oakleys.org.uk

In a famous passage in de officiis (2.26-8), Cicero traces the collapse of the Roman “protectorate” into an oppressive conqueror.  The passage is as interesting for his characterization of early Roman expansion as it is for his analysis of the collapse of earlier political standards.

“Let me add, however, that as long as the empire of the Roman People maintained itself by acts of service, not of oppression, wars were waged in the interest of our allies or to safeguard our supremacy; the end of our wars was marked by acts of clemency or by only a necessary degree of severity; the senate was a haven of refuge for kings, tribes, and nations; and the highest ambition of our magistrates and generals was to defend our provinces and allies with justice and honour. And so our government could be called more accurately a protectorate of the world than a dominion. . . .

“This policy and practice we had begun gradually to modify even before Sulla’s time; but since his victory we have departed from it altogether. For the time had gone by when any oppression of the allies could appear wrong, seeing that atrocities so outrageous were committed against Roman citizens. In Sulla’s case, therefore, an unrighteous victory disgraced a righteous cause. For when he had planted his spear and was selling under the hammer in the forum the property of men who were patriots and men of wealth and, at least, Roman citizens, he had the effrontery to announce that “he was selling his spoils.” After him came one who, in an unholy cause, made an even more shameful use of victory; for he did not stop at confiscating the property of individual citizens, but actually embraced whole provinces and countries in one common ban of ruin. And so, when foreign nations had been oppressed and ruined, we have seen a model of Marseilles carried in a triumphal procession, to serve as proof to the world that the supremacy of the people had been forfeited; and that triumph we saw celebrated over a city without whose help our generals have never gained a triumph for their wars beyond the Alps. I might mention many other outrages against our allies, if the sun had ever beheld anything more infamous than this particular one. Justly, therefore, are we being punished.”

The key Latin sentence describing the early empire is “Itaque illud patrocinium orbis terrae verius quam imperium poterat nominari” (emphasis added).  ”Protectorate” doesn’t quite quite capture the sense of “patrocinium.”  ”Patronage” is better, though doesn’t quite capture the force of the Latin.  John Nichols notes in a 1980 article in Hermes that the idea is hard to define, but suggests a non-legal pact between equals or between patrons and clients:

“It is generally agreed that the origin of patronage as an institution is to be found in Rome’s pre-history. During the republic, patronage, with its emphasis on protection and on the basic inequality of the two contracting parties, complemented the related concept of hospitium, which stressed reciprocity and the equality of both sides. BADIAN has argued, however, that in the 2nd Century B.C., as the dominance of Rome and of individual Roman became increasingly manifest, the theoretical reciprocity and equality of the latter disappeared and the two concepts, patrocinium and hospitium, merged.  For all essential purposes, he concludes, the Roman noble treated hospites and clientes in the same way.”

Erich Gruen (Hellenistic World and Coming of Rome) argues that the Romans did not in fact exercise patrocinium over allied states; rather, with the Greeks they liberated and then moved on.  To the extent that they employed a system of patrocinium and clientalia, they were simply follow pre-Roman Hellenistic custom.  

Be that as it may, and making allowance for Cicero’s rosy view of the Roman past and his contemporary polemical purposes, his description still provides a striking hint about Rome’s political self-image.

I’ve come up with an idea (well kind of thanks Jon) of having a bi monthly meet up (don’t hold me to the bi monthly) to talk about all things coffee, drinking some coffee, and also maybe a live in my mug here and there. And really just a chance to meet up with you guys.

The problem with internet retailing is you never get to see people face to face. So the first one is planed here at the roastery (others I hope to come from around the country from coffee shops we supply and live in my mugs from these too). The date is the 28th of February and to sign up go here

Click here to check out
The Has Bean Coffee Meetup Group!

In a recent interview on his Mars Hill Audio magazine, Ken Myers interviews Craig Holdrege, co-author of Beyond Biotechnology.  One of Holdrege’s key points is that scientists have moved well beyond the early idea that the gene is the “unmoved mover” that determines everything about an organism and now recognize that genes too have a history and are interdependent on other factors in the organism.

Thus falls yet another form of Platonism, that enduring quest to find some point of changelessness that can account for all change. Thus falls too the entire technical effort to manipulate genes to undo human frailty. 

