Just a note to let you know that E's treatment appears to be going very well. She's even been in my study tearing up paper. This is a good sign.
Thank you for your prayers,
Fraser
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Update on Emmanuelle
I've just got back from the hospital with Meg and Emmanuelle. The tests didn't turn anything up, and the diagnosis is that whatE has is viral; which is, I assume, good news. Anyhow, E is home, and her face is looking so sweet that I'm concerned some bees will try to shove her in their hive.
After not getting much sleep in the hospital last night, M and E are looking forward to some decent rest.
Thanks for your prayers.
The hospital stay proved beyond doubt (if there ever was any) that E is Feisty with a capital F. The staff couldn't stick needles in her, of poke her abdomen, or attach her to various pieces of apparatus without her cracking it.
After not getting much sleep in the hospital last night, M and E are looking forward to some decent rest.
Thanks for your prayers.
The hospital stay proved beyond doubt (if there ever was any) that E is Feisty with a capital F. The staff couldn't stick needles in her, of poke her abdomen, or attach her to various pieces of apparatus without her cracking it.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Emmanuelle
Little Emmanuelle is in hospital undergoing tests. The doctors don't know what is wrong. Margaret is with her. Please pray for her. She'll be there overnight at least.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Seventeen Evidences of a Lack of Humility
Having been inspired by William Weedon's 'Homeltical Aphorisms' http://weedon.blogspot.com/2007/11/homiletical-aphorisms.html#comments, I hereby submit 'The Seventeen Evidences of a Lack of Humility'. I've ripped this off straight from George Rutler's 'The Cure D'Ars Today', and he ripped it straight from John Vianney himself. So:
The Seventeen Evidences of a Lack of Humility
1. To think that what one says or does is better than what others say and do.
2. To always want to get your own way.
3. To argue with stubbornness and bad manners whether you are right or wrong.
4. To give your opinion when it has not been requested or when charity does not demand it.
5. To look down on another’s point of view.
6. Not to look on your own gifts and abilities as lent.
7. Not to recognize that you are unworthy of all honours and esteem, not even the earth you walk on and things you possess.
8. To use yourself as an example in conversation.
9. To speak badly of yourself so that others will think well of you or contradict you.
10. To excuse yourself when you are corrected.
11. To hide humiliating faults from your spiritual director, so that he will not change the impression that he has of you.
12. To take pleasure in praise and compliments.
13. To be saddened because others are held in higher esteem.
14. To refuse to perform inferior tasks.
15. To seek to stand out.
16. To refer in conversation to your honesty, genius, dexterity, or professional prestige.
17. To be ashamed because you lack certain goods.
The Seventeen Evidences of a Lack of Humility
1. To think that what one says or does is better than what others say and do.
2. To always want to get your own way.
3. To argue with stubbornness and bad manners whether you are right or wrong.
4. To give your opinion when it has not been requested or when charity does not demand it.
5. To look down on another’s point of view.
6. Not to look on your own gifts and abilities as lent.
7. Not to recognize that you are unworthy of all honours and esteem, not even the earth you walk on and things you possess.
8. To use yourself as an example in conversation.
9. To speak badly of yourself so that others will think well of you or contradict you.
10. To excuse yourself when you are corrected.
11. To hide humiliating faults from your spiritual director, so that he will not change the impression that he has of you.
12. To take pleasure in praise and compliments.
13. To be saddened because others are held in higher esteem.
14. To refuse to perform inferior tasks.
15. To seek to stand out.
16. To refer in conversation to your honesty, genius, dexterity, or professional prestige.
17. To be ashamed because you lack certain goods.
Nolite Confidere in Principibus
That is, ‘Do not put your trust in princes’ –Psalm 146:3 (145:2 in the Vulgate). ‘Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish’.
These words were going through my mind on Saturday night as I saw the election results. One of our ‘princes’ – John Howard – has left the scene to be replaced by our new ‘prince’ - Kevin Rudd. The prayers of our little congregation are with our new Prime Minister, of course, just as they were with our old one. But neither man, thank God, has been or will be the Saviour of our Nation.
