to the idea of God. the declaration of independence states: “all men are created equal”. but we sometimes forget the context of the following words, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” ANY appeal to ANY human rights must be an appeal TO God and not in spite of Him or against Him. without God there are no “rights”, only brute force (aka, survival of the fittest). but it is then a false dichotomy to appeal to God for the rights of men and then ignore or slander God for the other moral standards He gives. (not to get into the whole “were the founding fathers deists?” discussion, but no matter what, we could at LEAST without even studying the question confine their concept of the divine to the monotheistic religions, as there is not One Creator in the eastern religions, etc. all of said monotheistic religions which mark homosexuality as sin.) so, if for any rights is it necessary to appeal to God, how then shall we define the application of those rights by turning away from Him?

on the idea of "if marriage is essentially religious, why should the gov’t have a say at all?" because marriage is a covenant which was established by God for ALL humanity. it is not that the government is to dictate to the people what marriage is, it is that God is to dictate to the government (and hence, the people) what marriage is. this is (as i think you all know) defined in the Genesis account (which again, all 3 major monotheistic religions accept) as “a man… shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” that simple phrase really defines the terms of marriage: monogamous (sorry mormons ;), heterosexual, adults (the word for wife is woman in hebrew, not girl), permanent (becoming one).

again, it is impossible and dishonest to try to extract rights from the Creator while ignoring His definition of marriage. here’s the thing: if we deem it acceptable to ignore God’s definition of marriage in legalizing “gay marriage”, why stop there? why not legalize polygamy? i mean, why limit their freedom? they’re consenting adults after all! why not legalize incestual marriage for consenting adults? why not polygamous, gay, incestual marriages? the problem is, if we deny God the right to draw the line, NO ONE can. God has given us rights, but they are derivative to the rights He has as Creator (one of which is to dictate to us what is good and right…. including the definition of a right marriage).

what is the driving force for “gay marriage” then, if not for legal privileges? are they happy to just “be married in God’s eyes?” no. then is the accusation true that there is an attempt to “re-define marriage”? i don’t think that’s the ultimate goal. any re-definition of marriage (not of unjust laws of men, but of the definition from God who established marriage) is an attempt to re-define God Himself. it is to make God in our own image. to make Him subservient to our decisions. to make ourselves the Lord. THAT is why this issue is such a big deal to people who are NOT gay and don't have close gay friends. THAT is why olbermann is practically in tears, because if he can persuade people to push through gay marriage, he will have (in his mind) re-defined God.

back to olbermann’s idea of “why do we have to stamp out love?” this is how i define love: love is seeking what is best for the other, not for myself. one of the most unloving things one can do is allow a person to continue unchallenged in sin. worse than that is justifying another person’s sin. proverbs says, “faithful are wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” true love will not justify sin in a friend’s life. hence, olbermann is not actually talking about loving homosexuals and allowing them to love. he is talking about being a coward and “kissing deceitfully”, that is, doing what’s pleasant and nicest, not what’s best for a person (anyone with kids ought to know what i’m talking about.) allowing someone to think that their sin is right is NOT love, it is hate, no matter how nice it might look. therefore, what he is promoting in the long run is that we hate gays. personally, it is because i love those who are in homosexual life styles (and have empathy towards them) that i oppose “gay marriage”, a step which would only be a lie to them that their sin is acceptable to God. i’d much rather have them and keith olbermann think i’m “stamping out love” and actually love our gay friends, than lie to them in the name of nicety and actually be hating them. because i would want others to speak to me honestly about some sin that i held and thought was acceptable. that is what i would have "others do to me." THAT is what it is TO me. it is because of my love for the gay community that i oppose gay marriage.

