Presidential Candidates (1 of . . . ?)

I decided to have a little politics on here. I’m not wrapped up in it, like I used to be. Whoever wins doesn’t matter much to me–while I trust in YHVH. The world will do what it will do, and the God of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’acov will still establish His kingdom on schedule with all its citizens accounted for.

I only care about politics then as my contribution to suggesting that America get on board with the King’s plan. I’d rather Mashiach showed up and found faith in America. Who the president is, doesn’t determine that, but it does reflect it. As it is written, the deeds of the righteous are a sin-offering for a nation (Proverbs 14:34, Young’s Literal Translation).

Now, in the past, I’ve had a schizophrenic political philosophy. Tossed by what my human mind thought was important at the time. But, as I’ve studied Torah, my decision making process has clarified.

1) The president must be a brother. Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:15 says when we set up a king, he is to be someone whom YHVH chooses. He is to be a brother (or by interpretation sister), and not a foreigner.

Some will argue that a president isn’t a king, but the word king is melech (queen being merely a feminine form of the same word), means “a mighty one who walks with the scepter/staff”. It’s the one wielding the power. Scripture never defines a king only as someone who inherits their power in the way we typically think of a king.

So then, I need to pick the candidate that YHVH wants. Not the one, I want. Not the one, I think is most intelligent/experience/presidential. I need YHVH’s president . . . even if that looks like a small boy who smells like sheep and delivers cheese to his brothers.

YHVH tells me to pick a brother and not a foreigner. That’s not talking about blood, but whether or not the candidate for king/president is one of God’s people. Many people, foolishly think, this is a dead end. “I can’t judge that person’s faith! That’s between them and God! So I just have to take them at their word!” That’s foolishness. Does your congregation take on “their word” a candidate for Elder/Deacon/Pastor? “Well, I did see what appeared to be a swindling on his part . . . that he conducted in a strip bar . . . that involved a packet of white powder to someone who looked like an underage girl . . . but he says he’s a Christian . . . so I take him at his word.”

That’s stupid. Of course, you take the evidence. Now, there’s a distinction to be made here. At this time of Yom Kippur, the righteous are repenting for their sins and making intercession for others who are not repenting. In other words, people with evidence are interceding for those that don’t have evidence. Why? Yom Kippur is never presented for the stranger. Yeshua himself came to die for the sins of “many”, not all. This intercession then is for God’s people, whom God claims even though they are not acting like his people.

There is a difference between saying someone lacks evidence that they are YHVH’s child, and saying they are not YHVH’s child. The judgment on their final identity is in YHVH’s hands, but for the purposes of life and doing righteousness, we must act upon the evidence. You can’t just “take people at their word.”

2) A judge ought to be able, god-fearing, truthful, and hating covetousness/dishonest gain (Exodus 18:21). These parameters weren’t an explicit mitzvah like the first, but Elohim seems to have ratified it. And why wouldn’t we? These all pretty much agree with the part about being one of God’s children, in fact they might be understood as clarifying what to look for as the evidence of the first thought.

So . . . the candidates:

I’ll start with a couple, easy ones.

Bernie Sanders: A Brother?

Religion News: “Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a self-identified socialist who’s perhaps the most left-leaning member of Congress, is raising eyebrows for his unexpectedly strong support among Democratic voters. The presidential candidate, 73, was born to Jewish parents and identifies as Jewish — though culturally, not religiously.”

Lifezette:He doesn’t belong to a synagogue back home in the Green Mountain State, or in Washington, D.C. And unlike other non-religious Jewish lawmakers, Sanders doesn’t make much of an effort to couch his far-left views in the tradition oftikkun olam (Hebrew for “repairing the world”) — nor the nebulous notion in American politics of “social justice.” Faith, or even a hint about it, just isn’t part of his public persona.’s Beliefs: Bernie is a secular Jew who values and actively engages with people of various faiths for the betterment of American society…Bernie was raised Jewish but says he is not “particularly religious.””

Conclusion: I find it very difficult to believe someone is a child of Elohim, if they won’t even say so. How can you be a child of the King of the Universe and not be proud of it? I’m not perfect, but I find I am constantly given opportunities to talk about God because He influences (whether I obey or not) everything in my life. So when someone rarely talks about God, I am forced to conclude that God simply isn’t important to them, and how can that be if God is your father?

Able? His record shows some committee and a lot of legislative experience, but only a little executive experience. I think scripture indicates leadership as the ability to “go out and come in”, a lot of that being the real life willingness to lead in battle. Does that mean he has to have military experience? No, but a willingness to do so, I think is necessary. But, he did march with Martin Luther King, Jr.

Conclusion: Lacking proof, I’ll side on the benefit of the doubt because even an untested shepherd boy can be able.

God-fearing? Man of truth? Hating covetousness? Based on the brother question, my conclusion is no. How can he be god-fearing, if he won’t acknowledge Him? How can he be a man of Truth if he denies the source of Truth? How can he avoid covetousness, if he doesn’t know what belongs to who, according to the Torah of the one who owns everything?

Bernie’s stances bear out his spiritual disqualification: While I could say that abortion may be ‘permissable’ in the very very very rare case as an act of self-defense in which both the mother and child “will” die instead of just the child, Bernie goes far far beyond that to allow abortion in pretty much any case. And while the question of gay marriage may be one that we go “who cares what people who don’t know God are doing?” Championing it as the same in value as heterosexual unions is obviously not consistent with someone who is of the truth.

Conclusion: Bernie Sanders is not qualified to be a king/president. See, its as simple as that for most. Now, that may seem like I’m picking one or two issues. What about redistribution of wealth? I believe in that according to Torah, and Bernie champions that. True, but he does it according to human wisdom not Torah. I am on the side of God’s Torah; Bernie in my surveying of him simply parrallels it at times.