On Saturday night, as I heard the crowds cheering, I got to thinking about changes in my experience - and in my understanding - of political debate. In recent years I’ve grown less eager to hear (from myself and others) politicians (of any political stripe) vilified. I welcome (and enjoy) vigorous discussion on the merits (or otherwise) of political policy and ideas, but when conversation descends into name-calling and personal attacks on politicians it gets me down. I can’t help feel that such conversation is a display of a lack of faith in God – that is, I can't help feeling that when faith in God weakens then we have to find scapegoats other than the Lamb of God - and so I hear vilification of politicians, from myself or others, as reluctance to take our anger and frustration to the One who is ultimately responsible: God.
But on Saturday night I heard the crowds not simply cheering, but chanting the name of at least one politician. And this disturbed me more than any of the abuse I have heard poured on any politician. Personal attacks on politicians I can understand, even if it gets me down. But chanting the name of a politician?
Nolite confidere in principibus. It's my suggested motto for election nights.
These words were going through my mind on Saturday night as I saw the election results. One of our ‘princes’ – John Howard – has left the scene to be replaced by our new ‘prince’ - Kevin Rudd. The prayers of our little congregation are with our new Prime Minister, of course, just as they were with our old one. But neither man, thank God, has been or will be the Saviour of our Nation.
On Saturday night, as I heard the crowds cheering, I got to thinking about changes in my experience - and in my understanding - of political debate. In recent years I’ve grown less eager to hear (from myself and others) politicians (of any political stripe) vilified. I welcome (and enjoy) vigorous discussion on the merits (or otherwise) of political policy and ideas, but when conversation descends into name-calling and personal attacks on politicians it gets me down. I can’t help feel that such conversation is a display of a lack of faith in God – that is, I can't help feeling that when faith in God weakens then we have to find scapegoats other than the Lamb of God - and so I hear vilification of politicians, from myself or others, as reluctance to take our anger and frustration to the One who is ultimately responsible: God.
But on Saturday night I heard the crowds not simply cheering, but chanting the name of at least one politician. And this disturbed me more than any of the abuse I have heard poured on any politician. Personal attacks on politicians I can understand, even if it gets me down. But chanting the name of a politician?
Nolite confidere in principibus. It's my suggested motto for election nights.
For Charles
Charles, my brother in law, wants less theology and more pics of his nieces and nephew. So, here's a picture of Emmanuelle, looking as cute as a bug's ear.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Word and the Church
In the last few weeks, in preparation for the next round of the national Lutheran / Roman Catholic dialogue, I’ve been reading on the place of Scripture in the life of the Church. One key passage from Vatican II sums it up this way:
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (DV II 10)
As the dialogue process proceeds, I look forward to hearing what the Catholic participants have to say in their understanding and explanation of these words. It seems to me that one could accept this teaching while at the same time holding that the Church is ‘under’ Scripture. We’ll see.
In looking through the Book of Concord, I’ve been surprised to find how few references there are to the place of Scripture in determining doctrine. There are, however, some important passages that deal directly with the issue, including this one form the beginning of the Formula:
“1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8.” (FC Ep. I 1)
What interests me about this passage is the use of the passives ‘should be estimated and judged’. Estimated and judged by whom?
A typically protestant answer might be ‘estimated and judged by each individual Christian’. But is this the way that Lutherans, at least as we expound our confessional teaching, would rightly answer?
It seems to me that the next round of dialogue will be interesting.
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (DV II 10)
As the dialogue process proceeds, I look forward to hearing what the Catholic participants have to say in their understanding and explanation of these words. It seems to me that one could accept this teaching while at the same time holding that the Church is ‘under’ Scripture. We’ll see.
In looking through the Book of Concord, I’ve been surprised to find how few references there are to the place of Scripture in determining doctrine. There are, however, some important passages that deal directly with the issue, including this one form the beginning of the Formula:
“1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8.” (FC Ep. I 1)
What interests me about this passage is the use of the passives ‘should be estimated and judged’. Estimated and judged by whom?
A typically protestant answer might be ‘estimated and judged by each individual Christian’. But is this the way that Lutherans, at least as we expound our confessional teaching, would rightly answer?
It seems to me that the next round of dialogue will be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)