“how can you talk so categorically about homosexual marriage being sin?” easy, because its a discussion about marriage in the first place, which is necessarily a discussion about God. its like if someone said, “let’s make easter the optional celebration of the resurrection of Christ or the founding of Playboy”. or “let’s make Ramadan the celebration of the people vs. larry flint trial.” again, one can’t talk about marriage without talking about something that is God’s ground. if you don’t like easter, don’t celebrate. if you don’t wanna be muslim, don’t fast on ramadan. congratulate heffner and flint all you want, but don’t call it easter. if you don’t want to be in an adult, monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union, the laws of america grant you that right, but don’t try to call it marriage.

as a final note, i will say (even NOT having seen the adds for prop 8) that i’m sure some of them were very condescending and bitter, etc. sadly, i've met too many christians with really angry attitudes towards homosexuals. THAT is not love, and hence not something Jesus would approve of. i am convinced that as Christians, we ought to love and pray for and practically serve and do good to homosexuals who are in our families, among our friends, at work, etc. JUST as zealously as we oppose gay marriage. again, we MUST remember that opposing gay marriage is actually being FOR people who are gay, seeking their good (not to oppress them), in turning them from sin to the Creator who made them and made marriage. it is for the love of gays.

can the TV get you pregnant?

apparently, the answer is yes. recently a study was done of teens and their TV watching habits which stated:

"In the final analysis, teens who had watched the most sexual content on television during the three-year study period were twice as likely to have been involved in a pregnancy as teens with the lowest levels of exposure...TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy"

the article quoted the study's lead author, giving the only humorous part of the results: “We were surprised to find this link.” really? Jesus said:

"The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness."

surprising... Jesus knew what He was talking about! we think that we can watch whatever we want and it doesn't affect us. even as believers, we justify it thinking we are "just enjoying our Christian freedom" and "its not like i'm gonna do that". not so. Jesus stated the tie between what we take in our eyes (and ears) and what comes out of our lives a long time ago and now modern sociologists have vindicated His truth with statistical studies (why is it that statistics often convince us better than God's Word?) so, next time you get ready to flip on "friends" or "sex in the city" (two shows specifically listed by the study), make sure you've got your chastity belt strapped on tight... or, better yet, consider what effect your eye will have on your body and use that remote.

happy reformation day!

that's right, not only is it halloween (the most ridiculous holiday of the year), but its more importantly "reformation day". on oct. 31st in 1517 ad, martin luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in wittenberg, thus marking the beginning of the protestant reformation. now there's a real holiday! here's thesis number 62 for you to chew on today:

"the true treasure of the Church
is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God."

making the switch

yes, that's right, i'm finally bidding a fond farewell to xanga and switching to blogger. it just seems that the large majority of friends and bloggers i know are here, so it's just the logical thing to do. plus blogger gives you more format options. (the only down side is no audio uploads on blogger as far as i know. anybody?) i'll keep the xanga site going for a while with notices when i've posted here for those who are slow to change, but eventually it will be dropped. hope to see you on the new blog!

also, here's a link to a news story about finding some ancient hebrew writing on a pottery shard near jerusalem dated to 1000 bc, about the time king david was reigning. imagine that, history verifies God's Word. ;)

personal faith and universal truth

so, i just thought i'd share some thoughts which i've been mulling over lately.  i don't take credit for them since primarily they are just some highlights out of a book that i've been reading by lesslie newbigin called the gospel in a pluralist society.  if this post sparks your interest, i'd suggest reading the book.

the topic is that of faith and truth (as the truly insightful have already gathered from the title :), and the relationship between them.  newbigin traces the roots of modern day nihilistic thinking to the 17th century philosopher descartes (pronounced day-cart).  you might not recognize the name, but chances are you have heard his most well known saying: cognito ergo sum (in latin), translated, "i think, therefore i am".  descartes was searching for a basis for truth that could in no wise be doubted.  he finally came down to the fact that if he is thinking, that proves he exists and therefore this is the uncontestable basis for all further knowledge. 

newbigin points out that this conclusion was one of the greatest mistakes of modern history.  what it effectively did was shift the basis of truth from divine revelation to man himself.  all of a sudden man was the ultimate authority for truth and critical doubt was exalted over faith.  what this does, what this ultimately leads to, is a world where no one can know anything.  the only belief that remains is that life is without truth outside of self, and therefore without real meaning.  in other words, nihilism.