The basic thought here is not who “has the most in commmon” with a Torah worldview, but whose life/walk seems most indicative as someone who lives by Torah and thus, the Elohim of Torah? And I cannot find positive evidence from the beginning that Bernie cares at all about what God thinks. Thus, I don’t have to look at each issue. It’s not a scale to be tipped, its judging a trajectory. A foul ball and a fair ball both go up, it doesn’t not mean they are going in the same direction.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The League of Extraordinary Indie Writers Traveling Bookstore

So, it’s time for another round of . . . I published a book and the only people who know it are people in my immediate circle. I could spend the next 500+ words lamenting the fact that as an independent writer, you are overlooked by most avid readers in lieu of better known already successful ‘big publishing’ cash cows.

Not to sound bitter.

But maybe I’ll try being productive. I have this idea, for “The League of Extraordinary Indie Writers Traveling Bookstore”!

Premise: Most indie writers have little time for self-promotion. We’d rather be writing again than trying to sell the work we just finished. On top of that, we have to maintain jobs!

So, say a writer such as myself were going to set up a booth at some event . . . like the Lions Club Bazaar or Old Timer’s Day in Peebles, Ohio. I’ll be there, so than other members of the League would send me a box or so of their assorted works. Because a writer like myself does not want to fill a booth with only the three titles he’s published.

Their books are given a share of the booth price (something like the cost of 2 cups of coffee, assuming we could manage 10 writers’ worth of books). Their books are then sold, along with the others by the person manning or womaning the booth, who marks them up something agreeable like 5-10%, to cover their time/effort of running the booth.

Books that don’t sell could be sent back or held over to another imminent event, and proceeds sent back. Booth worker would of course have to be responsible for books damaged by mishandling.

Result: Each writer gets to have their works put out there more often and in more venues than they could afford to do themselves. By having more books on display than just a few titles by one author, you draw in more visitors. Even if no books self, it’s marketing for only the cost of 2 cups of coffee. And the booth operator has a little more incentive to take time away from some other aspect of their life, bearing in mind this was an event someone in the league was already wanting to be at.

What do you say? Anyone want to pitch in? Of course, people would have to be able to decline some indie items that were offensive, but we’re writers and so there’s probably a lot more that we could share space than otherwise. Anyone game? I’m looking at the aforementioned Lions Club event, but this could work for any event where books could be sold.

Posted in Uncategorized, Writing Shop Talk | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Wyatt Earp for Messiah

I’ve been reading the Allen Barra book “Inventing Wyatt Earp.” I love Tombstone, so I was glad to read this book and find that most of it was fairly historical–although the events are told out of order to make a tidier story, and of course certain theories put forth as history.

But I found myself dismayed that before the events of Arizona, Wyatt Earp stole a horse (or probably did). Not a recurring event, but it seems it happened once. Wyatt Earp, my sometimes hero, a horse thief? Oh well, he cleaned up. And then I read his other exploits, a lot of them, most of them I suppose, I can . . . stomach. For example, he owned/operated a couple saloons. I’m not opposed to drinking, so what’s the problem? He was also a part-time to full-time gambler . . . well, gambling isn’t against the Torah either . . . per se.

As the accounts progress, I see that while he seems like a “moral” guy in the sense that he upheld the local law (for the most part, even impartially against friends and relatives), and helped fund a church, and was always generous, refusing to be paid back when he helped someone. And certainly was brave and cool-headed, and very loyal.

But, as I read, I find that while he isn’t greedy, most of his problems come about because he’s always looking for the next boom town. He’s very good at making money and predicting where it will flow in abundance. He lives the fast life. Is it wrong to be good at business? Or to make a tidy profit? No, but it does seem to be central to his motivation.

And then, while gambling and drinking aren’t necessarily sins, saloons usually come with prostitution. So then I’m forced to ask: the cowboys were bad because they held life cheap (shooting up towns, having no regard to Mexicans) and they were organized criminals, stealing cattle en masse. They were certainly bad criminals. But Wyatt Earp and his posse were making a lot of money on the misfortune and bad choices of others, plus again probably allowing or even providing for prostitution.

In the eyes of the law, Wyatt and his friends were good because they were doing lawful things (even the prostitution). But so was segregation and slavery in the south. And even in the eyes of the Torah, what they were doing was not as bad (in terms of consequences) as the list of the cowboys crimes, but . . . they were by no means righteous people. Albeit, it seems they wanted to be and probably thought they were based on the curve of the culture they were in.

Is any of this surprising? No. But I thought it was interesting that I wanted Wyatt Earp to be . . . good. And I’m not saying he was thoroughly rotten and corrupt, plenty of “good guys” in the Bible who weren’t sparkly. But I wanted him to be good. Like Yeshua.

And I thought that was interesting, because Allen Barra seems to want the same thing. This makes me think of our collective desire for heroes. Even in modern times, we look at candidates and we want them to be good. We discount the stories against them, and read good motives into actions that could just as easily be explained by corrupt ones. People got so excited over Obama. They wanted him to be great.

Why is this? Even atheists and the irreligious want to find good guys. The grittiest, try to make it sound futile. They say everyone is dirty. There are no good guys. No bad guys. No box. Just people and we shouldn’t hope for anything more. Which of course, leaves you with . . . nothing.

And despite those claims, the world remains full of stories about impossible heroes. People who do something good against impossible odds. We love our Superman, Batman, Captain America, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. Everyone is looking for something better. No matter how hard we tell ourselves, it isn’t out there.

And in that, what I see, is people who are looking for Mashiach. Messiah. In the heart of everyone is the knowledge that there is goodness, and a human being can personify that goodness and righteousness. The world may reject Mashiach (as it has and as it will), but the heart knows that it’s looking for Him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

An Unnecessarily Controversial Blog

A lot of things are happening in todays world. And in that world of flux, I would like to pause and be offensive for a moment:

A man who is so uncomfortable in the gender God gave him that he injects himself with hormones, has himself surgically altered, etc . . . so that he can pass for a woman when under controlled lighting, with makeup, and the help of photoshop (and without a real woman standing next to him) . . . ahem . . . a woman who can’t do anything specifically related to the gender, like have a baby–that man is not brave, he is ill.

And . . .

