The whole "pearl of great price" or just some of it?

"(45) Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls,
(46) who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it."
Matthew 13:45-46 ESV

I was listening to The Listener's Bible (ESV) on my way to work this morning. The reading was a very familiar part of the Bible. John 3!

It struck me how many people who read this chapter or preach on it switch off after verse 17.

"(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
(17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
John 3:16-17 ESV

Very few actually read on in this chapter with any real grasp of the magnitude of all this chapter has to say. On the one hand, there is a declaration of the mercy of God in Christ, in that God sent His Son to die on the cross for an uncompromising sinful people. On the other hand, the side of the coin that is all too often ignored, God's wrath is proclaimed to all unbelievers.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
John 3:36 ESV

This type of preaching (or believing) is all too reminiscent of an age of self-pleasing and easy believism. With everybody having rights of all kinds, the church no longer preaches the gospel in its entirety unless someone is offended and we lose them. Preaching the complete gospel will undoubtedly offend people. When last did your gospel offend people?

"as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
Romans 9:33 ESV

I was thinking of the merchant in search of the pearl of great value. He found that pearl and gave up all for it. However, would he have found that great pearl if not all of it were there? Let me explain!

Pearls are made of layers of two materials: a mineral called aragonite and a protein called conchiolin. Let's say that the merchant found these two materials in great abundance. Would he have bought it by selling all he has? I greatly doubt that. You see, he would not have seen any pearl of great price! Only when a mollusk coats each successive layer of aragonite with the membrane-forming conchiolin will a pearl emerge! So, the merchant will not sell all he has for anything but a pearl. Just the aragonite or just the conchiolin alone does not make up a pearl. In order for these two materials to become a pearl, we need the one who makes these pearls (the mollusk) to do what it does best, make pearls. Only the mollusk can make these two materials become a beautiful pearl. A pearl, therefore, is more than just the sum of its parts!

Many preachers and believers try to give people just one of these materials. The gospel becomes subdivided into its parts and then they try to dish out only some of these parts. The wrath of God is never preached on. At my own church, I cannot remember when last I heard a sermon that covers the wrath of God in sending people to hell for the sin that so greatly offends Him in the last 5 years!

The wrath of God is just as much a part of the gospel as is God's mercy. It is justice AND mercy. By preaching only mercy, the whole gospel is NOT preached. Just like one individual mineral cannot make up a pearl, so one element of the gospel alone cannot make up the gospel, no matter how faithful and truthful that element is preached! It still is not the whole gospel!

Just like witnesses are sworn in when testifying in court to "speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," so preachers, when ordained should be sworn in to "preach the gospel, the whole gospel and nothing but the gospel!"

It simply is not good enough to preach on one of these elements without showing the other one. These two elements--justice and mercy--are intricately woven into one message. One cannot preach on the mercy of God without giving the reason for that mercy. Mercy is absolutely meaningless if there exists no reason for it. So, even preaching about the wrath of God without showing God's mercy in Christ is not good either!

Just like the mollusk makes the pearl into what it is, so the Creator of the universe is the One who set forth the gospel and made it what it is. Who are we to start subdividing it like it belongs to us and to preach parts of it as if they are the whole? The gospel is way more than just the sum of its parts.

The gospel is not a pat on the back for the sorry state that man finds himself in. The gospel does not say that we are victims of sin. It doesn't say, "You're Ok, I'm OK!"

The gospel points a finger at every man, woman and child. We are not the victims of sin, but rather we are the perpetrators of this heinous evil called sin against an infinitely Holy God, and each of us deserves an eternity in hell! Apart from telling us about the mercy and grace of God, the gospel also tells us that if we do not believe in Jesus Christ we will experience the wrath of a Holy God in an eternity of hell!

Let's face it, mankind is evil and if it weren't for the grace of God He would have annihilated mankind long ago!

Do not think that you can mess around with God's grace never expecting to experience His justice! Unless you have seen and believed the justice of God on a dying (and now resurrected) Christ in your stead, you will never get to experience the grace of God!

It is now the time for every Christian, especially preachers and teachers to spread "the gospel, the whole gospel and nothing but the gospel!"

Just thinking ...