what newbigin insightfully points out is that no one can doubt anything except on the basis of a firm belief in some other theory.  every time someone criticizes the christian faith (or any other belief system), it can only be on the basis of another, contrasting belief which is held a-critically.  he points out that in fact the humanistic atheist is just as dogmatic (and actually more so) as the christian he criticizes for claiming to have absolute truth.

very often the example of 5 blind men and an elephant is used by the atheist/agnostic to try to prove that no one faith is right.  the story (if you haven't heard it), is that a king brought an elephant to 5 blind men and told them to describe the elephant.  well, each one touches a different part of the animal, an ear, the trunk, the tail, a leg, the side and each gives a different description of the elephant as like a fan, a snake, a rope, a tree, and a wall, respectively.  the point is then made that they were all right in part, but no one had the whole truth.  newbigin points out 2 problems with this story.  1) there is a king who can see and is able to see all, including the true nature of the elephant.  when an agnostic says "the blind men are like all the different religions", we must say "well, that must make you the king!  how is it that you know ultimate reality well enough to determine that all the world's faiths are not correct?"  2) the real objection that the agnostic has is that someone claims to have absolute knowledge of the reality of the universe, absolute truth.

here newbigin discusses what the agnostic (or pluralist) means by this phrase "absolute truth" - in a word, it is the position of the king.  it is what descartes went searching for: something which could never be doubted.  newbigin makes the challenge that in this sense, we as christians do not have "absolute truth".  that is, we have not seen God.  and we cannot say that it is something which is impossible to doubt.  in fact our belief in Jesus as God and the Lord of human history is just that: belief.  it is faith.  of course the Bible is very clear about faith being the way that we enter relationship with God.  but newbigin challenges that modern christianity and apologetics have made a huge mistake in accepting the "reigning plausibility structure" of the modern west.  that is, that we often try to defend christianity in a way that never calls into question the modern dichotomy of facts (usually scientific) as public truth and values as mere personal beliefs.  he argues that without faith it is impossible to know anything.  even the scientist has great faith in all the training he received, the books he read, and perhaps most of all in the concept that the universe is rational and therefore possible to study.  but there is no physical evidence for that understanding; it is a belief.

in contrast to descartes' "cognito ergo sum", newbigin quotes the early church father st. augustine's "credo et intelligum", or in english "i belive in order to know" as the right understanding.  that is, that faith is the basis of all real knowledge.  the question obviously arises, "if our trust in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior cannot be proven as "absolute truth" in the sense of something that cannot be doubted and if we do not have objective truth in the sense of the king in the parable of the elephant, what keeps someone, or us ourselves, from drowing in subjectivity and the attack that faith is simply personal preference?"

newbigin answers this by saying that our faith in Christ, though requiring a personal commitment (that it costs me something personally to believe) and therfore has a subjective element, is not merely "my opinion" because it is faith held with "universal intent".  that is, all knowledge requires this type of faith commitment (though some like descartes would like to dream of a type of truth that didn't require personal commitment to that truth to know it), but the christian truth to which we commit is one that claims to be true for all men at all times.  the truth that we have is not "objective" in the sense that it is exhaustive or without personal risk, but it is universal in its claim and scope and therefor not mere opinion.  the only thing availible without faith is nihilism (which, btw, is where many are headed and is reflected in much of the post-modern art and philosophy). 

well, i'll stop my book report now.   i myself have only read half of the book so far, but already it is, i think, fascinating and a great help in understanding how to find the right approach in witnessing to the agnostic/pluralist.  i highly recommend it for that reason, though i'll make the disclaimer that there are some things that he states, i.e., his understanding of in what sense the Bible is "the Word of God", apparent amillenialism, that i disagree with.  but that shouldn't stop one from gleaning from it what is insightful and edifying.  well, if anyone has read this book, or simply after chewing over the brief summary i've given here, i'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

baptism pics

just thought i'd post these pictures from a church baptism we had recently.  3 people got baptized: a brother and sister (Sasha and Tanya, respectively) who have decided they want to walk closer with the Lord (though they've grown up Christian) and a wonderful lady in our fellowship named Natasha who only got saved less than a year ago.  its been sweet to watch her grow in the Lord and in knowing Him personally.  she's definitely got the gift of giving/generosity, always bringing snacks or something to share at the Bible studies.  anyway, here's the pics.

