This book speaks about what the apostle Paul calls “the out-resurrection from the dead,” (Phil. 3:11). In speaking about this, the book reveals that there is a big difference between the resurrection of Lazarus and the resurrection of Christ. I had always wondered about this. Well, I mean, I always felt bad for Lazarus: he was resurrected one day (John 11:43-44), but he ended up dying again when he got old. With Christ, however, this isn’t the case; Christ resurrected, and He completely defeated death. Death no longer had any hold over Him (Acts 2:24). So what’s the difference?

Well, the difference is that Christ’s resurrection is a resurrection out of the old creation and into God. When Lazarus resurrected, he still had his old body, and he was still a part of the old creation. When Christ resurrected, however, He resurrected with a spiritual body (John 20:19); He was (is) a new creation (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17). When Lazarus was resurrected, he was unchanged in his nature. Christ resurrected and became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore, even though Lazarus was resurrected, he eventually ended up back in the tomb. But Christ’s resurrection brought Him to the throne of God—and He is there today.

Thus, when Paul speaks of the out-resurrection (“out” is a prefix translated from the Greek, ek, meaning “extra”), He means an extraordinary resurrection. Lazarus had an ordinary resurrection, but Christ’s is extraordinary. Christ’s resurrection is a resurrection that brought Him out of the old creation and brought Him to God. To be in this out-resurrection means to leave everything of the old creation and to be brought into God. For this goal, Paul pressed on, considering it a prize to be won (Phil. 3:12-14).

Here are some quotes from the book:

…the resurrection of Lazarus is very different from the power of Christ’s resurrection. Eventually, Lazarus died and was again buried in the tomb, but Christ’s resurrection was a resurrection that brought Him to the throne. When Paul speaks of the power of Christ’s resurrection, he has in mind something different from the power manifested in the resurrection of Lazarus. Paul is speaking of a resurrection that can be called Christ’s resurrection. He wanted to know the power of His resurrection. (Life-study of Philippians, p. 461)

The common meaning of resurrection is that something dies and comes to life again. Lazarus was resurrected in this way. He had died, had been buried, and had even begun to smell bad. Then the Lord Jesus came and cried out, “Lazarus, come forth!” and Lazarus came out of the tomb (John 11:43-44). Was the resurrection of Lazarus a case of the out-resurrection? No. Even though Lazarus was raised from the dead and came to life again, nothing of the new creation was wrought into him. Instead, he continued to be a person in the old creation. At most, Lazarus experienced restoration; he was restored from death to the natural life…The out-resurrection in 3:11 is very different from the resurrection of Lazarus. Did Paul expect to return to the tomb once he obtained the out-resurrection? Certainly not! The resurrection Paul was pursuing in Philippians 3 was something absolutely apart from the old creation and in the new creation. What Paul terms the out-resurrection refers to a resurrection out of the old creation and into the new creation. (ibid., pp. 466-467)

*Lee, Witness. Life-study of Philippians. Living Stream Ministry: Anaheim. 1984.

The other thing is, I don’t like conflict. I just don’t like it. I don’t like it when kids tease each other, I don’t like it when people are angry at me, and I don’t like believing that half of the nation (The Democrats) is some brand of evil I cannot trust. Call me naive, call me foolish. It’s just the way it is. I like to believe they are good people, too, just with a different sense of things. So when Obama says something about working together, about the mission itself being the key thing, about overcoming some differences even if we can’t bridge every gap, I want to applaud.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong. -State of the Union 2012

I agree with that. I may have certain moral views that don’t correlate with other Americans’, but we all think the economy needs to be fixed. I want Congress to work around the differences they can’t bridge and compromise on the ones they can.

But I feel like Washington doesn’t want me to want that. I feel this sort of pressure to stay locked into a stalemate. To hate the Other Side. When Obama calls for unity and teamwork, I feel like the Republicans are not supposed to agree with that. But why not? That is what I want. I’m not trying to betray my party. I’m not saying I’ll vote for Obama. I don’t suddenly support Obamacare or abortion. I just… I support working together. I think Obama has some bad ideas, but this one is good. And I support this good idea. Why isn’t that ok?