The Confederate Flag is a racist symbol, and I think it should probably not be flown and should probably be destroyed. Why is it racist? Firstly, I do buy the argument that it is about the struggle of states versus federal power. Why then do I say it’s racist? Because that struggle’s flashpoint was whether or not black people could be held as slaves. I’m not a big history buff, so I’m not sure how many white people were held as slaves, but it wasn’t the vast majority. Most of the laws that I have read specifically mentioned negros, mulattos, and Indians; cases of whites being enslaved include the Irish, but they were vastly minority by the time of the civil war. Plus, in some cases the whites that were enslaved were disguised as black to make it acceptable. Point being slavery was in practice along racial lines, and that was the issue that states were willing to tear the union apart over.

One might argue that to deprive the south of its slave labor overnight would have been economic suicide, so the war was about economics not race. There’s a fair point to that but do you honestly think back that slavery would have held on so long if not for the ability to degrade the other person as being another race? Even with the white Irish slaves, they were Irish! How many cases can you think of a southern black man keeping a black slave? Or a Irishman keeping an Irish slave?

So while state rights are not racist, and is a heritage worth remembering, that particular conflict was at face value, racist, and the confederate flag is the symbol of that particular conflict.

Having said that. I don’t really care to talk about either of those issues. Bruce Jenner’s rapid implosion makes no difference to me. And the people who think he’s some kind of hero, or that he has even become a woman, are obviously beyond the point of dialogue. The confederate flag has a little bit more sense behind it, but even that, you’re dealing with such entrenched cultures that who’s going to listen?

And I keep going back to this phrase, “Yeshua never argued with a Roman.” The point being that Roman practice was so far from what Elohim taught us through Moshe, and Roman and Greek culture was inundating Isra’el, but you never see Yeshua address it. Why not? “Cast not your pearls before swine.” A swine was unkosher not because it didn’t chew cud (mouth problem), but because it’s feet were wrong (the way it walks, it’s deeds, the path it follows). In other words people who live ungodly (like the Roman culture), aren’t in a position to receive righteous truth.

So there is no point to tell a flaming homosexual that his lifestyle is sin. He either knows it in his soul or his conscience is so seared that he can’t receive the rebuke. And without knowing of the mercy loving YHVH, to whom can he or she turn?

So, I wouldn’t talk about either of these issues because you either know the truth and don’t need convincing, or you’re probably too far gone to hear it. Certainly, not in the  context of facebook. Maybe you’d have a chance over a cup of coffee, or some setting where both parties could see the quality of the other person’s life and character.

So why am I talking about this now? Well, shortly after Bruce Jenner claimed to be a woman, I saw an article headline saying “Christians, be careful what you say about Bruce Jenner.” I didn’t read the article because I assumed I knew where it was going, because I felt it myself. “Don’t say this or that because you’ll be lumped with the actual bigots. And cultural Christians who use God’s commandments for their cultural ends.”

But here’s the problem, in that silence we leave our fellow brothers and sisters to think . . . maybe I’m the only one who gets this out of scripture? No one else seems to have a problem with this? The only voices left out there are the ones saying abominable untrue things, and God’s people are left feeling each alone in their convictions.

Truth offends people. Yeshua said we are all sinners in need of the righteousness of faith. That means we are all guilty, Bruce Jenner only being one such person. But that doesn’t lessen anyone’s sin, it just gives reason for compassion. But compassion doesn’t mean denying what sin is. God commended His love to us in that we were still sinners, when Mashiach died for us.

So what I really feel like is that we don’t need to make a campaign out of telling the world that it has specific sins. Maybe we need to tell them sometimes, but I don’t feel like we need an biblical education program aimed at the world. They’re not ignorant of God’s ways, they’re opposed to them. No one comes to the Father except they be called first.

But we need to say offensive things, amongst ourselves. Especially there. The truths the world is not willing to hear, because WE need to hear them. We need to remind each other of the offensive truths in scripture just as much as we need to remind each other of the hope-filling promises!

So, let us not be left silent. Don’t let the brother to your left and right think you’re agreeing with silence to the things that are intolerable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Rebuilding the Family Infra-Structure

[Update: "Evangeline" is finally available on Smashwords. Lulu will launch shortly for both paperback and hardback, but I'm making adjustments after receiving proofs. Amazon will also come online shortly.]

Usually when someone, who might be mistaken for a conservative, talks about rebuilding the family, that means Dad being in the picture, sitting down for dinner together, devotions and praying together. All those are good, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

We’ve been rebooting the farm that used to operate at our family residence. The farm fell prey to being too small for commercial viability and not being a part of the vision of more recent generations. But it’s a long slow crawl to get it back to operational, mostly we manage just to maintain it as a residence, with a few successful skirmishes against encroaching wilderness.

And I ask myself, why is this so hard? It’s very disheartening because working out of the home I don’t have nearly enough time to invest in improvements, and I don’t have the cash to pay others for it. But running a farm is the oldest occupation. It is associated with the peasant, how can it be so hard for a person with the modern conveniences and conveyances?

And I think those modern trappings may be related to the problem. I tread carefully—as I write from a laptop powered by electricity—not to say that technology is the problem, because that would be missing the point. Here’s my theory:

1) People invent machines to make their life easier and to free up time for things they want to do.

2) Things they want to do, tend to be leisure activities rather than investments in their home infrastructure.

3) The home becomes entertaining but not a source of productivity. It’s a place to relax, but the family doesn’t profit by it. In fact, if the home is not producing by family labor than family is only a consumer of the home-stores. Which means the home actually serves its ‘function’ when there is less work to do. Work (and the human beings who make work) becomes foreign, something to avoid at home.

4) The family then builds a lifestyle around hobbies and diversion rather than profitable work.

This sounds harsh, but I’m not saying this as if this doesn’t plague me and my family. I’m just observing that home has ceased to be a place where families work together towards a shared vision. Your career is where you work and earn; your home is where you spend/consume.