super-mice, zombies and a brave new world

i'm sure you heard it on the news, or read it on the net.  it was the top story on google's news page yesterday.  i'm talking about the magic little discovery dubbed "the excercise pill".  if you happen to live in a cave in the desert.... well, then you're probably not reading this blog either, but if you've got access to technology and still mysteriously managed to miss the story, you can check out the new york times article here. 

basically the idea is that the pill "tricks" your muscles into believing they've excercised and they then produce a certain type of protein to "remodel the muscles".  they've already done a number of experiments and created super-lab-mice.  in the words of one of the leading doctors in the research on possible human application, "you are using a drug to move your own genetics to a more activated metabolic state."

hmm, using a drug to mess with your genetics to turn yourself instantly from couch potato to superman.  sure, that sounds harmless.  i recently watched a movie called i am legend starring will smith.  the basic plot line is: smart doctor comes up with dna-altering drug to cure cancer, the whole world takes it, 3 years later 90% of the world population is dead and most of those who survived have turned into psychotic zombies.  the movie is all about dr. neville (smith) trying to find a cure for the zombies and being the only human left alive in nyc.  i won't tell you the end, just watch it (i really liked it, btw).

the point being, it seemed like the miracle drug everyone had been waiting for.  it wasn't.  now, i'm not saying that people who take the excercise pill will turn into zombies (well... probably not :), but the point is that when something seems like its too good to be true, unless its the grace of Christ, it probably is.  especially when it involves messing with you own genetics. 

besides what seems to me to be the inherent stupidity in this concept, i find that it also demonstrates a fascinating trend in modern society.  "we don't want to excercise, so let's create a magic pill that we can swallow after our big mac and wash down with our diet soda that will trick our bodies into thinking we already have excercised!" if that's not the epitome of self-deception, i don't know what is.  the pill is being toted as the potential wonder-drug to cure obesity and diabetes.  now, please don't misunderstand me.  i do feel very bad for those with such conditions (i was nearly obese as a pre-teen) and realize that there are truly cases where these conditions are not the fault of those who have them.  i realize there are hereditary and hormonal factors, etc. that can cause these conditions, (so please don't comment telling me about this :).  however, when over 25% of america is now classified as obese compared to less than half that 20 yrs. ago, (think, that means its mostly the SAME PEOPLE who are now obese that weren't in the 80's) probably the problem has less to do with genes and more to do with our life-style.  you can watch an amazing graphic representation of the chage on wikipedia here.

the answer to this problem?  mess with our genes!  again, there may be a few legitimate uses for this drug out there, but sedentary excercise for the lazy and apathetic is not one of them.  some of the more perceptive doctors are agreeing that no pill will ever be able to "replace excercise", (though it would seem anyone with some common sense would be able to realize that even without a medical degree).  the interesting thing is i bet there are a LOT of people that would like for this little pill to fully replace excercise.  maybe one day science will come up with a pill to trick our bodies into thinking we've gone to the bathroom, slept, ate and had sex.... now that would be real progress.  just think, we'd never have to get off the couch again!  and isn't the goal of life to do nothing?

in high school i had to read aldous huxley's brave new world.  it was a commentary on where society was heading (fascinatingly, written in the 1930's). its about how this "utopia" was created where everyone is constantly over-entertained, drugged into states of passive contentment and finding purpose in promiscuous sex and consumerism.  people are genetically manufactured and have traded reality for "progress".  its horrifyingly predictive of where the world has gone and is continuing to go: everything is sterilized, mechanized, artificialized and revolves around instant gratification.

the sad thing is that this mentality can creep into the life of the church as well.  would we pop a Jesus-pill if it would make us be good Christians?  no hassle, no work, instant result.  sadly many Christians are out there looking for the "pill" in the form of some experience, some conference, some book, etc.  would we take something that would allow us to instantly escape the temptations, trials, and doubts we wrestle with? 