I want Congress to work together. I don’t think working together means we just do things my way. I think working together means we do things some my way and some your way. We may not like the whole solution, but we both agree its better than no solution at all. But it seems like Congress doesn’t want me to believe that. They want me to think that no solution is a sign of strength or firmness, of loyalty. (But they all have jobs, and can pay their bills, buy groceries, etc., so, ya know.) And I just really struggle with that. I don’t like the idea that I’m supposed to be more loyal to my party than my country. For the record, both parties pressure their constituents the same amount: Democrats are supposed to resist giving into Republicans, and Republicans are supposed to stand firm against the Democrats. THEY are the enemy, you know.

Only, I don’t know that. I don’t think they are. I think unemployment and a crumbling economy are the enemy.

This country is in trouble, and something needs to be done—soon. Sooner than soon. Like yesterday-was-too-late soon. And I don’t understand all the pressure to demonize the other side. What does that accomplish? Absolutely nothing, if we look at 2011. Stalemate after stalemate. Lack of progress after more lack of progress. Nothing begetting nothing. Ad nauseum.

So, Washington, since you tried stalemates and it didn’t work, why not try compromise and see how that goes. Why not try seeing the strength in other ideas, the virtue in the other side—there is some, you know, on both sides. Ok, so in the end, neither side will get everything they want. But we’ll all—all the people NOT in Congress, all the people who do struggle with joblessness, rising prices, and debt—we all get something. That’s a start, and in my book, it counts for a lot. It’s what we elected you to do: to make sure we got something, not to make sure the other side didn’t.

Filed under: anothercrazythought Tagged: art ]]> http://anothernicole.com/2012/01/24/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/feed/ 0 anothernicole IMG_1092 http://anothernicole.com/2012/01/24/state-of-the-union-the-game/ http://anothernicole.com/2012/01/24/state-of-the-union-the-game/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:24:07 +0000 anothernicole http://anothernicole.com/?p=7362 ]]> Tonight is the State of the Union address, broadcast live on various channels at 9PM EST (#SOTU on twitter). I’m sure there are lots of serious ways to approach this hallowed speech, but I gotta admit, I loved John Parkinson’s “10 Things to Watch for in the State of the Union address” on ABC.com.

In case the speech itself isn’t enough fun for you, I thought I’d set out the rules to The State of the Union: The Game. It’s a game my brothers and I played last year. It’s easy, fun, and vegan-friendly.

Each person makes a list of 8 words he or she thinks the President is likely to use in the speech. You can pick phrases or single words, but you can’t pick words like “the” or “or.” Real words, people!

Each person compares their list with the other players’ lists. Similar to Scattegories, if more than one person has chosen a particular word or phrase, neither party gets credit for it. So if two people put “economy” on their list, neither of them get points for it, regardless of how many times Obama uses that word. (Also, if you picked questionable words–like “the” or “and”—the other players can decide you must eliminate those words from your list, and you don’t get to replace them.)

Then you watch the speech. Mark down every time a word or phrase on your list is spoken by the President in the text of the speech. At the end, the most points win. In the case of a tie, winners are determined by thumb wrestling.

This year, my words are:

(oh, wait, I won’t reveal that till later.)

i’ll be getting a degree in education, with the aim of getting into policy and reform. not teaching. i know a lot of people think that education administration should be enacted by teachers, but i don’t want to teach. i tried it once for a short while, and it was fun—but i have bigger changes in mind, bigger grievances i want to see worked out. ideally, i’d get this degree and then get to work for the dept of education and try and bring about systematic evaluation and reform. i think we have a lot of great teachers in this country—i have benefited from them personally—but something about the system cripples them. so let’s fix the system. i don’t think you have to be a teacher to do that. i think you can be a parent, an investor, a researcher, a student, an adult, a child. yes, teachers need to be part of the process, but creative minds enact change, too. if it eases your mind, think of it this way: i’ve been a student so long, i’ll bring that perspective.