"My 'top notch' school education was not good enough"

This is what a valedictorian, Kareem Elnahal, told his teachers and administrators in his valedictory speech on June 20 at one of America's top 1,200 schools, Mainland Regional High School in Linwood, N.J.

He said he felt that his education was hollow and that most important questions were not even asked!

On the other hand, Daniel Loggi, superintendent of the Atlantic County, N.J., School District, said he felt that Elnahal went about saying what he did in the wrong way. According to him, the administration never had a chance to look at Elnahal's speech beforehand, to either approve or disapprove. That is the whole crux of the matter! This speech would not have been approved. THAT is why the administration was upset with Elnahal. He did not tow the line!

I wish more people would stand up to all this low grade education like Kareem Elnahal did.

Read more here.

Just thinking...

Dobson writes traditional marriage commentary for CNN

Dr. James Dobson has written a commentary for CNN on the assault on traditional marriage. In it he writes:

Rarely has there been a greater disconnect between members of the Senate and the American people who put them in power. With the help of the media, which laid down "cover" by claiming voters didn't care about marriage, 40 Democrats, one Independent and seven Republicans turned their backs on this most basic social institution.

Let's examine the claim that traditional marriage lacks support in the court of public opinion. As it always does when conservative issues are being debated, the liberal press produced a series of trumped-up polls indicating the issue was of no interest nationally. However, there was another "poll" that the media completely ignored. In fact, there were 19 of them. They represented the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Not one state has chosen by popular vote to permit marriages between homosexuals. Support for the family has been affirmed in every instance.

In Mississippi, traditional marriage was approved by a whopping 86 percent majority. Other state votes registered similar wide margins: Nevada (70 percent), Arkansas (75 percent), Georgia (77 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), Louisiana (78 percent), Nebraska (70 percent), Missouri (71 percent), Montana (66 percent), North Dakota (73 percent), Ohio (62 percent), Michigan (59 percent), Oklahoma (76 percent), Utah (66 percent), Kansas (70 percent) and Texas (75 percent). Even states considered to be more liberal voted for traditional marriage, including Hawaii (69 percent), Alaska (68 percent) and Oregon (57 percent).

Read the rest here.

Just thinking...

Keeping pastors accountable

It always amazes me that in the church, where people are to be the safest possible, one can find some of the most horrendous abuses of the very people that the church is to keep safe!

Just look at the sexual abuse cases in the church, from Roman Catholic to Independent Baptist. It makes me sick to the stomach that men who were trusted by the church, family, friends and little children could sink so law as to molest little children.

While Jesus said to bring the little ones to Him in order to bless them, these men want the little chidren to come to them to see what these little ones have to offer!

On top of this, it is always kept quiet for years, even decades! Associates of these men just keep it quiet and try to manage the "problem!"

Why do these poor victims keep quiet for so long?

I believe that one of the problems for this silence is that pastors have become little despots, making sure that dissenting voices are dealt with speedily and unceremoniously. How many churches do you know where the pastor is humble enough to accept rebuke for false teaching or other indiscretions from a normal member of the church? I bet you can count that on one finger!

Pastors have put themselves on pedestals. They have become the rulers of their own "kingdoms" demanding obeisance and payment instead of being humble servants. In most cases pastors will dismiss Berean members of their churches because they simply didn't study at seminary like their pastors did! I wonder if the Bereans went to seminary? "Complainants" will simply be dismissed as ignorant sheep.

When will these so-called "men of God" realise that they are not to lord it over the sheep but rather to serve the sheep in all humility. These men think that they alone are a " chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession." (Pet 2:9)

Isn't it amazing that many pastors think that they are the only ones who hear from God and that their sheep need their input before making any decisions? Isn't that how the OT priesthood worked? However, that priesthood no longer exists! We are all part of the "royal priesthood."

"[1] So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: [2] shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; [3] not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock." (Pet 5:1-3)

Pastors need to shepherd the flock. Shepherding is very different to ruling. We have only one King, and He is Jesus Christ. Pastors, you are shepherds! Perform your duties with all the humility and earnestness that pertains to being a shepherd. And, by the way, the word "pastor" is not a title making you more important than others! It is a job description. Do it!