Not that the quest will cease.  Its motives are ultimately religious.  Like every idolatry, it is restless, as it forges ever onward hoping to discover, down some unexplored path, an Archimedean point other than the eternal Word in whom all things consist.

 

INTRODUCTION

After a long sojourn in Galilee, Jesus returns to Judea (cf. 4:12), and immediately the Pharisees put Him on trial (19:3) by posing a legal question.  As they do later in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders want to trap Jesus to accuse Him (22:15-46).

THE TEXT

“Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.  The Pharisees also came to Him. . . .” (Matthew 19:1-15).

FROM THE BEGINNING

The Pharisees’ test question concerns divorce, a controversial issue in first-century Judaism.  Their question presumes the lax view of marriage widely held among Jews (v. 3: “any cause at all”).  Jesus quotes from the Torah, not the divorce provision of Deuteronomy 24:1 but the creation of marriage in Genesis (v. 4 with Genesis 1:27; v. 5 with Genesis 2:24).  The creation account establishes the pattern for marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman.  Man and wife become “one flesh” (vv. 5-6), yoked together (v. 6) in labor and service.  If God has joined them, men ought not separate (v. 6).  Jesus instructs us to follow God’s original design for marriage, particularly since He has come to bring in a renewal of creation.

HARDNESS OF HEART

In response, the Pharisees point to Moses’ “command” (v. 7) of divorce.  Jesus regards this as “permission” rather than command (v. 8), and goes on to state both a rationale for the law and an interpretation of it.  Divorce is a concession to hardness of heart (v. 8).  God’s original design was lifelong union, but He made adjustments to sin.  Torah assumes Adam’s fall; its provisions don’t necessarily express God’s ideal, but express His will for a hard-hearted people.  (Incidentally, Jesus accuses the Jews of Pharaoh’s sin – hard-heartedness, cf. Exodus 4:21; 7:3; etc.)  Jesus still permits divorce in cases of porneia (v. 9), which refers to adultery and other sexual sins.  A man may separate from his wife for other reasons, but if he remarries he commits adultery, since the first marriage still exists before God (v. 9).

BETTER NOT TO MARRY

The Pharisees disappear, and the disciples protest that such stringent requirements for marriage make it unbearable (v. 10).  Better, they imply, to be a eunuch.  Jesus corrects their anti-marriage conclusion.  He tells them that some are “eunuchs,” unmarried, for the sake of the kingdom (v. 12).  (Eunuchs appear in the Old Testament primarily in Esther, where they are attendants of the queen.  A eunuch for the kingdom gives up his own bride to serve the bride of Jesus.)  But Jesus has already said that God yokes people in marriage (v. 6). He doesn’t give preference to either marriage or celibacy.

BLESSING CHILDREN

The family theme continues in the episode with the children.  The disciples think marriage a burden, and regard children as a nuisance.  Jesus doesn’t.  He lays hands on them, prays for them, and tells His disciples His kingdom consists of children.  Like Jacob, Jesus confers an inheritance on children (cf. Genesis 48-49).

The Church of England Newspaper has published today a letter from Oliver Barclay, author of a history of English Evangelicalism, in response to an earlier article by Colin Craston, a veteran of the first NEAC Conference, deeply critical of Conservative (what Barclay prefers to call 'Classical') Evangelicals. I reproduce it below, with apologies to the CEN for nicking it, but with a link where you can subscribe to the online edition for £15 per annum here.

I think the letter neatly sums up our problems as well as being a useful bit of history.

Sir, Colin Craston (December 12) does not go back far enough in his history of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC). It grew out of a situation in which evangelicals were sharply divided between the Conservative Evangelical and Liberal Evangelical wings of the evangelical movement. The liberals were numerically dominant and had their own literature and as an alternative to Keswick, their own convention at Cromer, etc. There were very few conservatives (Classical Evangelicals is a better term than conservative) in the precursor to Synod or other influential positions and varying degrees of liberal views were held by the many who thought of themselves as evangelicals. Many liberal evangelicals were warmly devotional and godly people who had been brought up in a more classical tradition. I knew some of the leaders personally from 1938.

The CEEC grew from a small private committee set by UCCF (then IVF). I was secretary and Alan Stibbs and other conservatives formed the group to try to develop a strategy to recover lost ground for the Classical tradition. When it was decided to make it a public body it separated from the interdenominational IVF and I withdrew. John Stott and Dick Lucas took over the leadership at first. There was however, before long a change of policy and in an attempt to include all those who liked to be called evangelical, they drew in a number of liberals, to the dismay of Alan Stibbs and his co-workers.

