Thursday, October 30, 2014

This Just In:
The Pillars of Hell Are Shaking

(Samson visiting the Dagon Temple)
"Do you know about the prophet, Joseph?" Thomas inquired.
"yes, he's one of my favorites; he's the dreamer." the man replied.
"Have you had any dreams of significance?" Thomas asked the son.
"No, but my mother has. . ."
His mother excitedly broke in: "Ever since he was a child I've had dreams of a man in glowing white hugging my son. In the last dream he was crying, and his tears were coming down his beard and on to my son's head. I have such a warmth for this prophet," she continued. "I know he is a prophet."
" I know who that person is in your dream," Thomas said with assurance.
The woman's eyes widened with intense interest. "Who is it?"
"It is Jesus."

More

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Shaking The Pillars Of Hell



In the dense rain-forests of Ecuador, on the Pacific side of the Andes Mountains, lives a tribe of Indians who call themselves the Huaorani ("people" in their language, Huao), but whose neighbors have called them the Aucas ("savages" in Quechua). For many generations they have been completely isolated from the outside world, disposed to kill any stranger on sight, and feared even by their head-hunting neighbors, the Jivaro tribe.

In 1955, four missionaries from the United States who were working with the Quechas, Jivaros, and other Indians of the interior of Ecuador became persuaded that they were being called to preach the Gospel to the Huaorani as well.

Nate Saint was 32 years old (born 1923), and devoted to flying. He had taken flying lessons in high school and served in the U.S. Air Force in WWII. After the war, he enrolled in Wheaton College to prepare for foreign mission work but dropped out to join the Missionary Aviation Fellowship. With his wife, Marjorie Farris, he established a base at Shell Mera (an abandoned oil exploration camp in Ecuador) in September 1948, and flew short hops to keep missionaries supplied with medicines, mail, etc. Once his plane crashed, but a few weeks later he returned to work in a cast from his neck to his thighs.

The other three, Ed McCully, Jim Elliot, and Peter Fleming, all Plymouth Brethren, came to Ecuador in 1952 to work for CMML (Christian Missions in Many Lands).

Ed McCully was 28 years old (born 1927). He had been a football and track star at Wheaton College and president of his senior class. After Wheaton, he enrolled at Marquette to study law, but dropped out to go to Ecuador. He and his wife, Marilou Hobolth, worked with the Quechuas at Arajuno, a base near the Huaorani. Half a dozen Quechuas had been killed at the base by Huaorani in the previous year.

Jim Elliot was 28 years old (born 1927) and an honors graduate of Wheaton College, where he had been a debater, public speaker, and champion wrestler. In Ecuador, he married Elisabeth Howard. They did paramedic work, tending broken arms, malaria, snakebite. They taught sanitation, wrote books in Quechua, and taught literacy.

Peter Fleming was 27 years old (born 1928), from the University of Washington, an honor student, and a linguist. With his wife, Olive Ainslie, he ran a literacy program among the Quechuas.

Nate and Ed found a Huaorani settlement from the air in late September 1955. Nate made four more flights on Thursday, 29 September, and found a settlement only fifteen minutes from their station. They told Jim and Pete, and the four planned their strategy.

They would keep the project secret from everyone but their wives, to avoid being joined by adventurers and the press, with the chance that someone not dedicated to the mission would start shooting at the first sign of real or imagined danger, and destroy the project.

They had one language resource, a Huaorani girl, Dayuma, who had fled from her tribe years earlier after her family was killed in a dispute. Dayuma, who spoke both Huao and Quechua, was now living with Nate's sister Rachel. From her the missionaries learned enough of the language to get started.

They would fly over the village every Thursday and drop gifts as a means of making contact and establishing a friendly relationship. Eventually they would try for closer contact. Nate had discovered that, if he lowered a bucket on a line from the plane, and flew in tight circles, the bucket remained almost stationary, and could be used to lower objects to the ground. He had devised a mechanism to release the bucket when it touched down.

On Thursday, 6 October, one week after locating the village, they dropped an aluminum kettle into an apparently deserted village. On the next flight, several Huaorani were waiting, and the missionaries dropped a machete. On the third flight, they dropped another machete to a considerably larger crowd. Beginning with the fourth flight, they used a loudspeaker system to call out friendly messages in Huao.

Soon the Huaorani were responding with gifts of their own tied to the line: a woven headband, carved wooden combs, two live parrots, cooked fish, parcels of peanuts, a piece of smoked monkey tail.... They cleared a space near their village and built platforms to make the exchanges easier.

After three months of air-to-ground contact, during which they made far more progress than they had hoped, the missionaries decided that it was time for ground contact. They feared that they could not keep their activities secret much longer, and that delay risked a hostile encounter between the Huaorani and some third party.

They decided that the expedition needed a fifth man, so they brought in Roger Youderian, a 31-year-old (born 1924) former paratrooper who had fought in the Battle of the Bulge (a major German offensive in Belgium in the last stages of WWII) and had been in General Eisenhower's honor guard. Roger and his wife, Barbara Orton, were working with the Jivaros, and Roger was thoroughly at home in the jungle, accustomed to living like the Jivaros and blessed with acute survival instincts.

