Inside every old person is a young person wondering what the heck happened.

This is one of those pics that just makes me smile.

Speaking of smiling, I can almost guarantee this will bring one out of you.
Evolution of the Wedding Dance.
How long do you s'pose they worked on that?

This morning I rode 25 miles at an easy pace, and this afternoon went to the gym and pool. Matt and I were talking about the exercise/eating dynamic. There's two ways to look at it. After working hard at exercise you can think to yourself, "Now I can eat what I want because I'm burning it off" or, "I've worked way too hard to waste the effort by overeating." Early on I was in the former category. But back then I could get away with it. Not anymore.
They say that from age 40 on you'll gain 2 pounds per year because of a slowing metabolism unless you compensate by either eating less or exercising more.

As the Norders have reminded us, Sept. 19 is "Talk Like a Pirate Day." Don't let it go by without at least one hearty "Arrrgh!" Parrots optional.

Last Sunday night we watched an interview with Justice Scalia on "60 Minutes." Very interesting segment. He explained that along with Justice Thomas he sees the Constitution as a fixed document, whereas other Justices see it as a "living" document. If it's a living document its words should be understood in the context of contemporary culture. How would the framers have applied the principles of what they wrote to any particular current situation?
Strict constructionists (it's a dead document) say that what the framers wrote is fixed and not subject to interpretation based on our current situation. That means the Constitution doesn't speak to a lot of the issues we now face, and that these issues must be resolved through our legislative process.
As a case in point, Scalia doesn't think the Constitution speaks to the issue of same-sex marriage, whereas a "living document" jurist might see that as covered under the equal protection clause.

OK, so much for the civics lesson. What I'm more concerned with is the parallel to the field of biblical studies.
Is the Bible a living document?
I don't mean that in the sense of Hebrews 4:12, "The Word of God is living and powerful...." That describes Scripture as an instrument through which the Holy Spirit works in our lives.
I'm referring to the interpretation of the Bible. Is it the principles which are divine, and should be applied in the light of contemporary culture? Or is it a fixed document to which contemporary culture must be taken?
If you've read "The Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell you know that he takes the former view. So, for example, he reads in the Bible that elders should be spiritually qualified males. But he believes God has been at work in culture, growing it since the male-dominated days of the first century. Accordingly, the permanent principle is "qualified." In the context of our egalitarian culture, an improvement God has brought about, women who are spiritually qualified can and should serve as elders.
I'm hangin' with my bud Scalia, for several reasons. But for now, just one. If our egalitarian culture is indeed the result of God's redemptive work in culture (Bell's view), God certainly knew about his plan to accomplish that over the next 20 centuries. That being the case, why would he specify "males" in his inspired Word? If one argued that saying it could be either males or females would be too disruptive in the 1st century, God could have left it ambiguous. But nobody thinks the text is ambiguous; it quite clearly says males. Nope, I think he meant exactly what he said and knew full well that our job in the 21st century would be to accept the challenge of living that out.
Constructionists and "living document" jurists work together amiacably on the Supreme Court. That 60 Minutes episode included both Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsberg talking about their very close friendship. They're best buds despite their very different views of the Constitution.
Believers can and must do the same thing. But we should also be aware that a growing movement in evangelicalism - the Emergent Church Movement - sees the Bible as a living document that should be interpreted using, in part, the grid of 21st century culture.

You know that part about not eating extra just because you exercised? I'm having a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. And that will be followed by a brownie and ice cream.
I'll run faster tomorrow.