the fact of the matter is that, as Paul told Timothy, spiritual excercise is a lot like physical excercise (only vastly more important).  and just as no pill will ever be able to short-cut the road to true health, so there is not a short-cut to truly, intimately knowing Jesus.  "difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it", Jesus said.  the way is hard.  fortunately, that way is one that has already been walked by Jesus.  it is one that He does not leave us to walk alone, but walks with us hand in hand.  however, we will fall, we will fail, we will get broken.  but i would rather sin and brake and fall on Jesus than be perfect without Him.

well, i suppose i'll end with that.  just some late-night musings.  what do you think, would you take the pill?

not against flesh and blood...

so, i've been meaning to write about this for few weeks now.  in the beginning of june we had the drama team from calvary chapel kharkov come out for a 2-day outreach.  they performed a number of times in different places around the city and we were able to share the gospel with many.  well, their last performance was on sunday evening after our church service was over.  as i was setting up and getting ready to open with a few songs, along comes vitya (ironically also the name of kharkov's team leader).  i'd never seen vitya before.  he looked like your run-of-the-mill alcoholic/bum gathering empty beer bottles to trade in for change.  but he wasn't gathering bottles that day.  he comes up to the stage area in front of the benches (where the drama team is in the photo above) and starts frantically waving his arms at me, motioning like he wants us to leaves.  then he does the same thing to the 100+ crowd (who all think its hysterical and are laughing at him).  i would say he was "yelling" too, only it was like yelling with your mouth shut.  he was loudly mumbling at us.  well, i asked tom and grisha (from our church) to take him aside.  they tried to lead him off, but vitya wasn't having it.  grisha knew of him and said that he was "bol'noy", essentially crazy.  i came up to him and prayed for him, but he didn't seem to react much (though he was calm while i prayed).  i decided to just start playing the songs as the opening of our outreach.  the whole time i was playing (3 worship songs), vitya was continuing to wave us frantically away.  at one point he stood for a while just a couple feet right in front of me and was waving.  as i sang, i was praying that the Lord would do something.  i became convinced that this man was demon possessed.  after i was done playing i handed my guitar off to someone on the team and walked up to vitya. this time, the Lord just gave me the boldness to speak to the demon inside this man.  as i walked up to him, he just stood there, but as soon as i said to the demon in him that Jesus Christ died for this man and come out of him, vitya's eyes turned from glazed to pure panic.  he turned around and started running away as fast as his haggard body could carry him.  for a while i followed him, wanting to "finish the job".  vitya (or maybe i should said the demon in him) kept running and looking over his shoulder at me like a beast being hunted.  after some distance, and coming to a more populated street, i decided to return to the outreach.  i was deeply impressed with the seriousness of the spiritual warfare we are in and also with the total power of Christ over all the power of the enemy.  i ended up sharing the gospel that evening with the crowd, pointing out what happened with vitya as a clear example of the power of Christ (most the audience witnessed what happened in the beginning).  the Lord used the situation to His glory.  what was even more amazing was that at church that morning we were in Acts and reading about Paul's ministry in Ephesus and how God even used the incident with Sceva's sons to glorify Jesus.  we talked about how even the demons can't escape ultimately glorifying God (no one can, its just a question of how we will glorify Him, as trophies of His grace or evidence of His justice).  so all that to say, Jesus is truly over all powers and authorities, that we are in a very real spiritual battle whether we see it everyday or not, that the Word of God is truly prophetic in our lives and also please pray for vitya to be totally freed from the grip of satan.  thanks.

equal opportunity baby

okay, so i just realized that i've been putting all our newest photos of abby on my facebook (since there's this handy plug-in that exports pics directly from iphoto to facebook).  and i thought that abby needed a little representation on xanga, too.  so here she is in VIDEO (which is worth a whole lot of pictures).  she's totally hooked on the movie "cars" so this little clip is of her doing her lightning mcqueen impression.  enjoy!

back in the USSR?