5) Against this trend is that YHVH made man and woman in His Image, as workers. Man was meant to shape his environment, to trade chaos for order—just as YHVH did when He divided light from darkness, earth from sea, kind from kind. So when children grow up as little consumers in a home while being bridled with “Mom and Dad’s rules”, home becomes a place of frustration and the children seek their own place where they can shape.

I’ve talked about this before: training our children to leave, because they have no share in the vision for the life and wealth already created by their parents.

So when we rebel from this system we find ourselves on a farm trying to do work that was meant for a family. See. I have so little time because even when I’m home, I have to take care of my wife taking care of the baby. Don’t get me wrong, I love that and I’m committed to it, but I simply can’t do everything.

What if Alisa’s parents or my parents were here? Then since they are older, wouldn’t they be a natural fit to do more in the house, less labor intensive work, while I use the strength of my youth? Alisa then would be better able to care for the baby because she’s not watching the house fall apart around her.

In time our children will be able to add their labor to ours because they know the house/land is theirs and that we are just the current managers. If my son was tending the animals, I could get to digging or planting, or whatever, earlier in the day. If our daughter was old enough to help with chores then her mother could spend more time on projects that improve the home or perhaps create revenue that comes out of the home.

Now imagine if a brother or sister lived on the same parcel. It’s unlikely that we’d all be in the same stages of life so when one family is extra burdened another could help. Isn’t that what Ecclesiastes says?

Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” Ecc 4:9-12

I’m not saying technology or luxury is bad, but I’m saying instead of using it to maximize our work and our rest together, we’ve used it so we can do without each other. Thus we have created lifestyles apart, and that has made us all dependent on the machine and the system instead of on each other.

Of course, none of this works without YHVH at the center of the family holding it together, but we must walk with Him. We have to stop thinking of family members as some kind of guests that arrived by birth. I guess the bottom line is that home needs to be a place governed by a shared vision. A place where we need each other for work and help, not a place where we are just consuming. I mean think about the first family.

What did YHVH give man, first? Not a woman. A job!

Then why did YHVH give a woman? To help the man. With what? The job!

What binds a family together is not ‘affection’ or emotion of love, or liking each other, or even shared interest. It is shared work and need that binds us together.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

How do you do Community: The Hoped For Gathering

“How do you do community?” Asked a sister to me recently; she’d been burned by more than one ‘community’ when she didn’t live up to their local standard of holiness.

She asked me because for the last year or so, I’ve been preaching community and kingdom and nationhood to every follower of Messiah who will listen, because we don’t get it!

The above statement originally contained an expletive because I frankly felt it called for it, and I dialed it back for my reading audience, but make no mistake that that is what I meant. All the talk of ‘community’ churches, and being ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ and how we have ‘our’ Father in Heaven, but most self-proclaimed followers are still too busy with being Americans, Liberals, Republicans, Baptists, seeker-friendly, and a thousand other made up, market friendly, human-label garbage to actually live like there really is one body, one faith, one Father of all! What have most us changed in our actual day-to-day life that says my fellow disciple is closer to me than my co-worker?

Anyway. She asked me. And a little later, I sat down to write a blog on how to do it. And I quickly remembered why I don’t believe in one, two, five, ten, or any-number-of-step-programs. We’re locked into this mechanical way of thinking, where if I do (A) then I can do (B) and suddenly, despite free-will and a universe of things beyond my control, (C) will be the result. Oh, golly gee!

The fact is there is no road map to community. Effective, living, actual community.

But I believe there is a road. A meandering path, that you can see under your feet and again where it comes up the hill on the other side of the dark forest, but the middle is kind of sketchy. But if you stay on that path it will get you there. It’s the belief that YHVH didn’t give us a calling and then deny us the power to achieve it. The paradoxical belief that yes, we need the return of Mashiach to bring in the fullness of the Kingdom, but also realize we are being conformed into the image of the Mashiach every day by the Ruach HaKodesh–which means Mashiach is here! Do not deny the power of godliness.

So on this sketchy path, I present to you a turn called: Mikveh.

Mikveh is a ritual immersion practiced by Jews, as part of family purity taught in the Torah. It is primarily seen as a ritual of spiritual breaking from something previous, but it is also hygienic. A common example being that YHVH teaches us to abstain from sexual relations during the seven days of a woman’s period (Lev 15), and at the end for her to wash herself. Now the Torah rarely uses the actual word Mikveh, but it does use the term in Vayikra/Leviticus 11:36 to describe a gathering of water large enough that it is not rendered unclean (as smaller sources are) by having a dead mouse in it. Perhaps, this is where the tradition comes from because how could unclean or possibly unclean water be part of purifying someone from uncleanness? So a mikveh would be a source of water that was known to be clean.

How big is a mikveh? Traditionally it is a body of water 200 gallons, minimum. Tradition also stipulates that it be living water, which has to do with being fed from nature, naturally. Ie., gravity fed. This makes sense because the first mikveh in scripture is actually the sea (B’resheet/Genesis 1:10). Later it is used also of ponds in Egypt. Both of which are obviously rain and river, gravity fed, and probably more than 200 gallons.

I don’t want to get lost on the details. Even if the traditional definition of Mikveh is not itself the mitzvah, the idea of washing is abundantly so. One should wash after touching a dead body, after having sex, after an abnormal bodily discharge, etc. Paul Copan made a very interesting observation that all uncleanness seemed to stem from a connection with death. Semen for example, once discharged dies. Blood when it has left the body during menstration surrounds the death of an egg. Dead bodies are obviously, dead. So all uncleanness has to do with a nearness of death. Kedushah (separateness) around the idea of things dead or dying reflects the fact that we worship the source of life, unlike the world which worships death.

But what does this have to do with community?

Imagine for a moment, that you are Isra’el (which you are if you claim Yeshua as your Master). And you’ve just come out of Egypt. Tell me . . .  Where are the bathrooms? Did Isra’el, with more than a million people, stop at truck stops along the wilderness to bathe? Whatever you think of mikveh as a mitzvah, clearly it would have been the only option. They could not shower, and they certainly didn’t drag a million bathtubs. Clearly, the natural ponds, rivers, seashore were their mikvehs. Now do you suppose, that they had shifts? That the erected tents? Even if they did, they were certainly not individual. Even the idea of gender segregation seems highly unlikely.