Pastors also need to exercise oversight over the flock, not under compulsion but willingly. It is amazing how pastors are not willing to pastor! They are under compulsion of some kind: money, honour, power trips. How many pastors will continue shepherding the flock if they no longer get salaries and can no longer control the sheep by misquoting some scripture text to bolster their own "authority?"

Pastors need to be accountable to their sheep and not become so important in their own estimation that they can simply dismiss the issues brought forward by members.

Pastors do not stand in the place of God, being able to do to the flock whatever they desire. They are stewards of the people of God. These people need to be treated as if they "really" belong to God, " a people for his own possession." Once pastors realise in their hearts and grasp the importance of the fact that the flock are God's own people, then perhaps they will become men that are interested in shepherding once again and to feed the flock with "true" truth and not just psychedelic pop-theology!

But, then again, we all have dreams of perfect universes!

Just thinking...

A bit of inactivity

I have been very inactive here at Just thinking... in the last couple of weeks. Of course there are reasons for everything and I would like to explain.

Due to work commitments I have had to be out of the country often in the last 7 weeks. In these 7 weeks I have been to 5 different countries (Senegal, Guinea, Denmark, Botswana, Tanzania) and today I am leaving for one of them (Tanzania) for the second time in that period. It really keeps me busy and unfortunately I use a lot of spare time to prepare for these trips. I was in Tanzania last week for three days (Wednesday-Friday) and now I am leaving today (Tuesday) again for Tanzania and will only return on Friday. So, whenever I am home I tend to spend all my time with my wife and children. On top of all this I will be going to Malawi next week Wednesday-Friday. I am hoping that this travelling spurt will come to an end for some time after the Malawi trip.

Anyhow, so if it seems like nothing is happening this side, you are close to the truth. I am hoping that my evenings will be a bit more free than usual this trip so that I could perhaps write some more for my blog( s).

So, while I am not very active on my blog, I would like to recommend some other blogs for you to visit:
TeamPyro
Al Mohler
Tim Challies
Solo Femininity
Between Two Worlds

Just thinking...

Paul hater alert!

It seems like there is yet another Paul hater that joined the world wide web. I thought we had enough of those, but noooo, another one HAD to jump on that runaway train!

A comment was left at my post called Women as pastors? I followed the trail and ended up here! Beware! I suppose the blogosphere is made up of all kinds.

Just thinking...

Which Jesus do you serve?

I was on my way to work the other day and heard a song by Todd Agnew called My Jesus. I don't know his theology, but this song struck a cord with me. I can see it in the church to a very large degree.

 

Some of his words go like this:

 

Which Jesus do you follow?

Which Jesus do you serve?

If Ephesians says to imitate Christ

Then why do you look so much like the world?

 

Cause my Jesus bled and died

He spent His time with thieves and liars

He loved the poor and accosted the arrogant

So which one do you want to be?

 

Blessed are the poor in spirit

Or do we pray to be blessed with the wealth of this land

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness

Or do we ache for another taste of this world of shifting sand

 

Cause my Jesus bled and died for my sins

He spent His time with thieves and sluts and liars

He loved the poor and accosted the rich

So which one do you want to be?

 

Who is this that you follow

This picture of the American dream

If Jesus was here would you walk right by on

the other side or fall down and worship at His holy feet

 

Pretty blue eyes and curly brown hair

and a clear complexion

Is how you see Him as He dies for your sins

But the Word says He was battered and scarred

Or did you miss that part

Sometimes I doubt we'd recognize Him

 

 Cause my Jesus bled and died for my sins

He spent His time with thieves and the least of these

He loved the poor and accosted the comfortable

So which one do you want to be?

 

Cause my Jesus would never be accepted in my church

The blood and dirt on His feet might stain the carpet

But He reaches for the hurting and despises the proud

I think He'd prefer Beale St. to the stained glass crowd

And I know He can hear me if I cry out loud

 

I want to be like my Jesus

 

Not a posterchild for American prosperity

but like my Jesus

You see I'm tired of living for success and popularity

I want to be like my Jesus

 

Some would be highly offended by this song, but if we are honest about the state of the church today, then we would recognise the modern church for what it is: another change agent for the world's great machinery.

 

Man has gone so far down the slippery slopes of recreating God in the image of man, that in the secular humanism of the day, they have ended up with man as god. The pity of this all is that the church is not that far behind.