i just was reading about a proposed change to the constitution of Ukraine under the article "concerning freedom of conscience and religious organizations".  for those of you who read ukrainian and are interested in the details of the proposed changes here are a few links:

read the proposed changes (in Ukrainian): click here (on this page click

Проект Закону 21.04.2008 to open the word file with said proposal)

to compare the changes (which reference the original constitutional article on religion) to the original: click here (in Ukrainian)

to read about how unhappy the Ukrainian buddhists are about this proposed law (and i totally agree with them), click here. (in English)

the basic gist is a few additions making life harder on newer churches (read non-eastern-orthodox): a proposed annual RE-registration of a new church for the first 10 yrs. of its existence (those of you in Ukraine who are even vaguely familiar with this process know that once is bad enough), and changing the minimum number of citizens necessary to register a church from 10 to 50.

in addition to that there are specific additions to make it harder for foreign leadership within the church (or at least statements which are xenophobic in nature, even if they don't change the actual way things are done).  whereas the previous article states only that foreigners are allowed to carry out ministerial functions in the churches that have invited them, the new addition states "foreign citizens do not have the right to take part in the government of religious organizations in Ukraine".  also it forbids religious organizations whose "governing center" is not in Ukraine from owning property in Ukraine (implying Roman Catholics with the HQ in Rome or Buddhists with the Dalai Lama in... where is he again?  possibly also applying to JW's and Mormons?)  This particular law would not so much apply to protestant Christians here, since there is no centralized authority center, but the principle behind it is still one step away from kicking all foreign religious workers out.

this is all suspiciously similar to what is already in place in Russia, stating that only religious organizations having existed in russian territory for 50 yrs. or more have full rights, kicking out foreign missionaries, only allowing the practice of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in all armed services, and generally Putin being the high priest of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

BUT in Ukraine the good news is that this amendment is only being proposed.  it was given to the Rada (Ukraine's Parliament) on Apr. 21, 2008 by Genadiy Moskal' (see pic below) with a request to take action on it within 2 month's time.  That means it may be coming to a vote very soon.  so please PRAY that this bill would not be passed (if it is the Lord's will).  it would be the beginning of possibly more restrictions on religious freedom in Ukraine.  here's the guy who put it forward, pray for his salavation, too. (oddly enough he's not on Yanukovich's team, but in the "Our Ukraine" block (the western-leaning side)).

 

"The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
    Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." -Proverbs 21:1

i'll post something less political next time...

love in the time of blogging

okay, so i realize that by the very fact i am writing this on my blog, it will be quite ironic and possibly self-incriminating.  but i was just kinda thinking the other day about how prevelant "the blog" and similar "web 2.0" phenomena (i.e. youtube, facebook, etc.) have become.  suddenly everyone and their mom (but rarely their grandma) has become a published internet-author.  and at the same time i began thinking about how everyone is churning out more and more "mass communication", reaching out to be heard and, more importantly, to be known. and yet it seems that all this mass communication has had a diminishing effect on individual communication. 

maybe its just me, but i think that since the advent of blogging, the amount of personal emails that i write to people (and people write to me) has probably gone down. (i'd really love to see some kind of statistic on how blogs have affected individual emailing.  anyone wanna take a poll?)  at the least the size of the emails has gone down considerably.  now its like: "doin good.  how bout you?  check my blog for more."  maybe you remember back in the day when if you wanted to write your friends basically the same things about yourself, you would at least have the decency to copy/paste a paragraph into a personal e-mail and keep up a semblance of individual communication?  (c'mon, you know you've done it.  admit it! :)  now there is this great big "digital, global village" where we all live right next door, but remain strangers... or at best just give a quick wave across the virtual lawn to one another. 

its like we are willing to put effort into pouring out our hearts into cyberspace and can only hope that someone, anyone will listen or appreciate it (which really means appreciate us).  some may say they just blog "for themselves"... i don't buy it.  if that were true, there's this antiquated device called a journal/diary we'd be using instead.  and though i have seen a few random blogs out there that really get "discussion" going on some controversial topic, i don't know that i've seen a comment that echoed back a deep, heart-pouring-out response.  in fact, the public nature of a blog makes it near impossible.  like lovers who whisper in seclusion, perhaps the intimate relationship of true friends is meant to be hidden from mere observers.  its like everybody is out there in cyberspace trying to be heard and the more people talk, the more we forget how to listen.  people are longing for someone to hear their heart and answer in kind.  what i suppose is a little disconcerting about the age of blogs is that we think that we can actually do this outside of real, deep, one-on-one personal friendship.  granted, i think blogs can maybe link people up, help begin new friendships (or rekindle old ones), but its deceptive to think that mass posting can replace good, old-fashioned, individual communication.  it can't.  not that any of us CONSCIOUSLY think that, but it seems that the very nature and popularity of the blog subtly imply it.  