The nearly inevitable conclusion is that Torah keeping Isra’el, would have had plenty of seeing each other in their all-togethers. Public bathing would have been a fact of life. As I read scripture, in fact, Aharon and his sons would have bathed semi-publically in the laver between the altar and the tabernacle (Shemot/Exodus 40:12) before they put on their kadosh garments. And this didn’t end there, because Judaism has practiced to this day that the mikveh immersion is practiced both in the nude and with an attendant to declare the immersion kosher (complete submergence). Understanding this, adds an interesting insight into what baptism is supposed to be:

  • In the mikveh understanding being nude, nothing comes through the mikveh: in modern baptism (because originally there was no difference), a person comes through in the clothes from their old life.
  • If a particular immersion is a symbol of death, then in the mikveh we see a person putting themselves to death, like their Mashiach who died willingly, “no man takes my life from me. I lay it down, and I will take it up again.” In baptism, it is an act carried out by another.

But still, what does this have to do with community?

In the traditional mikveh, with an attendant as Yochanon was (notice that no one was surprised at some guy in the desert inviting people to get in the buff and immerse in water?), then we see that mikveh is not an individual act. Could someone mikveh in private? Sure, but the example of Yeshua himself is mikveh with someone else present. Further back to the origin we have Aharon being washed by his brother Moshe. We have the whole people of Israel mikvehing together for 40 years in the wilderness, and coming out of Egypt through a mikveh of the Red Sea.

Mikveh is community oriented. Now, I’m going to speculate a little bit on the why. After all—aside from being impractical—couldn’t YHVH have said, everyone get a bucket and a towel and take care of this in private?

  1. Community mikveh promotes interest in each other’s lives. Suppose someone is sick and trying to hide it? An attendant would be able to see some signs of illness. If it was contagious, they might report it to someone like the elders to prevent the spread. Or suppose there was someone in the congregation—YHVH forbid—who was being abused by a spouse or even parent? It would be hard to hide if mikveh’s were at least once a month for a woman (and more often if someone was sexually active). It could even suggest marital trouble, because how is it that this married woman is not coming to mikveh?
  2. Community mikveh promotes brotherhood. When we all walk around in our clothes, some of us dress better (and more expensive) than others. It’s not hard to see that someone who dresses in a suit looks more respectable, and—if we’re honest—what that means is they look like a better person. Perhaps, even worth more. But a mikveh reminds us, this person still gets dirty like us. They still feel the pull of death (uncleanness). And honestly, under their clothes they look just like us.
  3. Community mikveh promotes compassion. Many of us joke about how ‘nobody wants to see this’ speaking of ourselves. We suggest that deep down we think our bodies are unworthy. Clothing lets us hide the fact that we think God somehow made something ugly when he made us. Instead of something fearful and wonderful. Someone or some group serving as attendants/witnesses, then has the blessing of telling another person they are ‘kosher, kosher, kosher’. It gives us an opportunity to tell each other that we are at our core beautiful and wonderful.

Together, and the last one especially, all point to a practice of saying, one to another that we are in this together. Will this magically solve community problems? As I said from the beginning, no! Is it still possible to reject someone who you’ve ritually bathed with? Sure. And just because we’ve done this, should we then turn a blind eye to sin in the community? No, the book of Acts is clear that there are at least four things for which we should break all fellowship (blood or violence, things strangled, fornication, and idolatry). But if we’re rejecting for other things, possible the sin isn’t with the rejected but the rejector.

But what this does is practice or rehearse thinking like we’re a community. What made me think of this connection, was when I asked myself why do congregations of people who want to obey Elohim, and take his word and even his Torah seriously, fall apart as communities? And I think it’s because we never learn to like each other. And why not? Because the people who are most concerned with holiness are also the people most likely to find fault with you. Which means to be part of their ‘community’ you are tempted to put on a face. And that means pretending to be something you’re not and never really relaxing with them. And how much you want to bet the person across from you is doing the same? Trying not to be the first to show their struggle. So we have a group of people who want to be a community without ever actually getting to know real people. We pretend that we’re not entertained by some things like TV because they might think we’re godless. We never talk about hobbies unless we can slip a scripture in, because that’s what they’ll expect.

The bottom line is that we never feel comfortable enough to let someone else see us in our pajamas. Let alone our underwear. Let alone without even that.

Is it a coincidence that I’ve never found even one of these communities with a practice of mikveh? Is it a coincidence that the word Mikveh is translated as “coming together”, but also contains the meaning of something hoped for?

Meanwhile, the Jews who practice mikveh (albeit much less public), are adamantly adhered to each other as a people. However much they may dislike and argue with one another, they have an almost universal belief that they all remain Jews (unless a Jew ‘converts’ to Christianity).

It seems undeniably obvious that the group that is willing to see the real you (naked in Hebrew has the pictograph of seeing the real you), will hold community much better than the group that pretends they are something they are not. Mikveh is the practice of familiarity with each other as we really are, and I think perhaps that’s what’s missing from modern attempts at community. We come together and we think we can be together because we share the same rules (I say that crudely since Torah is about love, not rules). But YHVH didn’t give Torah to a bunch of scattered individuals and say ‘get together.’ He gave Torah to a people. We have to cultivate our sense of each other as a family and a people, and I think mikvehs may help.


[Pardon the formatting. I was running behind and Word inserted some formatting changes.]

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

DIY guide to DIY guides

I think every father goes through a period—or they should—of assessing the things they want to teach their children. Further, if a son imitates the father, then the one who teaches is the father.

But does the ‘train up a child in the way that he should go’, only pertain to the spiritual?