Today there is a new sizeable liberal evangelicalism, though it rarely likes the name and includes many who do not want to draw too much of a distinction between evangelical teaching and the rest of the Church of England. The standing ovation for a speech by Archbishop Runcie at NEAC showed just how things had developed. If this is the present situation it is going to be extremely difficult and probably impossible to pull all evangelicals together. If CEEC becomes another liberal evangelica organization it should look back and see what happened to the liberal evangelicalism of the 1930-50 period, when it virtually disappeared for lack of doctrinal coherence.

It was left to others to recover the classical witness with new leaders and new organizations.

Oliver Barclay
LeicesterWhen posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

I’ve heard it said that the coming of Christ alters the law. As far as the Christian is concerned the law is now only what Christ or the Apostles teach in the New Testament. I can see the attraction of this view, it makes dealing with Old Testament law really easy because Christians don’t have to bother with it.

Horatius Bonar has an excellent section in chapter 6 of God’s Way of Holiness in which he argues why the gospel does not change the law:

…the gospel does not change the law itself, for it is holy, and just, and good; that grace does not abate the claims, nor relax the penalties of law. The law remains the same perfect code, with all its old breadth about it, and all its eternal claims. For what is the purport of the gospel, what is the significance of grace? Is it perfect obedience on our part to the perfect law? That would be neither gospel nor grace. Is it perfect obedience to a relaxed, a less strict law? That would be the ruin of law on the one hand, and the exaction of an obedience on the other, which no sinner could render. Is it imperfect obedience to an unrelaxed, unmodified law? That would be salvation by sin, not by righteousness. Or, lastly, is it imperfect obedience to a relaxed and imperfect law? That would be the destruction of all government, the dishonor of all law; it would be setting up “the throne of iniquity.” and “framing mischief by a law” (Psa 94:20). The demand of the law is perfection. Between everything and nothing the Bible gives us our choice. If we are to be saved by the law, it must be wholly by the law; if not wholly by the law. it must be wholly without the law.

If you are like me, you want to know how to apply the law. Bonar points to Christ and the Decalogue for the answer:

Should it be said that will and law are now embodied in Christ; and that it is to this model that we are to look, I ask: What do we see in Christ? The fulfiller of the law. He is the embodiment and perfection of law-fulfilling. We cannot look at Him without seeing the perfect law. God has given us these two things in these last days, the law and the living model; but was the living model meant to supersede the law? Was it not to illustrate and enforce it? We see the law now, not merely in the statute-book, but in the person of the King Himself. But is the statute-book thereby annihilated, and its statutes made void? Were Christ’s expositions of the law, in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of Matthew, intended to overrule or abrogate the law itself? No; but to show its breadth and purity. And when He thus expounded the law, did He say to His disciples, “But you have nothing to do with this law; it is set aside for all that shall believe in my name”? Did He not liken to a wise man every one who should hear these sayings of His and do them (Matt 7:24); nay, did He not say, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill…Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:17-19). Now one would think that this should settle the question. For the Lord is speaking of the law and its commandments, lesser and greater, and He is speaking of it as binding on them who are heirs of the kingdom of heaven.

Should it be said that it is only exemption from obligation to the moral law or Ten Commandments that is pleaded for, and not the law or will of God in general, I answer, the Ten Commandments are the summary or synopsis of God’s will as to the regulation of man’s life; and every other part of the Bible is in harmony with this moral law.

      

 

Hebrews 10:11-14: And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. 

Against Roman Catholics, Protestants have often emphasized the once-for-all character of the sacrifice of Jesus. In the Old Testament, the fire on the altar burned continually, with the daily morning and evening sacrifices, and the lamps on the lampstand in the holy place also burned continually.  Priests never sat enthroned like kings because their work was never done.

But now Jesus has come and done it once-for-all time.  Jesus is not perpetually on the cross, continually suffering for the sins of the world.  He suffered once, and rose, never to die again. He is not an Aaronic priest, who stands to serve at the altar; He is a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek, and after He made purification for sins, and He sat down.