perhaps in turn we blog also to have a voice in the world, to matter on some universal level, to contribute something of worth.  as a medium of information, a mass communication device, yeah, its great.  businesses have caught on to it and are using it efficiently, as have churches and anyone that is trying to get some certain information "out there".  that's lovely for the business world and to some extent for churches/ministries... in the case of individuals, i think it again boils down to the desire to be known; for someone to value what i have to say.  to "matter" in that sense and even contribute something to "humanity".  here's the problem with that last one though: "humanity" doesn't exist.  you will never have a conversation with humanity, never meet humanity and shake its hand, because there is no "humanity", there's only people.  which means that we're back to personal friendships. 

i see this truth in Jesus' life as well.  sure, there were times He preached to the masses and that's okay in ministry and effective to some extent, BUT most of His time was spent with 12 guys that He called His "friends".  Jesus was under no misconception that humanity could be changed on some ethereal, global level.  but He could and did pour out His heart into the lives of 12 specific men.  humanity can only be contributed to by contributing to real people.  Christ did not die for humanity, He died for all men, for each person, for me.  and that brings me back around to the first point: that all this pouring out of our hearts into the dark void of cyberspace is really reflective of our deep desire to be known and to matter to someone.  i love the lyrics of this song by don chaffer called the worst is my being alone about a conversation between two friends as they sit by the sea, and i think it nails this desire inherent in each of our hearts:

he said, "kerri, i don't think i've ever wanted as much
to be free as i've longed to be known,
and of the things that i hate as i look at my life,
the worst is my being alone."

and the song ends out:

but at the pulse of the waves, they both turned around
thinking someone was calling their name.

if only we really knew how we are known beyond all that we can hope for, how we matter to the God who created us, that we matter to death for Him.  that He is the One who desires to listen to our hearts and answer in kind.  that beyond the faint hints in the ocean's waves and sunsets and thunderstorms that He is calling our names, and that He calls us friends, beloved.  we are completely known by Him who is. (see Psalm 139)

well, i suppose i'll end my rambling thoughts.  i'm interested to hear people's opinions on all this (all 3 of you who read this blog, ha!).  don't worry, i won't judge you for posting a comment (as long as you don't judge me for blogging :).

happily behind the times...

i've recently listened to and read a number of works on the emergent church and the infiltration of postmodernity into the church.  statistics that churches calling themselves emergent are the fastest growing "movement" in christianity today speak volumes about the current state of the philosophical fabric of "the west". 

the trend towards postmodernity in america and europe (aka, "the west") is evident in just about everything.  i thought the other day about all the recent films i have seen that are as blatantly post-modern as a hammer to the forehead. the sheer amount of them is staggering. (must be part of that whole life-imitates-art-imitates-life thing.) 

perhaps you're asking yourself, "what exactly qualifies a movie as post-modern?"  well, the way i see it, the first conspicuous sign of a post-modern (pm from here) flick is that you get an overwhelming sense of the movie having no real plot.  there's no flow of events, just chaotic happenings.  there's no real climax to the film; people kind of do whatever they're doing for an hour and a half or two and then it stops.  next, everyone in the movie looks like they're on prozac for most of the duration of the film (or like they ought to be).  there is an overwhelming sense in the characters of purposelessness and loneliness.  and as the characters have no purpose, hence the absence of actual plot.  (the best, or worst rather, recent example i can think of is "friends with money".  if you were unfortunate enough to see it, you know what i mean.  if you didn't see it, i DON'T recommend it.)  the overwhelming message is "life doesn't have any meaning (and so neither does our movie)".  the literary critic fredric jameson says of pm art (film and other mediums) that it is "the transformation of misery into beauty" and that it contains a "deathly quality… in a way that would seem to have nothing to do with death ... on the level of content."  good description.  even in a pm film that has nothing to do with dying, the viewer is still left with the feeling of emptiness or death.