 

In all of the theology preached from church pulpits today--even by those claiming to be evangelical (whatever that means today, who knows)--Jesus has been recreated in the image of its own peculiar interpretive devices. How many in the church would recognise Jesus if He stepped into our churches today? I would rather not guess at that percentage. It might just be too scary.

Many churches simply do not preach the whole counsel of God when it comes to the nature of God Himself. Rather, they are preaching only the parts they like and avoiding the "unlikeable" parts like the plague!

Many of these preachers claim to believe that the Bible is inerrant and that it is wholly the word of God to us; however, their actions speak louder than words!

If the church no longer preaches on the "undesireable" attributes of God's nature, but rather preaches the usual modern relativistic god of their own making, then they are no longer preaching the full gospel of God! Does a person that preaches a god like this indeed deserve to be called a Christian? If we do not believe in the full revelation of God as it is given in the Bible, can we rightly claim to believe in and worship the One true God?

If we only preach on the love of God (no matter how the concept of the love of God has been deformed by the modern humanistic mind) and do not include God's wrath, or the fact that He has destroyed civilisations, we end up with a god that is quite impotent, more akin to baal than the God of the Bible! We end up treating this god like we treat Santa Claus and not a Holy God that we should fear and love at the same time.

If we want real vitality as Christians (not the hyped up variety that comes from worshitainment style churches), we need to believe all that the Bible says about God, and to live as if we believe it!

Just thinking...

Women as pastors?

Men and women are seen as equal in the church in terms of value. Both have equal access to the blessings of salvation.

However, when it comes to being an elder (pastor) or teacher in the church, what does the New Testament teach us?

For this we need to look at some pertinent passages.

1 Tim 2:11-14

[11] A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. [12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. [13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. [14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

This passage discusses the issue of women as elders in the church most directly.

We know the setting of this epistle to Timothy from 1 Tim 3:15,

I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

It was important for Paul to let Timothy know how things should be done "in the household of God," especially since he wanted Timothy to "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines" (1 Tim 1:3). Some in the church at Ephesus departed from true doctrine and incorporated false teaching in their doctrine. However, Paul tells us little to nothing about this false doctrine since he knew that Timothy was familiar with the issue at hand. Therefore, we need to be careful not to make too much of the nature of this false doctrine in the church at Ephesus and how it influenced women there.

We will, then, take a cautious approach to this matter. In our exegesis, we will use only those aspects of the false teaching that may be clearly inferred from the pastoral epistles and related New Testament passages to shed light on the text. Some of the aspects specifically relevant to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are:

1. The false teachers sowed dissension and were preoccupied with trivialities (1 Timothy 1:4-6; 6:4-5; cf. 2 Timothy 2:14, 16-17, 23-24; Titus 1:10; 3:9-11).
2. The false teachers stressed asceticism as a means of spirituality. They taught abstinence from certain foods, from marriage, and probably sex generally (1 Timothy 4:1-3). In keeping with these ascetic tendencies, they may also have stressed physicaltraining as a means of spirituality (4:8).
3. The false teachers had persuaded many women to follow them in their doctrines (1 Timothy 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:6-7).
4. The false teachers were encouraging women to discard what we might call traditional female roles in favor of a more egalitarian approach to the relationships of men and women. This is not stated explicitly as a part of the false teachers' platform anywhere in the pastoral epistles. [ 1]

We know that these false teachers encouraged women to abstain from marriage (1 Tim 4:3). To counter this, Paul instructs young widows to marry (1 Tim 4:14). Paul sees this issue in a very serious light "for some have already turned aside to follow Satan." (1 Tim 4:15)

It is because of these aberrant positions of the false teachers that Paul wrote "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." These are functions performed by elders, and so are specifically prohibited for women in the church. Naturally there are objections to this interpretation of this passage.

First, there are those who object with the rationale that this passage applies to a specific situation in the Ephesian church, where women most probably taught heresy, which Paul wrote against. This objection is in no way persuasive, since we do not have any indication in the text of 1 Timothy that women indeed taught heresy. In this case, when Paul writes, "I do not allow a woman," he means "not any woman." He did not say "certain" women in any way. He did not say that only women that teach heresy may not "teach or exercise authority over a man." What is Paul's real reason for giving this prohibition? Paul's reason is that "it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." This reason refers back to the order of creation. He does not deal with situational ethics here, but the way that God created all things. Paul refers to the order of creation before the fall, and also before the fall created a perversion of male and female roles.