I think not, so I’ve been working on a list of things I want my children to know that I didn’t know growing up. Something like:

  • How to work on a car and other machines
  • How to use a gun
  • Martial arts
  • Torah consistent economics
  • How to maintain toolsOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
  • How grow a garden
  • How to forage off the land
  • How to hunt/trap/fish and dress
  • How to weld and machine
  • How to navigate and survive in the wild
  • How to navigate in and survive ‘civilization’
  • Tactical training
  • How to build a house

A handful of basics with many left out. A difficulty arises in that many of those items are not skills that I possess. I could and would try to ‘enroll’ my child with others in the community of God’s people who know what I lack—yet, it seems kind of shameful for my child to know some skill that I don’t.

Plus a lot of those skills have to do with developing one’s own capabilities. I want my children not to just be able to do something they know, but be able to operate in a situation where they don’t know what to do. To be able to look at something unfamiliar and be confident enough to take it a part and see how it works and what might need fixing. To be able extrapolate knowledge from their surroundings that they have not been taught.

Which again leads back to: Dad (and Mom) need to be modeling learning by analysis and practice. We need to be what we want our children to be.

So to help with this whole curriculum, I offer something that we’ve been working on here.

If you’re reading this you’ve probably got access to a computer. And probably a camera (because everyone has one of those on their phone now). I stumbled across Basically they had repair manuals made by ordinary people. All they did was take a picture, write the steps they took, and repeat. It’s great because its written at an everyday man level rather than an engineer’s.

Well, we’ve been applying that in our home. For example, when we take a walk and we see an edible plant that we’ve identified from a book. We take pictures, OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAbecause the guides simply don’t always have the perspective we’re looking for. Where exactly on the plant do I find this shape? What does it mean ‘irregular leaves’? Because we’re paying attention only to the plants on our property or immediate area, I don’t have to include superfluous material and can include more details. Like where exact location from the house. Want onion grass? It’s between the big barn and the house, by the cherry tree. Want black raspberries? Oh that’s up by the old house toward the goat pasture. Then we take these notes, type them up with pictures, and compile them into our own book of home knowledge.

Or another example, I cannot find a repair manual for my mower. Seriously, I believe most manufacturers (at least the big ones) are driving for when your machine breaks that you simply buy another one. I know that’s no leap, but it’s all the more reason to be careful who you do business with. Every time we buy these disposable machines we encourage them to make more of them.

So, fortunately I am blessed with a small amount of mechanical knowledge and a large amount of confidence that I can figure it out.

That can be good or bad.

But really most things in life do not a take a Ph.D to figure out. Especially since we have things called ‘encyclopedias’ which explain the basic principles. So the other day, I had to extract the rotor bolt, which had snapped. So I take a picture, explain what I’m seeing, how I got there, and go a step further.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAThere will be mistakes. I took off a few things that didn’t need to come off (but we easily put back on), and in the end I had to enlist more experienced help. And I also had enough knowledge to know that I shouldn’t break any seals until I had no other alternative.

[FYI: The reason you should not break a seal or gasket is because it maintains a closed environment. It’s like in one of those epidemic movies, when a character breaks the seal on a mask. Is it possible to break the seal without infection? Yes, but the plot never chooses the best possible scenario.

If you have to break the seal, you should be planning on cleaning the inside and replacing the seal with a new one. Nothing wrong with that; it’s just more work.]

So again. I take the pictures and the notes and compile into a ‘guide’ that goes on a shelf.

The whole point of this is to collect knowledge I don’t have and to save it in a way that will be useful to my children. Sure a lot of this stuff is available online, but what about when you can’t get online? It seems like a useful way to me to gain new knowledge and format it in a way that is readily accessible and recorded for the family.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Allowance vs. Wages vs. Shareholding

[In other news: the wife and I welcomed a new baby girl today! We don't have a name, but we're sure that will come . . . not that I'm going to post it here. Sorry.]

Now, this is academic for some of us, but academic always turns into practice, eventually. So the subject is, what kind of ‘compensation’ do you give to your children growing up, for various ‘chores’? Do you pay them at all? After all, you provide for all their needs, and its their duty to obey.

To that last part: I think all fathering needs to be modeled after, our heavenly Father. How does The Father treat His children? For example, as much as I believe in the value of discipline, I disagree with the idea that you have to punish every act of disobedience. God doesn’t do that, does He? No, He gives space to repent.

In the case of ‘compensation’, aren’t we duty bound to obey the Judge of all the Earth? Yes. Yet doesn’t He reward us despite it being our obligation, and that, beyond what we deserve? Again, yes.

Then we likewise; what form should ours take toward our children?

Allowance: Classic idea. Child is given a set sum on a ‘certain’ schedule. It seems better than Dad/Mom ‘just giving’ cash when the kid asks/begs/whines for it, and it teaches budgeting, so long as you don’t give advances.

On the downside, it can come across as an entitlement. Sometimes people withhold as a punishment for something like property damage, but otherwise it doesn’t seem tied to actual work.

Wages: I’ve been fond of this. You don’t “get” an allowance because you’re alive, you get “wages” for services rendered to the family. So wages increase or decrease based on work.

Downside, academically, while fair this sets up a business relationship with the family. Since you’re providing room and board, how much work do they have to do before you actually have to pay? And since Mom and Dad aren’t banks, can they really afford to pay for all the ‘extra’ work the child may be willing to do? If not, why should the child keep working?

Shareholding: My latest evolution/innovation in theoretical child rearing. I think the previous two systems, while have plusses, creating a me vs. them dynamic in the family. It incentivizes leaving the family for gain, and finding ways to ‘shield assets’ from the parent, because it’s their wealth vs. mine.

But if I believe in inheritance. Then I should be training my child with the understanding that one day everything I have will be theirs. Not like a lotto ticket, but wealth for a purpose, to build upon as I have built upon what was handed to me. If so then the child becomes a shareholder in the family’s ongoing success. Theoretically, then they shouldn’t be viewing the family is how do I get paid out of their assets, but how do I improve the value of our stock.

But wouldn’t that mean, the parent should withhold any payment to the child since they’ll get it all later? Again, look to The Father. Does The Father, own everything? Yes. But does He give to us? Yes. Why? So that we can practice using wisely.

There’s a saying that has stuck with me ever since I heard it:

“The poor see money as something to spend.” That means they look to instant gratification.