 

Yet, as Toby pointed out this morning, we cannot forget the other side of the biblical picture.  Jesus offered Himself once, but His one offering is our continual offering.  Jesus is our altar and our lampstand, and by virtue of His one sacrifice He acts and worships continually before the Father. 

 

That is crucial for understanding what happens in worship.  When we gather for Lord’s Day worship, we are not beginning a worship service.  We are joining in a perpetual heavenly liturgy, at which Jesus is the officiant. 

 

And it helps us understand what happens at this table.  We don’t put Jesus on the cross again.  He suffered once, and now is exalted.  But here at this table we do present the signs and symbols of that once sacrifice.  Jesus’ body and blood are memorials to the Father, just as Jesus Himself is a perpetual memorial before the Father.  Our Eucharistic offering here, our offering of praise and thanks, is not an autonomous work, aimed at winning God’s favor.  We do it in union with Jesus, and the Father accepts it for His sake.

As we break bread and pour wine, as we eat and drink in the presence of God, as we receive Christ in the Spirit, as we praise and give thanks, we are caught up in Christ’s own self-offering before the Father.  As we celebrate at this table, we participate in the continual sacrifice that Jesus offered once-for-all.

 

 

Because the church is God’s own civilization, His city and kingdom, she marks time by her own calendar. The church lives by rhythms different from the rhythms of the world, including temporal rhythms.  

Yet, during the past week, many of us stayed up late to welcome the New Year and we’ve all changed to 2009 calendars, just like our unbelieving, semi-believing, and once-believing neighbors. 

 

The church has her own calendar, but the church also shares a calendar with the world.

This two-sided time-keeping points to the double mission of the church. By Christ and His Spirit, we share already in the age to come, and we fulfill our mission only when our participation in God’s new time gets embodied in the way we live together.

 

Yet, Jesus aims to imprint the pattern of the age to come on this age, and He aims to do it through us.  Through our teaching, fellowship, prayers, and Eucharist, Jesus makes this world more like His kingdom. 

 

And it’s been working.  Much of the world celebrated the beginning of the year 2009 this past week, even in places like Japan, India, China, and Thailand that have no reason to count time from the birth of Jesus.  And the previous week, non-Christians in Japan celebrated Christmas by decorating their homes with evergreens and telling stories about a Buddhist version of Santa Claus.

 

The calendar not only reveals the nature of our mission, but the degree of our success.  It shows that Jesus has spent the last two millennia slowly transforming the world’s time into His own. 

 

Can’t believe I missed out La Fany from my top ten, it should have been in there. Hmmmm too many good coffees, but that one was an omission.

Wanted to share with you again the podcast by Chris Weaver at common grind . Episode number 5 was uploaded at midnight new years eve and well worth a listen. Great interview with Jim Hoffmann and a cupping with two of our coffees.

While on the social media type stuff a review of the top ten coffees is now up at www.inmymug.com juts building on yesterdays post.

Another thing I’m getting into is 12second.tv (www.12secondtv.com) let me know if any of you guys are using it I could do with following some people. While I’m at it I may as well pimp my Twitter, www.twitter.com/hasbean

Hope you have all been along to the website to look at the new design. The upgrade happened over Christmas, it went really well considering. Unfortunately we have been unable to transfer the accounts across, so if you have not been to the site since the 24th of December you will need to make a new account. We hope the short term pain of making a new account will be outweighed with the long term game of a smarter cart.
Please excuse the temporary template on the blog here, it is under control and we hope for a fresh look soon, but there has been so much to do.

Now available from Wordmp3.com…

An unbelievable James Jordan audio collection with lectures on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1-2 Samuel, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Esther, Intertestamental Period/Apocrypha, John, Romans, Acts, Revelation, and much more. The set  includes Word documents of virtually all of Jordan’s writings from 1977-2007 and notes from all Bible book series. Also included is the Education Through New Eyes Conference and the 2008 Biblical Horizons Conference.

Four disk set, on sale now for $129 plus shipping.

      

The last post on this blog was my 300th. As memorable anniversaries go, your 300th isn't the big one. (Is it because it doesn't have many factors? 1,2,3,6,10,25,30,50,100,150, 300? Who knows?) But since it's the beginning of a new year, now is as good as time as any to reflect, draw some threads together and look forward.