A second objection is that women were not well educated in Paul's time, and as a result could not qualify for the roles of elder and other church offices. The question to this objection is whether Paul even gave such a reason for his prohibition. Again, as in the previous objection, Paul's reason is based on creation and its God-given order. When we look at the qualifications of an elder as written to Timothy and Titus, we can nowhere see that Paul made educational qualifications part of his qualifications of an elder. Formal training was not an issue at the time, as we can see when we look at several of the apostles. Several of them had no formal training (Ac 4:13).

The third objection is the fact that women were to "learn" (v11) itself implies that they would eventually teach. This may be true, but under the prohibitions of Paul, they may not "teach or exercise authority over a man." This, however, does not say anything concerning a woman teaching or having authority over other women or even children. On the other hand, is it correct to conclude that simply because someone learns he will eventually end up teaching too?

"Certainly if we mean by teaching an officially recognized activity of expositing and applying a section of Scripture, this is not the case. Neither do the texts cited by Spencer prove this. All Jewish men were encouraged to study the law; did they all become rabbis? Similarly, all Christians are encouraged to study the Scriptures; but Paul expressly limits "teaching" to a restricted number who have the gift of teaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-30). Of course, if we define teach in a broader sense--the communication of Christian truth through private conversation, family devotions, etc.--we may conclude that all Christians do indeed "teach." But this is not the kind of teaching Paul is talking about in this context. Neither does it seem to be what Spencer means, for her point is that this verse validates women as teachers even in positions of authority in the church. It is manifest, then, that the encouragement to women to learn gives no reason to think that they were also to be engaged in expositing and applying Biblical truth to men." [ 2]

The fact that Paul prohibits women from teaching or having authority over men--based on his reason of created order--even prohibits those women, therefore, who have been given permission by their husbands--a common charismatic practice--to hold such a position.

1 Cor 14:33b-36

[33b] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,  [34] the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  [35] If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. [36] Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? (1 Cor 14:33-36 ESV)

The difficulty that this passage poses is that Paul clearly allowed women to actually speak in the assembly.

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head (1 Cor 11:5)

Many see the 1 Cor 14 passage as prohibiting women from speaking in the church altogether. This will contradict Paul in 1 Cor 11. Paul clearly allowed women to pray and prophesy in church, albeit with their own cultural restrictions.

What, then, does this passage restrict women from? The immediate context--apart from Paul having told us that praying and prophesying being allowed for women--instructs us that Paul's limitation on women "speaking" has to do with the issue of evaluating prophecies given in the assembly.

"More broadly, a strong case can be made for the view that Paul refused to permit any woman to enjoy a church-recognized teaching authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11ff.), and the careful weighing of prophecies falls under that magisterial function." [ 3]

Paul, by prohibiting women from critiquing or evaluating prophecies in the assembly--"this would be a ruling or governing function with respect to the whole church" [4]--is concerned with the preservation of "male leadership in the teaching and governing of the church." [ 5]

1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9

The Scripture texts can be read above at section 6.1.2.4 Qualifications of an elder.

Since we have already dealt with the qualifications of an elder, we would have noted that Paul explicitly notes the elder as a man by writing that he must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6). Paul also writes that "he must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Tim 3:4-5).

End Notes
1. Piper , John & Grudem, Wayne, editors, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,  paper by Douglas Moo, What does it mean not to teach or have authority over men? , Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, First Printing 1991, p177.

2. Moo , p180.

3. Piper , John & Grudem, Wayne, editors, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,  paper by D. A. Carson, "Silent in the churches": on the role of women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 , Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, First Printing 1991, p143.

4. Grudem , Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p939.

5. Grudem, p939.

Just thinking...

 

Something's a foot

It seems that even Ann Coulter is fed up with US President Bush. Read her comments here.

 

Just thinking...

 

Women for sale at Soccer World Cup 2006

It seems that German morality keeps dipping lower and lower. The organisers of the Soccer World Cup in Germany have decided to accommodate the special "needs" of men from all over the world during the event. Read about it here.

Just thinking...

