There's a fine line between numerator and denominator.

And this seemed like a good idea?

Our first rose. It’s small, only three inches in diameter, but the bushes are only about 14” tall at this point so I’m surprised to see even this promise of things to come. Several other bushes have buds in the process of opening. We’re having unusually “warm” weather for this time of year even by Phoenix standards with today's high at 90, so that may be speeding things along some. It makes me eager to get the lily pond filled and blooming. Lilies, roses and iris all just outside the sliding door. Almost messianic.

Another narrative sermon this week, which means another sermon outside my comfort zone. But what else to do with a passage like Gen. 39? Yes, the chapter has a clear structure but it’s built around the events, not a single propositional truth. In fact there are several very relevant truths that emerge from Joseph’s experiences in Potiphar’s house. “Hell hath no fury....”

In a rare departure from biblical patterns the text says Joseph was particularly good-looking. (His mother is also noted for her beauty. Apples and trees.) Was Potiphar’s wife a looker (trophy wife) or Leah-esque? It doesn’t make any difference, but I wonder. If the former it would have added to the temptation Joseph faced.

How many biblical characters can you name who are noted for their attractive appearance?

Newt Gingrich will be appearing a second time at Liberty University next month, participating in an “Awakening Conference” that will address issues of faith and core social values. Apparently marital fidelity doesn’t make the list of core social values. Or something kicks in at marriage number four.
Strange bedfellows.

Kornheiser on Pres. Obama’s picks for the NCAA tourney: “They’re so conservative they’re Republican.”

I saw a recent picture of Barry Bonds today. The case of the incredible shrinking head.

I read an article today that reminded me how troubled I am with the Christian apologetics movement. In the early centuries of the church the term apologetics referred to a defense of orthodox theology against the heresies that spread so quickly. Today it's used to describe an offensive approach to defending Christianity against atheism - the use of logical, scientific and philosophical arguments to prove the existence of the God of the Bible.

That seems to be the opposite of what Paul said in 1 Cor. 2 where he says he determined not to come to them with eloquence or human wisdom. Rather, forsaking persuasive words, he came to them with the Spirit's power, determined to focus attention only on Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Does what now is called Christian apologetics trade the power of the Holy Spirit for human cleverness? C.S. Lewis described his as a conversion of the intellect, and to be sure some people come to Christ through careful thought about the nature of things. Makes me think of the discussions I had with Brad over the months he worked through some issues related to the Bible and Christianity. But he had questions, an indication the Spirit was at work within him. Contrast that with the public debates between Christan apologists and the likes of Richard Dawkins, debates that seemed designed to make Christianity sound reasonable and intellectually respectable.

I can't make that kind of tactic work in the light of 1 Cor. 2.