the whole pm system of thought (which i am not about to attempt a summary of in a blog entry) has slithered its way into the christian community as well.  hence, the birth of the "emergent" movement.  now, i'm not saying that EVERYTHING put forward under the "emergent" label should be tossed out.  the emphasis on cultural relevancy (or "contextualization"), personal relationships and actual experience of God (juxtaposed with mere ritual) are truly positive things (none of which, however require adoption of pm thought, merely acceptance of Biblical teaching).  the sad part is that the emergent movement in typical pm fashion, cuts the boat loose from the anchor of the soul, Christ.  the emergent movement promotes deconstructionism, redefinition, removal of what in the philosophical world is called a "meta-narrative" (what we'd simply call one objective truth for everyone), and a bag full of other problems.  (for a pretty good summary of the emergent movement, listen to this teaching by mark driscoll (formerly a leading member in the emergent community): click here.)

in contrast, ukraine is currently very much in the "modernism" mindset (which has its own problems, of course... materialism being one of the greatest ones.)  we've not caught up to the west in that area, thankfully.  ukraine is an odd mix of old and new.  in many ways this country is much like america in the 40's.  people are much more interactive within society (think like open markets, public transport, and neighbors borrowing things from each other like matches or sugar).  most everyone is convinced that there is an objective truth (though they certainly don't all agree what that is).  they are struggling to find an acceptable order in areas of politics, family, work, etc., rather than the trend to reject order.  there is, in general, an accepted understanding of moral absolutes, and even the existence of God.  at the same time, just about everyone and their mom has a cell phone, mp3 player (younger generation) and a dvd player at home.  the younger generation (30 and under) are starting to catch on to many of the techno-trends of the west as well as the philosophical propaganda of the west.  the moral/spiritual climate will likely change very quickly as the younger generation grows and the older generation dies off.  well, all that to say, it makes me really glad that we here in ukraine are way "behind the times".

on a completely separate note, me and lena, and the navarros and two married couples from our church were able to go up to kiev for a married couples' retreat in feb.  it was a great, refreshing time.  pray for God's strengthening of all the marriages in our church (i'm counseling with one couple currently and Jesus is definitely doing great things).  here's a pic from that retreat. 

from left to right: igor and anya dikiy, lena and tom navarro,
grisha and valya yaromenko, ben and lena morrison

teaching from john 15

i was finally able to upload a teaching (my connection is faster now but still not that fast).  this is from when i shared at cc in east albuquerque, nm this jan. while back in the states (no, not the "big one" but another one there that is involved the work here).  its half testimony about the church here and half sharing out of john 15 on Jesus as the true vine.

the works of His hands

the Word talks about how God's glory is visible in creation around us.  after my trip to the states in january and getting the awesome blessing of seeing some of God's natural wonders, i'm so reminded of that.  i was able to go to carlsbad caverns in new mexico (thanks, loque!) and death valley in california (thanks, fenya!)  i just wanted to share some photos of those places and a couple of one of the most wonderful creations of all, little abby.

the first set of pics is from carlsbad caverns.  unfortunately, you can't tell from the pictures how massive it was.  there were rooms that were multiple football fields in length and width (and at one point something like  300 ft. floor to ceiling).

an empty cave pool



looking back at the entrace we came down into the first chamber



gypsum crystals catching the light



sunset at newport beach, california



mosaic canyon, death valley, ca







a lizard in death valley



a joshua tree (yeah, like the U2 album)



zabrieskie point, death valley



badwater basin, death valley - lowest dry elevation in the western hemisphere



desert plant in bloom



moon rise over death valley



salt crystal formations at the devil's golf course, death valley



amargosa chaos, death valley



daniel and janette carter and me in a tux!
(i was a groomsman at their wedding jan. 19th)



beautiful winter mo-mo



she is so much fun now!

well, that's that.  hope you enjoyed the pics!