Cracking Da Vinci’s Code

I have read the book called Cracking Da Vinci's Code by Dr. James Garlow and Dr. Peter Jones. It is an excellent book to show how the book (and now the movie) The Da Vinci Code dresses up blatant lies to look like the truth.

 

The good news is, the Sci-Fi channel will be airing a documentary called Cracking Da Vinci's Code which is based on Garlow and Jones' book as a world premiere during prime time on May 18. Read more about it here.

 

Just thinking...

 

Back from Copenhagen

Well, I am back from Copenhagen, Denmark. You have already read about a bit of my experience there so I decided to give you a couple of pics to look at. During my stay there of 7 days (8 days including travel time) I took 239 pictures. My colleague that travelled with me took about 1,500 pics. He likes to "go crazy" as he puts it himself.


We arrived there the morning of Sunday, April 30, 2006 and after checking in we went for a walk to check out a little bit of the city.

We both like historical buildings and it seems, so do advertisers. As you can see, these poor buildings are utilized "well!"

The city abounds in sculptures of all sorts. There are so many that it would really be impossible for one person to take one picture of each one found there in the short time we spent there. However, this one of a bull and a dragon fighting is a very good example.

The day we arrived there it was pretty cold by South African standards. Both my colleague and I live in the Gauteng province of South Africa, and even in winter we have some pretty nice days. Mornings might be chilly (down to around 3 deg C - 37.4F), but it could easily warm up to around 20C (68F)! So, when we arrived in Copenhagen (in their spring time), and the high for the day was around 8C (46F), we thought it to be a bit cold! You can see this by how they dressed that day.

We kept on walking till we got to the water front called Nyhavn. It is very pretty there. You can see me standing there all smug thinking the place belongs to me!

Down the main road that most tourists walk on (I think it is called Frederiksgade) one can find all kinds of things. One day there would be a violinist playing the most beautiful music. Another day a guy with his wine glasses filled with different levels of water can be quite entertaining. On this day (Monday May 01) we saw this trio that played some well known classical pieces. They really sounded good!

Of course, Copenhagen is the city that Hans Christian Andersen (HCA) lived in. There are streets named after him and he also has a statue of himself in the city. If you do not know who he is, then I have one question for you: "Under which rock have you been living?" Maybe you will recognise him if I mention some of the stories he has written: Thumbelina, The Little Mermaid, The Ugly Duckling, and The Princess and the Pea. We also got to see the statue of The Little Mermaid. HCA wrote 168 tales and you can find most of them here.

We lived in quite an odd hotel. After we checked in on the Sunday we arrived, we wanted to catch the elevator up to our rooms on the third floor. However, we had to climb half a floor before we could get to the elevator. The fascinating thing is that the elevator is situated between floors. Once on the elevator we pressed the button for the third floor. When we arrived there we had to walk half a floor down to get to our floor. On the pic I provided, you will see that I am standing inside the elevator taking a pic of what is on the outside. From the elevator you can either go up or down the stairs to your floor.

In Danish architecture, it is interesting to see so many dragons. You will find dragons on statues to buildings. As you have seen the bull and the dragon fighting above, here is a pic of the old Scandinavian Stock Exchange. It depicts the tails of three dragons (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) making up the spire of the building.

At 6pm Friday (May 05) we went on an hour boat ride through the canals of Copenhagen. It was a very nice trip and showed us some of Copenhagen we would not have seen otherwise. This trip was so cheap (30 DKR - R30 - $4.90) that we were really taken with the price since eveything else is so very expensive. This boat ride definitely was the best value for money. On this trip we also passed the apartments where Hans Christian Andersen lived. He lived in the white building in the middle of this picture on the right.

On Saturday we also visited the Royal Palace which is freely accessible. Here you can see one of the buildings of the Palace. It just amazes me that the Palace has such an open architecture and that people walk through there all the time! I guess that here in Africa the Palace would have been sacked long ago! The Palace is made up of 4 of these identical Rococo buildings. The royal family still occupies the palace.

From the Palace we went to visit the great Marble Church, also known as Frederik's Church. The picture here is taken from behind King Frederick V within the Palace grounds. This church remained unfinished from 1770 until 1874. It was finally finished in 1894. This church is indeed beautiful and there is amazing detail on the inside. Truly a place to visit in Copenhagen. The foundation stone for this church was laid on October 30, 1749. Outside the church one can find statues of men like Martin Luther, Moses, the apostles Paul and Peter, Elijah and Jan Hus.