“The middle class see money as something to save.” That means they look at money as something to store up as protection against future calamity.

“The wealthy see as something to invest.” That means they view it as something to employ now, for future gain.

The way we compensate our children should be part of training them away from that first way of thinking to the last. Spending becomes a way to practice governance over a small kingdom. Sometimes, it is good to spend on ’festivities’ for your kingdom; other times for roads and walls, etc. We need to be using allowance or whatever you want to call it as a training tool rather than a handout intended to be wasted (even if saved before wasted). To teach that the purpose of the asset is a future goal that serves the family and the kingdom.

Ultimately then, shareholding wouldn’t restrict compensation because the end goal is everything being given to the son/sons/daughter/daughters. Instead it becomes a way to manage the transition of power to a generation trained to receive it. Which is all perfectly biblical. To the servant who is faithful with a little, more will be given. “Son, you did well with that bike you purchased. You bought it carefully. You maintained it properly. Here’s a car. It comes out of the family’s assets, so take care of it. If you take care of it, we can put together for a better one or an addition to the house, or an expansion of the property, etc.,”

This way, the child becomes more and more responsible, trusted with more and more, and therefore freer. The child doesn’t have to go get a place of his own to “get out from under” his father’s roof, because the father is trusting everything over to the son. This might also be a way to avoid inheritance tax. Say gifting property over to the children 13k at a time.

That’s all. I gotta get back to taking care of this little girl. Thoughts?

Posted in Family life | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off

The Offensive Brother

You’re not long in the family before you notice a brother or sister that tells it like it is and if they happen to offend you, it’s because you can’t handle the truth. And don’t you know, God doesn’t pull punches because of your feelings, either?

You wince when they open their mouth. As sure as hip young people have to have a smart phone made by child laborers in the heaviest polluting countries of the world, their topic of choice will be high on polarizing and low on sensitivity.

Homosexuality is an abomination? Yeah, that’s what we should talk about.

Abortion is murder? That will go well with a fellowship meal after worship.

Obama isn’t a Christian? That’s better that talking about some kid’s softball game.

You suck it up until you or someone else finally calls them on the carpet. Why do you always choose the most offensive topics? What does this have to do with what we’re talking about? How does this help us worship, right now?

And to relieve that wincing discomfort, you want to join in, but . . .

What exactly are you attacking? Are they saying anything false? Even if we accept that some—some—abortion might be in self-defense, we’re talking percentages so low that your swallowing the camel as you strain for the fly. Is homosexuality an abomination? Yes, that’s God’s word, not mine. Of course He also calls eating pig and sleeping with a woman on her period an abomination. That doesn’t downgrade ‘abomination’, its just a warning that hypocrisy might be in the air.

Is Obama a Christian? Well the evidence that he is seems to be on par with the case that Robert Downey Jr. is actually a genius with a super-powered suit, whose friends include a green monster and a blond god with a glowing hammer. 

But truth isn’t everythin! What about speaking in love!?!?

I get that, but Yeshua isn’t the pasty nice guy from all the pictures. Or did you forget He called a woman a dog?

Yes, but He didn’t really mean it. He was making a point.

So . . . then offense is okay to make a point. Did He call his own disciples foolish and slow of heart?

Yes, but . . .

So, then perfect love can sometimes be insulting and critical, true?

Well . . .

Did Elijah make fun of the priests of false gods?

Yes, but . . .

So mockery is okay for a guy ‘good enough’ to get taken to Heaven without dying.

Yes, but the pattern? Doesn’t this show someone’s heart is in the wrong place, that they keep being offensive?

Oh, good. We’ve moved into the well worn area of judging someone heart. I’m only being half-sarcastic. Despite what is commonly taught we are supposed to judge one another’s heart. How can you rebuke sin in your brother, if you can’t discern where their heart? What is the difference between inordinate affection and brotherly affection, without the heart? The difference between cursing and warning? The difference between striking in anger and accidentally striking, without a conclusion on motive?

But to discern righteously, something that cannot be seen, you must rely more on something that cannot be seen, so you must be more careful and more prayerful.. It requires a knowing of the person, listening to the person. The mere fact that someone does something offensive to see the shape of the heart.

Righteous judgment forces a brother to ask really hard questions and not judge from the surface. Is my brother saying something untrue or unloving? Or am I offended out of envy because they are brave and I, a man-pleaser?

Not only can’t I condemn because of offense, I have to admit that sometimes the right course is offensive, apparently foolish and often futile. God deliberately sent prophets knowing their fate would be terrible on Earth because of His message, and that that message would be ignored. So how can I condemn simply because he makes me uncomfortable?

I can question his heart. I can confront him, challenge whether this is for God or out of some bitterness or frustration in his life, but I have to tread very carefully before I ask him to keep silent.

Understand this isn’t the practice of gritted teeth. It’s active; I have to push back. “Brother, I understand you have a message to deliver. I’m not hear to silence you or work against whatever work God has for you, but we also have a work, and here we’re trying to worship God and give Him praise. Does it help you, to focus on how good God is, when you’re preaching about how evil the world is? We already know that, and we see it day by day, but this is Shabbat, can we leave that aside for a couple of hours and have a time of rest and refreshment? Can we look at God’s goodness for awhile and not the abomination of those who don’t know him?”

You’re actually helping the brother to speak what they are called to speak, but also asking them to help you with your work. How many times was Yeshua offended by His disciples, and yet, did He tell them to shut up and sit down? Or did He push back? “Get thee behind me, Satan.” “You know not of what spirit you are.”

Distinguish between what YHVH teaches is sin, and what simply makes you uncomfortable.   

Posted in faith | Comments Off

The Law and the Prophets were until John…?

“Luk 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. “ 

This verse has been used to tell me that Torah is past. Of course, I wrote a book on why that is impossible. But that leaves me with a proper question, “Then what does this mean?”

