john tetzel is not dead

i know, it sounds like the title of an episode of LOST, but it's not. :) john tetzel, as some will know, was an indulgence seller for the catholic church in the early 16th century, promising forgiveness of sins for money. it was said that he even claimed that the indulgence offered by pope leo x for the building of st. peter's basilica could pardon the violation of the virgin mary. martin luther, the great reformer, wrote his 95 theses largely in response to the practice of selling indulgences, and especially to the tactics of john tetzel. one of tetzel's "ad jingles" for selling indulgences is enshrined forever in scathing rebuke in the 95 theses. his line was: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

well, while we were in kiev to give birth to isaac (see pics here), i was in some of the shopping centers and realized that john tetzel was not dead, he had just moved to ukraine (and aparently switched allegiance from the roman catholic church to the ukrainian orthodox church). this is a "coffer" that stood by the entrance of the shopping center in downtown kiev for donations towards the construction of a new church in kiev, and i saw many identical ones in other shopping centers:


the translation of the inscription is: "place your brick in the foundation of the holy habitation and in her walls prayers will sound for you eternally". guess tetzel hasn't lost his knack for jingle-writing even after almost 500 yrs.! it's truly heart-rending that men would gladly sell out the truth of the Gospel of grace to finance their programs (and no, it's not limited to the catholic or orthodox churches!) luther also had a slogan of sorts which, while perhaps not as catchy, certainly rings loud even to this day with the great truth of the Gospel:

"Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria"
(by Faith Alone, by Grace Alone, by Scripture Alone, by Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone)

why can't the dollar stop growing?

okay, so it's not so much that the dollar is growing as that the "hryvnia" (ukraine's currency) is in a death spiral. the dollar has reached its all-time high, or in other words, the hryvnia has hit an all time low. (9.26 grn. to $1) bloomberg has this article on the situation here. some highlights are below:

Ukraine’s hryvnia tumbled, closing at a record low against the dollar, after Moody’s Investors Service said it may cut the country’s rating because political infighting is hampering efforts to avert a financial crisis.

The hyrvnia has lost more than 50 percent against the dollar in the past six months as reduced demand for exports and a lack of foreign credit causes Ukraine’s first economic contraction in a decade.

Inflation soared to 22.3 percent last month, the highest level in Europe

for the foreigners here whose accounts are in dollars (myself included), this makes things comparitively cheaper than a few months back when it was still 5:1. but, though it's almost hard to imagine i'm saying this, i wish the dollar would go back down some, cause if it keeps growing, ukraine's economy might just free fall off the precarious cliff it's teetering on.

NOTE: the following day bloomberg updated this article, and outlined the newly dropped default rating. the new rating implies:

a 69.6 percent chance Ukraine will default in the next two years and 91.8 percent in the next five years.

the infection spreads...

so, since most of the people whose blogs i interact with have been "tagged" recently, it was only a matter of time. i was tagged by edna silva. here's the rules:

off we go with the random/weirdness....

1. i figure i'll thoroughly embarrass myself right out of the gate (though it really doesn't embarrass me now, it did for a long time).... i wet the bed till i was... 13 i think? only fortunately my parents put me on a then experimental nasal-spray drug to stop bedwetting called DDAVP. because it was new, i had to get monthly blood tests to make sure i wasn't being slowly turned into a mutant or something to that effect. as it turns out, in 2007 the FDA banned the nasal-spray cause a couple people died from using it and a few dozen others experienced seizures. for me all it ever did was make a lot less laundry for my mom and enable stress-free sleepovers. :)

2. okay, so now that i've embarrassed myself, i'll go for shock and awe. before Jesus saved me from the pit of hell, i was into all kinds of darkness. but probably the one that people are most shocked by is vampirism. yes, my friends and i used to drink each others' blood. people usually ask why. i suppose there was some kind of demonic rush in it. so now you know.

3. i LOVE spicy food. most people that know me know this about me, since i dump red pepper flakes on just about every meal. but most people don't know the story of how it started. when i was about 9 or so, my mom grew these super-hot little peppers (maybe thai dragons?) in her garden for my dad. one day my sister dared me to take a bite of one. of course, you can't back down from a dare from your little sister, so i took a small nibble off the tip. it really wasn't very spicy to me so i decided to show off and put the whole thing in my mouth and chomped a few times and swallowed. little did i know that the heat is primarily in the seeds. soon my mouth was uncomfortable... a few seconds later it was on fire.... a few seconds after that i was screaming for my mom to help and tears were running down my face. she shoved bread, milk and probably some other food products down my gullet to try and cool the burning. finally she gave me a tums and it killed the burning out (so if you ever ingest something too hot, run for the tums ;). but after that experience i started loving spicy food.

4. i played the cello for 3 years in middle school. i was 2nd chair out of like 11 kids (there was a chinese kid named evan who always got first chair... but i didn't have a chance since he was asian. :) try not to let my pure coolness in the photo bowl you over. :)

5. i really like order. if the house is a mess (usually thanks to abby these days) i really can't relax. i'll stop and make sure most things are put in their place. fortunately, my wife also loves order, so we tidy up together. one thing i can't stand is when a couch has some sort of cover on it and people sitting on it squirm around and the cover turns into a lump of fabric half-shoved down the crack between the cusions... drives me insane. (wes, this is dedicated to you! hahaha! :) it took me a while to realize that people are more important than order... a lesson i still sometimes struggle with.

6. i was a very fat child. okay, so i apparently i didn't embarrass myself enough with the first fact. in 6th (or maybe 7th) grade i weighed more than i did as a senior in high school, and was like a foot (30 cm) shorter... in fact, now at 27 i only weigh maybe 15-20 lbs. (7-9 kg.) more than in 6th grade.... it was not a good year for me. but at least i had company. here is a pic of me and my sister as professional fat kids.

7. i write poetry. i have since like 6th grade. granted, i write much less frequently now with all the things going on in my life, but still do sometimes. one poem that i will not forget is the last one i wrote before i was arrested for dealing LSD and consequently gave my heart to Jesus. the final lines of it are:

i need something, i need someone
this tangled web of pain i've spun
i fear the worst has just begun
i beg of you on hand and knee
someone out there set me free.

i didn't realize it at the time, but i think it was actually a prayer and the Lord definitely answered it. He is a wonderfully faithful God! "God will remain true though every man be unfaithful." Rom. 3:4

i hope that was amusing for someone besides just me. so, now in keeping with the rules, i tag the following people:

rick warden
josh dykstra
wendy hoff
matthew hawkins
eulogio crespin
cara denney
stephanie markey

when innovation goes overboard

okay, so its not real, but its still pretty funny....


Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

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.