Next we took a walk over to the Church of our Savior. You can climb to the top (very top!) of the steeple of this church. You first start inside the church and climb the stairs until finally it is time to climb out and continue the climb on the outside. This steeple is 90m (98.4yds - 295ft) high. So, I guess there could have been about 450 steps to climb. This was truly an amazing experience. Climbing on the outside to the top and seeing the city from up there was truly breathtaking. From the outside the church itself did not seem like much, but on the inside the decor was absolutely stunning.

In my opinion, I think the statues are actually overdone. Everything from baby angels to adult angels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael?) and more. Especially the baptismal font, which is covered with little babies and it even has a baby encrusted crown above it.

We finally visited the Danish parliament buildings. Here they grow trees just to cut them square. I would not know what the reason for it is, but it is a bit odd. On the other hand, it is unusual and not quite expected! With this picture of parliament you can see King Christian IX hiding behind the fountain spray. What I learnt there that was really interesting is that firstborn sons (heirs of the throne) are either named Christian or Frederik. If the current king's name is Christian, he will name his son Frederik and vice versa.

We finally had to exit the parliament grounds and make our way back to the hotel to pick up our baggage to start the way back home!

We caught the train to Copenhagen's international Kaastrup airport late afternoon on May 06. We flew out of Copenhagen and had a stop-over in Zurich for the night. Originally we were supposed to land in Zurich and immediately fly out back to South Africa, but that flight was delayed (we were told three days before the time) until the next morning at 8am. So, we ended up staying over in Zurich and at least we could get a couple of hours sleep.

The funny thing is that the guy that checked our bags in at Kaastrup airport checked our bags straight through to South Africa. So, we had to just use the clothes we already had, again the next day. Luckily I had a tracksuit in my backpack that I could use on the flight back. All I had to do was wash my underwear that night for the last leg of the trip the next day. Unfortunately, I had to wear the same t-shirt again. Fortunately I had a can of deodorant in my backpack too.

It was amazing on the trip back, since we flew over the Swiss Alps. It is so beautiful! God's creation showing the Glory of God! I took a couple of pics through the window of the Airbus we were flying in. It is breathtaking over the Alps!

But, in the end it was absolutely wonderful to be back with my family in South Africa. When I walked through customs both kids ran to me and flung themselves at me. It always gives me this warm feeling in my heart when they come running to me after a trip like this. I truly love my family!

Well, next it is off to Botswana, but hopefully only for a day!

Before the trip to Copenhagen I was also in Guinea on the west coast of Africa. You can read about it here and here.

Just thinking...

Copenhagen

Well, this week I am sitting in Copenhagen, Denmark.

 

It is an amazing country and the city is beautiful! After being in Guinea two weeks ago, Copenhagen with all its historic buildings and beautiful architecture is quite a different experience. As with Guinea, this is also a business trip. Actually, I am in Copenhagen for training. This is my third trip to this beautiful city.

 

There is a lot to see here; however, there is not much time to do so since we stay in the office later than on usual training courses, because we are bothered with work from back home all the time. It is a 5 day course finishing today; however, 3 of the days I was busy doing very urgent work in the class for the ofice back home.

 

Copenhagen, as I already said, is a beautiful city. Yet, it is a culture almost completely void of godliness. Pornography is common, with advertising for sex very common. Sex shops can be found in many places with totally nude pictures of women in the shop windows.

 

The quality of restaurants here are also not nearly as good as that in South Africa. Service is terminally slow and it is very difficult to find a restaurant with food to our quality. After 3 visits to Copenhagen, I still haven't found a pizza place to my liking. Then of course, the food is extremely expensive.

 

We will be boarding our plane from Copenhagen to Zurich tomorrow night at around 7pm. We were to go through transit on Saturday night and get the plane from Zurich to South Africa then too. However, our plane from Zurich to South Africa has been delayed from Saturday night to Sunday morning at 7am. That means we will arrive back home half a day late. That is life I suppose!

 

Anyway, I am looking forward to getting home and seeing my wife and children. I miss them terribly!