studying education should be interesting since, typically, education policymakers tend to be liberal and/or democrats. and i, in case you are new to the anothernicole rodeo, am neither of those. but i think i’m open-minded, and i know i’m opinionated, so it should make for some good discussions.

at present i am most strongly against teacher unions (*ducks*) and the idea that one system will work for the entire country. when the student body in california looks like the student body in vermont we can talk about making everything the same. in the meantime, i think we should embrace our diversity and look for diverse ways to solve one massive problem. but you know me: all kinds of ideas, very little data. we’ll see how that changes as i get myself edumacated.

Very interesting day for democracy, and I participated and am quite happy with the response. But it seems to me this is moving in the direction of ‘mob rule’—something our founding father’s tried to avoid in writing the constitution. Do you have any thoughts on this? – BG

This is a super interesting point to me. And, of course, I have Thoughts on it :)

First of all, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to classify the SOPA/PIPA protest with the mob (well, not THE MOB… just the mob. A mob, perhaps, is more accurate). Of course, when you are stirring up this kind of fervor you need a little bit of mobbyness; you need people to be excited and ready to take action—even if they aren’t experts on the issue at hand. You need a fever to catch. Today, Americans tend to be too ensconced in comfort to really participate in government—unless we know a little and get a bit heated about things. So I commend the tech folks: they did educate us on the basics—Fight for the Future’s video, for example. And yes, people did get caught up in things and react. Was it just chaos? A fever? Maybe. In any case, it seemed to work well for us :) If you can’t get people stirred up, they tend to just sit and watch. As to the 1776 allusion: I firmly believe a lot of the colonists got involved in the Revolutionary War movement simply because the fever caught them. Which, again, seems to have worked well for us :)

Of course, mob rule is a disaster—make no mistake about that. Think of the London riots last year—they started with a general protest and got utterly out of hand. People were hurt and killed, property was damaged. It was a complete nightmare. To me, that’s mob rule.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on with the SOPA/PIPA protests. First of all, I don’t think we run the risk of the SOPA/PIPA protests getting out of hand—since Congress cooperated (Gooood Government, goood government! Here, boy). Having gotten the desired result, most Americans are happy to go back to January 17—when they didn’t know or care about SOPA/PIPA. (I’m reminded of an e-card I read in 2008; it said something like, “I’m glad Obama got elected; now I can go back to not caring about politics.”)

Secondly, my impression of “mob rule” (correct me if I am wrong) is that it’s leaderless chaos. I think the SOPA/PIPA protest movement had a clear leader; it seems to me that the tech people were in control. People distrust the government, and as much as we love the entertainment industry, no one thinks they’re winning prizes for ethics; but people trust the friendly faces of Google, Wikipedia, WordPress, etc. If these tech guys were to come back and say, “They re-wrote SOPA, and we’re happy with it,” I think a lot of people would believe that and go with it. We look to them for our cues on this, I believe.  The tech folks (including Fight for the Future) really played this brilliantly. They got some internet giants together for a blackout movement, and they made a very sharp spearhead. They were organized, had some voices of leadership, created some good propaganda (that video, the graphics on Google, etc.)—and presto!

By doing this, they avoided the fate of the NDAA 2012 protesters. (Oh yes, there were a couple.) The NDAA 2012 law, to my mind, is even more dangerous than SOPA/PIPA, but because there was no clear leadership, the few protests never went anywhere.

A final thought: The whole SOPA/PIPA protest shows me that the government needs to change how they deal with their constituents. Now, more than ever, our leaders need to start communicating with us. They should learn a valuable lesson from the tech industry: the tech folks set out to protest this law; they educated people some with clear, logical reasoning; and they gained a mighty result. Congress needs to start communicating in a similar way. They need to talk to us, to relate their reasoning and the thoughts behind their actions/votes/bills. The American people hear a choir of voices on every issue: pundits, bloggers, protesters, etc. The most notably absent voice, however, the one voice we don’t hear, is that of the men and women who are supposed to be representing us.  They need to shed their ivory tower mentality; this isn’t the age of dark, cigar-smoke filled rooms with six guys making laws that no else hears about. This is the age of information, and “little brothers” are watching.