They located a beach that would serve as a landing strip, about four miles from the village, and decided to go in on Tuesday, 3 January 1956. After some discussion, they decided to carry guns, having heard that the Huaorani never attacked anyone who was carrying a gun, and having resolved that they would, as a last resort, fire the guns into the air to ward off an attack, but would shoot no one, even to save their own lives.

On Tuesday they flew in and made camp, then flew over the village to invite the Huaorani to visit them. The first visitors showed up on Friday: a man, a woman, and a teen-aged girl. They stayed for several hours in apparent friendliness, then left abruptly. On Saturday, no one showed, and when the plane flew over the village, the Huaorani seemed frightened at first, but lost their fright when presents were dropped. On Sunday afternoon, 8 January 1956, at about 3 PM, all five missionaries were speared to death at their camp. A search party the next day found no signs of a struggle, and the lookout who was to be stationed in a tree-house overlooking the camp at ground level had come down, so it appeared that the meeting had originally seemed friendly, and that the attack had been a surprise. Ed McCully's body was seen and identified, but was swept away by the river and not recovered. The other four, at the request of their wives, were buried at the site of the camp where they had died. Besides their wives, they left behind a total of nine children.

The effort to reach the Huaorani was not abandoned but rather intensified. Within three weeks, Johnny Keenan, another pilot of the Ecuador Mission, was continuing the flights over the Huaorani village. More than twenty fliers from the United States promptly applied to take Nate's place. More than 1000 college students volunteered for foreign missions in direct response to the story of the Five Martyrs. In Ecuador, Indian attendance at mission schools and church services reached record levels, and the number of conversions skyrocketed. A Jivaro undertook to go at once to another Jivaro tribe that had been at war with his own tribe for years, bearing the Christian message, and his visit brought peace between the two tribes. Truly, as Tertullian said 1800 years ago, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

In less than three years, Rachel Saint (sister of Nate Saint) and Elisabeth Elliot (widow of Jim Elliot) had not only renewed contact but had established permanent residence in a Huaorani settlement, where they practiced basic medicine and began the process of developing a written form of the language.

Nine years after the murder of the five missionaries, two of those who had killed Nate Saint and his companions baptized two of Nate's children, Kathy and Stephen Saint. In June 1995, at the request of the Huaorani, Nate's son Stephen moved to the settlement with his wife, Ginny, and their four children, to assist the Huaorani in developing greater internal leadership for a church committed to meeting the medical, economic, and social needs of their own people as a means of showing them God's love and his desire to provide for their eternal needs as well.

Why did the Huaorani suddenly turn hostile? Much later, one of the Huaorani who had helped to kill the five martyrs explained that the tribe, who had had almost no contact with outsiders that did not involve killing or attempted killing on one side or another, wondered why the whites wanted to make contact with them; and while they wanted to believe that their visitors were friendly, they feared a trap. After the killings, they realized their mistake. When they were attacked, one of the missionaries fired two shots as warnings, and one shot grazed a Huaorani who was hiding in the brush, unknown to the missionaries. It was therefore clear that the visitors had weapons, were capable of killing, and had chosen not to do so. Thus, the Huaorani realized that the visitors were indeed their friends, willing to die for them if necessary. When in subsequent months they heard the message that the Son of God had come down from heaven to reconcile men with God, and to die in order to bring about that reconciliation, they recognized that the message of the missionaries was the basis of what they had seen enacted in the lives of the missionaries. They believed the Gospel preached because they had seen the Gospel lived.

written by James Kiefer, Mission St Clare





Friday, October 24, 2014

The lost Gift of Friendship



If you've been over at Gagdad's place, and I know you have, you've likely read about the essay in First Things talking about the social construct of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy and it's invalidity. The writer has stripped away the narrative that has influenced the western world for over a century now and has breathed a good dose of Classic Christian logic into the discussion.
If you haven't read it yet, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

Against Heterosexuality

I'll admit that I had to slow down and reread parts of it to grasp what he's saying but found it very worth while.

And if that's not enough to give you a fresh look on the subject (and if you have another 20 minutes to invest) here is another great essay along the same thoughts.

Friendship

If read some comments at One Cosmos and would love to read your further thoughts on the subject.

For myself, my understanding is still growing. The more I learn about Church history and Medieval  thought the more I appreciate what has gone before us and question much about the narrative I grew up under. My thinking kind of coincides with my understanding of Plato. Several years ago I became interested in his writings and read several of his works. The one that most sticks in my mind is the Symposium. The first time I read it, I'll have to admit, I thought, "these guys are all gay".  But, I couldn't reject out of hand the other brilliant insights into love and beauty that are put forth. Socrates, as usual has the last and best word on the subject and after rereading it a few times I began to realize that Socrates did not participate in the pederasty of his companions. He was indeed Socrates the chaste and gave us the idea of "Platonic relationships". It's impossible to say if he approved of their actions or not (I tend to think he did). Though he didn't condemn the actions of his companions, he did show them the higher thing they were really searching for.