This verse is preceded by the parable of the unjust steward: a manager is about to get fired, so he goes and rewrites all the bills so that all the debtors to his master owe less so that when he loses his job he’ll be taken care of. It’s the type of story that makes you cringe: what could the Master be saying? Fortunately, Yeshua clarifies that the point is that the worldly people are at least smart in that they make friends with money. Unfortunately, the godly can be so tight with their money that they never make any friends with it. He says use it to gain something of real value. And then resummarizes: you cannot serve God and mammon. Then comes:

Luk 16:14  And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

:15  And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

So answer this question, bearing in mind the hearers are covetous (which is against Torah), have men highly esteemed the Torah and the prophets?

Let’s see: Torah was habitually broken—that’s why the Messiah is there in first place. Messiah is the embodiment of the Torah (Matthew 5:17) and He’s about to be killed. Just like all of the prophets (Acts 7:52). What about the kingdom of God?

At first it seems the opposite, that unlike Torah, the Kingdom is desired. What did they cry when Yeshua arrived the week of Pesach? Hoshiana (save, now!) it was a call for the kingdom to come right now. In Luke 19:11, the disciples believe (hope) the Kingdom is about to appear! After the resurrection Act 1:6 has them asking, is it now? Are you going to restore the kingdom?

So certainly, they seem to want it. But God doesn’t find His own kingdom abominable so how can men actually esteem it? Let me ask you this. Can you desire a kingdom, without it’s king? How can Messiah be rejected and yet His Kingdom be desired? And for that matter, has God just had a marketing problem all these centuries? The Torah was a flop, but if only He’d mentioned the kingdom, everyone would have become His disciple?

I think there is a clue in verse sixteen: “every man presseth into it.” The word presseth has to do with violence. When you take it back to the Hebrew you get equivalents like perek (meaning breaking or severity or cruelty). Now, what kind of person tries to take a kingdom by force? With breaking and cruelty? An usurper does. One who wants the kingdom, but doesn’t want the king. Do they really esteem the kingdom then? Or do they covet what belongs to the king? For that matter how does one ‘press’ into something when it has a door? If Yeshua is the door, why are they pressing? Because the door is too small, too narrow. The door is not accommodating to the way they want to come in.

Rather than this ‘pressing’ being a good thing that says they want the kingdom, I think in the context of these covetous Pharisees, who justify themselves, that Yeshua is describing a pillager. Which makes sense because in the next verse He doesn’t say something stereotypically gospel (more properly, the Glad Tidings), instead He reassert how difficult it is for Torah to go away. “Men don’t esteem what God does. They reject His Torah and try to take His Kingdom by force, but it’s easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away then for even the Torah to go away.” To reinforce that by clarifying the Spirit of Torah and divorce. Which is still about the subject of covetousness as is the Account of Lazarus. So the subject has nothing to do with a breaking of Torah and everything about holding on to what you should give and trying to take what belongs to someone else.

But this still begs the question, what does this phrase about Torah and Prophets being until John mean? What is this “until”? Because certainly it does mean there is some kind of transition or reorientation? We know the Torah is not done away with. We also know that the Brit Chadasha (Renewed Covenant scriptures) refers to prophets, not the least of which was the Emissary Yochanon who gave us the book of Revelation. Rav Shaul (Paul) also tells us about gifts of prophecy and prophets. We’re even told that the Spirit of Yeshua is the Spirit of Prophecy; how then could the prophets, be done?

Two options occur to me, both are based upon the fact that phrase ”law and prophets” was an idiom for the scriptures. The word Tanahk (what are called the Hebrew scriptures) is an acronym for Torah-Neviim-Ketuvim (Law-Prophets-Writings). Yeshua acknowledged this three-fold division of scripture in Luke 24:44. But it was also referred to in a contracted form as the Torah and the Neviim (Law & Prophets), which is referred to in Acts 13:15.

So is Yeshua saying then that the Tanahk is closed? If the Tanahk is closed, and that is the only scripture in existence then is Yeshua saying that the “canon” is closed? That there is no more scripture? That does seem to be a possibility. The rest then, of what we have considered scripture then would simply be very good commentary. There are many books that are referred to in the ‘canon’ but are not part of the canon. That could certainly explain how the vast majority of the scripture quotes in the Epistles are in fact from the Tanahk. However, Kefa at least considered Rav Shaul’s letters to be scriptural (2 Peter 3:15-16).

But there is a more troubling and obvious problem. The words of Yeshua would themselves, not be canonical! One might argue, that’s really okay too because the words of Yeshua are the words of YHVH, and we already have the Torah right? 

But still. He’s the Mashiach?!? How can His words not be part of the Canon?

Perhaps, there’s another possibility . . .

Notice in the Luke 24 quote, Yeshua divided the canon into the three-fold manifestation of the Tanahk, but in the Luke 16 quote, He only says two divisions? What if He’s not saying the canon is closed, but only the sections known as Torah and Prophets. What would that mean? Well, what did Torah teach us? Everything that we needed to know about the standard of right living and who the Mashiach would be. And the Prophets? They told us how the Torah would play out, and finally accomplish its goal through Mashiach.

But Meshiach has come! And He established and embodied Torah, so why would we need any more Torah? I mean additions. Do we need a ‘new commandment’? Of course not. Everything that Yeshua taught was already in the Torah, but we viewed it as through a veil. Now, in Mashiach, the veil is lifted. And what did the Prophets tell us of? The days of Mashiach!

In other words, we didn’t need any clearer picture of what righteousness is. Nor do we need a clearer picture of Mashiach. Now read the the second part of Luke 16:16. “…since that time the kingdom of God is preached…” Not that the Kingdom of Elohim is “in effect” but that it is preached.

What we’re talking about is a shift in proclamation. Nothing more needs to be ‘added’ to the instruction portion, rather now it is appropriate to be proclaiming that everything the Torah and Prophets said is coming to pass. The Kingdom of Elohim is at hand! Notice that’s what Yochanon preached, while at the same time upholding Torah and being one of the Prophets. He’s not saying the Torah is done, He’s just saying its complete. Now we need to proclaim that the long awaited and described salvation, has come!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off