 

So, have a good weekend to you all and God bless!

 

Just thinking...
 

Back from Guinea

Matt Gumm asked me to give more information on my trip to Guinea two weeks ago. For those interested I wrote a piece for my South African blog ( BiblioPolit) called Back from Guinea.

 

Just thinking...

 

Cheaper by the Dozen 2: Cheap Shots at Conservatism

Cheaper by the Dozen 2 is a typical family film with lots of laughter and pranks. It also shows what is so typical of the movie world's portrayal of teenagers, in that the teenager in this movie (Lorraine Baker) is not really interested in spending time with her family and is very disinterested in the affairs of her family currently on holiday at the lake.

I watched this movie on the plane back to South Africa from Dakar, Senegal this past Sunday (April 23, 2006).

In my opinion this movie is very much about the two different child rearing styles most prevalent today. The one is a liberal style in which children are not pushed too hard and are not disciplined that much. The other is a conservative style which is based on strong discipline and motivating children to give all they have.

The movie is about a family of 14 (the Bakers). Yes, you read that right! The parents and their 12 children! Hence the title! They embark on a holiday over Labour Day weekend. This holiday turns into a holiday of great contest between two families (Bakers and Murtaughs). You guessed right. These two families are raised on the two opposing styles of child rearing: liberal and conservative.

The conservative family (Murtaugh family) is shown as overbearing, pushy and downright unlikeable. The liberal family (Baker family) is portrayed as fun loving, carefree and almost perfect.

What is really interesting is that the Murtaughs are portrayed specifically as a Christian family of some sorts. One night the Bakers have a sing-song around a fire and sing a typical bonfire song. To compete with the Bakers the Murtaughs on the other side of the lake start singing too... a Christian spiritual song of some kind. This is the indicator that this movie is not just a movie dissing conservatism, but specifically the Christian form of conservatism.

Throughout the movie the Murtaugh children are portrayed as well disciplined drones of a father (Jimmy Murtaugh) that is obsessed with success in life and winning. The children are well mannered and well disciplined; yet, underneath, a rebellion is brewing, apparently because of their strict upbringing. Obviously, when these children get their freedom they are suddenly these well-rounded children ready for the world.

Christian parents are ridiculed in this movie about wanting to check out everything to see if it is good for their children. In one scene the Baker dad's (Tom) daughter Sarah goes to see a movie with Jimmy's son Elliot. Both dads decided to spy on the kids and end up sitting next to each other at the movies. At this point Tom asks Jimmy what he was doing there. The Jimmy's answer is that he was there to see if the movie was okay for his son. "The movie is rated 'G'!", replied Tom. This is such a typical response from Tom. Liberals think that they are the free thinkers in society; however, they have shown themselves to be the ready followers of the cultural "elite" who are bent on making arbitrary rules that should be followed by all of society. This is a case in point. Tom was willing to let his daughter see the movie (okay, it was Ice Age) because someone rated it 'G.'

In Cheaper by the Dozen 2 liberal parenting is hailed as the correct form of parenting when Tom's eldest daughter, Nora Baker-McNulty, who just gave birth to her own baby boy tells her father that he taught them that there is no way to be a perfect parent, but a million ways to be a really good one. Of course, one of those million ways is the liberal style of parenting. This clearly implies that conservative parenting does not fall within one of those million ways.

Conservative parenting is referred to as "tough love" and overparenting. "Tough love" or wanting to set rules for one's children is obviously not part of the liberal parenting agenda.

While Jimmy is blamed for overparenting, Tom can surely be blamed for underparenting. Wherever they go as a family, as Tom himself said, the children are in trouble, getting in trouble or are devising a long term plan that will get them into trouble. This surely shows a form of parenting that is unable to help children to do the right thing! Tom's wife Kate,  summed it up so well when she said that they are guiding their children to make the right choices, "what more is there to do?" Clearly, discipline was not even considered. Children must make their own choices don't they?

The fact remains that if children do not experience discipline and the consequences of their actions in their formative years and while they are still too young to consistently choose between right and wrong, they will need discipline. But, that is not the point right now!

Cheaper by the Dozen 2 is a fun movie, but make sure to inform your children of what is right and what is wrong in this movie.

Just thinking...