Wednesday, October 22, 2014



It’s movie trivia Wednesday.

Big Trouble in Little China by John Carpenter and staring Kurt Russell.

John Carpenter is a vastly underrated cinema graphic genius. George Lucas is a drooling, knuckle dragging idiot in comparison. The real difference between the two is that Lucas was willing to sell out his artistic integrity and do anything, I mean anything to get the money for his over wrought, over produced steaming pile of Star Wars. I mean, can you imagine what it would have been like if Hollywood had had an artistic bone in their corporate body and hired Carpenter to direct and Russell to play Han Solo? The style! The direction! The special effects! The artistic possibilities that can be imagined are enough to make one’s head explode. What a feast for the senses it would have been. There would have been no need to “remaster” anything. 37 years later we would still be filling the theaters.

I will grant you that not all of Carpenter’s efforts were top notch. Halloween comes to mind. But among his classics, Escape From New York (with Adrienne Barbeau), Starman and the Thing, Big Trouble stands tall. If you don’t agree with me, it’s okay. You have every right to be an ignorant, uneducated slob with no appreciation of the higher arts. I won’t hold it against you. On the other hand, if you've ever seen the movie, you know what I’m talkin’ about.

Here are a few of my favorite Jack Burton Quotes:

“When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he looks you crooked in the eye and asks you if ya paid your dues. You just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol’ Jack Burton always says at a time like that: “Have ya paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check’s in the mail.”

“It’s all in the reflexes”

Jack: "Can I ask you a serious question?"
Gracie Law (Kim Cattrall): "Absolutely not."
Jack: "Well then would you ever consider just jumpin' right into...."
Gracie: "Sure, but never with a person in your condition."
Jack: "Let's talk about my condition. Just what's wrong with it?"
Gracie: "You should try standing down wind where I am."
(Wouldn’t that have been a great exchange between Han and Leah? Much better than, “scruffy nurf herder”).

And my favorite comes at the end of the movie and I will have to pull from memory because IMDb are a bunch of idiots.

Jack: (talking with Wang) “We really shook the pillars of Hell, didn't we Wang?”
Wang: “No horse shit, Jack”

Here’s a thought for today:

Wouldn’t it be great if, when we get to Heaven and stand before our Lord we could say, “We really shook the pillars of Hell didn't we?” And Jesus, looking us right back in the eye would say, “Yes we did.” 

Tuesday, October 21, 2014


(written a few weeks ago)

Luke 5:12-13
“While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him.”

I’m home today wrestling with back pain which has kept me immobile for a few days now and this scripture in today’s daily office is speaking to me.

Back in the days of our Charismatic involvement some of the popular preachers of the day would explain this scripture something like this, “The leper came to Jesus in doubt kneeling and begging saying, ‘if you will’ but Jesus dispelled his doubt by saying, ‘I will’. Therefore, we don’t come to Jesus wondering if it’s His will. We come boldly, being fully persuaded that it is always His will to heal His children.”

I think this interpretation misses something vitally important. The leper did not come to Jesus fearfully or in doubt so much as he came in reverent submission. This is a picture that is a little hard for me to grasp. I consider myself to be self sufficient and tend to be independent in my thinking. As a result I have never seen myself bowing down or falling on my face before anyone or having to submit myself to someone I would consider my superior. It is a foreign concept to me. Coming boldly is much more appealing.


I need to learn the lesson of the leper. If I am truly His then He is truly free to do with me as He wills. I believe that it is His will to heal me. I also believe that the timing and the method are His. I also believe that, as a loving Father, His desire for me is much more than just physical healing. He wants to heal the inside as well as the outside and the tools for that healing are in His hands. 

Friday, October 17, 2014



Okay, I'm in a time warp kind of mood today and for some reason I remembered a job interview I had a while back:

The job was teaching Microsoft products, database stuff mainly, at the employer's training center. The classes would be typically 5 days of lecture and demonstration. I don't know if anyone is still doing this but it's a total scam. Employers would pay $1200 to send their employees for a one week training session. The classes would typically have 20 to 30 attending. Do the math.

Potential Employer: So, tell me Rogelio, if you could have your absolute dream job, what would it be?

(Do people still ask these utterly retarded questions of their potential employees?)

Rogelio Bueno: (without hesitation) Captain Ron!

They had no clue what I was talking about. As a result, I was absolutely sure that I could never work for someone who was so uncultured to have never taken the time to watch one of the most profound and thought provoking movies of our time.

What? You too have never seen it? Two words -  NetFlix. Go watch it and get back to me.

Thursday, October 16, 2014


Worth the read

"As regards sexual morality, we have reached a point at which it is no longer sufficient for us to criticize modernity’s poor answers. Like our Lord in the gospel narratives, we must also correct its terribly impoverished questions. Rather than struggling to articulate how to live as a “homosexual Christian”—or, for that matter, the even more problematic question of how to live as a “heterosexual Christian”—we should be teaching our Christian brethren, especially those in their most formative adolescent years, that these categories are not worth employing."
- Michael W. Hannon