We have our ultrasound tomorrow afternoon, at which time we will *hopefully* find out if we're having a boy or a girl. Of course, Pete told us more than a month ago that "it's a girl, and don't argue with me about that." He has since changed his mind, and he gets offended if you refer to the baby just as "the baby." If you commit this grave error, Pete will sternly reprimand you and ask that you refer to the baby as "Baby Henry."
Yesterday, Amanda got her weekly update from babycenter.com showing the development of the child. She left her computer to go check on one of the millions of things moms check on during the day, and Pete was happy to take her place in front of the screen.
Upon seeing this picture, Pete called Amanda back into the room. "Look," he said, "Baby Henry's doing a sleeper hold with his legs! Isn't that cute?" He went on to tell her that she doesn't know about sleeper holds, but that he does because daddy showed him what a sleeper hold was a couple of days ago.
What? Like I could send him off to his first summer of VBS without first teaching him how to administer a sleeper hold. What kind of father do you think I am?
Second thoughts...
...Pete also informed Amanda that Baby Henry was naked, and that she should give him some jammies because it looks like he's sleeping. I don't think Pete quite gets it that the picture on the screen isn't *really* a picture of *our* baby. Still, that's pretty cute.
… then now would be a good time to start praying for Amelia Allen. Check out her blog, and then get busy praying. From the most recent update:
Pray:
For Amelia’s blood pressure. This is the most important thing right now. It needs to stay above 90 systolic. Right now she is on two different meds to keep it hovering around 90.
For Amelia’s lungs. Her need for supplemental oxygen is up. Pray that she would not develop an infection, retain fluids and that her lungs would continue to function well.
For Amelia’s infection. That the antibiotics would work to kill it. That her good white cells would help to kill it.
For Amelia’s brain. That the infection or whatever is causing the seizures would go away. That there would be no long term brain damage.
As I've said before, we don't pray to give God advice on how to run his universe. Yet, he often prompts his people to pray when he is intending to glorify himself by answering our prayers. Pray to that God, the one who isn't pushed around by our prayers like some sort of frazzled waitress, but instead answers them for his glory and according to his goodness. What a great comfort (I hope) to Steve and Jen to know that God is still completely in control, that this is all happening according to his definite and predetermined plan, and that God can be trusted to be faithful, good, and loving, no matter what.
I've grown tired of the old design of this blog, so I spent a few minutes this afternoon rearranging some things.
The *old* blog seemed really cluttered, and there were so many plugins necessary to keep it running that it was very clunky and sluggish when loading. I wanted to keep the same color scheme, but I wanted it to be much more clean and "zippy." I also wanted the content to be the focus, and though I really liked the preaching puritan image in the old design, it had to go. Every single blog in the world has a header image, the blog title, and then the content. In the new design the content comes first, while most of the other stuff is still around. On the front page, it all sits below the content in three columns (one wide, two skinny). This allows for presenting all of that information in one place without having it strewn over three vertical feet of sidebar real estate. On single post pages, that space is devoted to comments. On archive and search pages, some of the front page items make it into the sidebar, but most are left out so that the posts are featured most prominently.
What do you think? Any suggestions? Any bugs you've found?
The nice thing about WordPress is that I can switch back to the old theme with a couple of mouse clicks. So, if you hate it… let me know and I'll bring back the Nary an Original Thought that you've come to know and love.
By the way, if you're getting a "Press OK to continue loading the content of this page" alert, it's because you're using Internet Explorer 6.0. Upgrade to IE7, or read this article for more details about why you get that annoying little alert. An even better idea would be to use Firefox instead!
Second thoughts...
...I didn't really like the redesign, the more I looked at it. Maybe I'll re-redesign it later, but for now the old design will have to do.
One of the things us Reformed folks major in is the sovereignty of God. The truth that "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (WCF III:1) is both a great comfort to us, and a humbling reminder of our place in God's universe. However, if we don't keep things in balance we can find ourselves using this doctrine as a cop out. For example, if God has foreordained whatsoever shall come to pass, why should we pray? Isn't God just going to do whatever he wants? And yet, we are commanded all throughout the Bible to pray. Why would God, the ultimate "First Cause," who knows the end from the beginning, command us to pray?
Consider these two questions, seemingly in opposition to the other:
If God has foreordained everything already, how can we pray in hopes of changing things?
If we are commanded to pray, then how can it be true that God is sovereign and has ordained all that comes to pass?
How can God respond to prayers, and yet not have a "real" (ie, a reciprocal, dependent) relation with the creation?
Perhaps there's a Trinitarian answer to this: In the creation, God responds to His own work. He makes light, and then He pronounces His work very good. This is not a matter of God patting Himself on the back. Rather, it is arguably the Father approving the work of His Word and Spirit, the two "hands" by which the Father works in the creation.