Hi everyone!

A big hurrah to you!!!!! We’ve won for now — SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today — the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled.

The largest online protest in history has fundamentally changed the game.  You were heard.

On January 18th, 13 million of us took the time to tell Congress to protect free speech rights on the internet… See the amazing numbers here…

The MPAA (the lobby for big movie studios which created these terrible bills) was shocked and seemingly humbled.  “‘This was a whole new different game all of a sudden,’ MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times. ‘[PIPA and SOPA were] considered by many to be a slam dunk.’”

“’This is altogether a new effect,’ Mr. Dodd said, comparing the online movement to the Arab Spring. He could not remember seeing ‘an effort that was moving with this degree of support change this dramatically’ in the last four decades, he added.”

Tweet with us, shout on the internet with us, let’s celebrate: Round of applause to the 13 million people who stood up  - #PIPA and #SOPA are tabled 4 now. #13millionapplause

13 million strong,

Tiffiniy, Holmes, Joshua, Phil, CJ, Donny, Douglas, Nicholas, Dean, David S. and Moore… Fight for the Future!

P.S.  China’s internet censorship system reminds us why the fight for democratic principles is so important:

In the New Yorker:  “…After Chinese Web users got over the strangeness of hearing Americans debate the merits of screening the Web for objectionable content, they marvelled at the American response. Commentator Liu Qingyan wrote: ‘We should learn something from the way these American Internet companies protested against SOPA and PIPA. A free and democratic society depends on every one of us caring about politics and fighting for our rights. We will not achieve it by avoiding talk about politics.’”

I found another quote from the New York Times article (linked above) particularly striking. It is in regards to lobbyists:

By Mr. Dodd’s account, no Washington player can safely assume that a well-wired, heavily financed legislative program is safe from a sudden burst of Web-driven populism.

In my book, that is another huge win for the American people.

What can I say, Congress? We weren’t born in 1776 for nuthin. #booyah

• Santorum was declared the winner of Iowa yesterday; a recount changed Romney’s 8-vote lead to a Santorum win by 34 votes.
• Perry dropped out of the race. He’s throwing his support to Newt.
• Huntsman dropped out, too. He’s endorsing Romney.

Okay, then. Onward and upward. Or at least kinda-sideways-ward, considering the election we’re dealing with. The action will be in South Carolina tomorrow, and it really looks like things might get a bit shaken up.

According to a finely-coiffed pundit on CNN, Iowa and New Hampshire “winnow candidates,” but South Carolina picks them. As least, as far as GOP nominees goes. We’ll have to see about that. It seemed that if Romney had won Iowa and New Hampshire, a South Carolina win would basically seal the deal for him. But then (as noted above) it turned out he didn’t win Iowa…and the polls are showing that he and Newt are neck-and-neck in SC now.

Gail Collins, one of the NYTimes most ferocious liberals, had this to say about the SCP:

…five of your six candidates could not be elected president if they were running against Millard Fillmore… - Gail Collins, “The Primary Primer.” New York Times, Jan. 12, 2012

I think that quote is hilarious…but I also wish I didn’t agree it quite so much :-/

It may also interest you to know that Herman Cain is still on the SC ballot—although he has dropped out of the race. Stephen Colbert has struck up an agreement with Cain, however; votes for Cain will be considered votes for Colbert. In fact, they’ll be holding a joint event today at 1pm EST.

now that you’ve seen this, you are totally outraged, i know. fear not: http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa has a quick (15 secs, max), easy, painless way to let your congresspeople know what you think. seriously. please do it.
#yayfirstamendment
#knewthatwouldcomeinhandy

also, in case you didn’t know, tons of websites (including this one) are going dark tomorrow (Jan 18) in protest. http://sopastrike.com/