God's response to prayer is similar: The Spirit provokes our prayers, which we offer in the name of Jesus to the Father. When the Father responds to these Spirit-inspired prayers, He is responding to His own work. God is responding to God's work, the Father to the Spirit.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism gives a good definition of prayer (#98): "Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with the confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies." Leaving confession and thanksgiving aside for the time being, let's consider how it is that we are to "offer up our desires unto God."
First, let us not be so arrogant as to assume that God's eternal decrees were somehow dependent upon or determined by our foreseen prayers. Continue reading this post »
My wife's e-mail signature goes like this: "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's in English, thank a soldier."
I had always thought it was a cute and appropriate tribute to our troops and their service. But, is it true? Dr. David Stafford, of the Centre for World War Two Studies, takes on this question in an article entitled, "What if D-Day had failed?"
In the era of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, it is hard to imagine that the U.S.-led invasion might have been turned back. The good guys won, and the victor gets to write the history. On June 5th, 1944, there were no guarantees. Stafford notes in his article that the invasion had been delayed 24 hours due to inclement weather. If it hadn't cleared up as it did, the invasion might have been postponed another two weeks, costing the Allies their greatest asset–the element of surprise.
As the invasion moved forward, American troops were killed by the hundreds. Paratroopers sent in the night before were spread all throughout the countryside, some as many as 20 miles from their intended drop zones. Though well planned and prepared for, the "fog of war" nearly doomed the invasion.
Due in large part to individual and collective heroics by Allied troops, such as those involved in the Brecourt Manor assault, the invasion was eventually successful in giving the Allies a toehold on the European continent.
But what if the invasion had been turned back? Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, had prepared a press release for such an occasion:
Our landings have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.
My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available.
The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do.
If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
Stafford notes that a failed invasion would have meant a 12 month delay before another invasion would be possible.
Meanwhile, Hitler would have focused all his attention on the Russians in the East, although to no avail.
The Red Army by now was unstoppable and eventually Stalin's forces would have not just taken Berlin, as they did, but advanced further west to the Rhine, and perhaps even to the North Sea and English Channel.
The whole of Germany and western Europe would then have been behind the Iron Curtain, and communism would have been enforced on the end of bayonets.
In a repeat of 1940, Britain would have again stood alone, except for the United States and its overseas allies.
In these circumstances, the US might well have retreated across the Atlantic into isolation, and Britain forced into some disastrous compromise deal with Stalin. The whole post-war history of Britain, of Europe, and of the world, would have been radically different.
This alternate history would certainly have involved a very different balance of power during the Cold War, and a drastic limitation of freedoms enjoyed by most Western European nations. This most certainly would have had a significant impact on the course of our own nation as well. Fortunately, by the grace of God, and the courage of men such as those in Easy Company, or the boys of Pointe du Hoc, we'll never know exactly how things might have been if the D-Day invasion had failed.
I like a good medical drama as much as the next guy, and (thanks to my wife) I would reluctantly admit that I watch ER on a pretty regular basis. With her, of course, when nothing else is on. Ahem.
Last night we finally revved up the DVR and watched the last two episodes from the recently concluded season. There were some entertaining twists and turns throughout, but I just couldn't get past the ideological browbeating the writers subjected us to. Between the two episodes (roughly 80 minutes without commercials), they not-so-subtly asserted that:
Long-term lesbian relationships are good and normal, and in many ways healthier than "straight" relationships.
Emotional affairs involving a "work husband" can be complicated, but are also a very normal and acceptable part of life.
We need socialized medicine, and we need it now. *We* just aren't doing enough to meet the medical needs of every single person in America.
The filming and distribution of bondage p0rnography (and S&M p0rn at that) is good and normal.
Marriage is no big deal. When a couple gets married, it doesn't really change their relationship. People can be just as happy (or happier) cohabiting as they would be if they were *officially* married. Oh, and there's no distinction between having children before or after a couple is married. They are a nuisance no matter when you have them.
Terror alert levels are driven by politics, not reality.
Our troops in Iraq have tortured "millions" (yes, this is the word they used on the show) of Iraqis, most of whom have been completely innocent.
When our troops come home from Iraq, they are completely neglected and the care they need is not offered to them. Ever.
Countless American troops are dying every day in Iraq, and the desire to bring them home "isn't a Republican or Democrat thing," it's an American thing.
By the time the episode was over, I felt like I had been through some sort of network television version of a Nazi reeducation program. You vill believe in socialized medicine, pacifism, und boundless sexuality. Und you vill like it!
RSS 2.0