Here are the long-running themes of this blog:
1. I am happy to be an Evangelical Christian. This means saying 'sorry' quite a lot, but that's okay. No-one said we were perfect. And the World is happy to remind us again and again of our failings. But this does not mean we should apologise for everything and retreat. Equally, we should be careful about how we engage with society, the world and the community outside our church families. In this, we can be schizophrenic or double-minded.

Firstly, Evangelicals often swallow wholesale whatever is fed to us by the television, whatever we read in best-selling books and see on big cinema screens. And we often think that the government can fix everything, if only we could give them more money and power. These are grave mistakes, as we shall see.

But not only do Evangelicals pop cultural pills all the time without looking at the label, they/we also take against things with an angry passion, lining up to condemn a whole host of societal evils - and calling for the government to step in and take action.

This is a tension I have been forced to deal with, since I'm an Evangelical (Reformed/Calvinist/Anglican) who works in television and radio. The use of media often functions as the tinder box for discussion. More and more literature is being written on this subject - and area left largely untouched, as we thought Francis Shaeffer had it all covered. But it turns out that it's all a bit more complicated than that, as this blog and the comments have hopefully shown.

2. Here is a question that I've mentioned a few times on this blog, but highlights the issue rather well, I think. If a twenty-something JRR Tolkein attended an Evangelical church in London in 2008, what would he be taught to do? What would pastors suggest he do with his gifts and talents? Spend 35 years writing, rewriting and perfecting the Lord of the Rings? I sincerely doubt it. The Lord of the Rings is not an exact Christian metaphor, so what use it for the purposes of evangelism? That is, after all, the reason for being, isn't it? No. It is not. I used to think it was, but have realise that Scripture, being lengthy, complex and revealed over hundreds of years, is slightly more nuanced.

Being an Evangelical, one prioritises evangelism - and that is good and right. We have a gospel to proclaim. But is everything else relegated in importance? Including the right worship of God? I fear that often it is. But the warning signs are there. There have been serious problems in churches in America that pioneered Seeker-sensitivity (ie. church that exists primarily to evangelise the lost, not serve its Christina members). The command to fill the earth, subdue it and work it still stands. Christians are to be salt - to stop the rot. Christians should be those who work hard - in whatever field they are placed. Law, medicine, PR, media, education, horticulture, mathematics, aviation, management - as well as evangelism, pastoral care and discipleship. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings was not something that was designed to be used in evangelism. Lord of the Rings was Tolkein's worship. Tolkein wrote one of the greatest works in the English language (which includes the great Christian themes). Praise God! (And say 'Well done, Tolkein')

Why do we work? We work because the world will be redeemed. Not replaced. God uses out work to build his eternity.

3. Evangelism itself is more than 'winning an argument'. There are some great apologists emerging in the church - not least Tim Keller, who's wonderful Reason for God will undoubtedly be a blessing to many. But he knows that no-one is won for Christ by argument alone. All discussions take place in a context of relationships. Church Evangelism intermingles inextricably with church community and covenant life together. Sometimes, churches can worry so much about being inward-looking that they neglect relationships with their Christian brothers and sisters. Non-Christians don't want to join an organisation who's sole purpose is expansion and new members. That's called Pyrmaid Selling. Sometimes it's called a Cult. Church is community. The Kingdom of God - starting here, looking forward to redemption when Christ returns.

4. The final thread is the British Evangelical's strange relationship with the State. We shriek in horror when the government passes laws we don't like. We shake our heads when the government give yet more money to groups, projects, ministries and organisations we don't like. We're shocked when government ministers say that the state is secular now and needs to move on from it's overtly Christian origins. Just what sort of state are we expecting? Christians - and their pastors - seem very confused about what the state should look like according to the Bible. Instead, we've settled for a soft small 's' socialism in which the government picks up the tab for everything, legislates in every area of life and continues to fail the poor.

The answer is simple. Stop asking the government to help the poor. It's not their job. It's our job. The Church's job. And the people's job. The government's job is to govern. (Clue in title). The government's task, according to biblical teaching and precedent, is to ensure civil law and order, to prosecute and punish criminals, operating in a sphere outside of the church (but naturally influenced and informed by the Church). Instead, we have a government that simply has no idea what it's role is, but continues to plunder the savings of it's people in order to spend it on whatever project or plan seems politically expedient.

That is why this blog will continue to espouse the deeply unpalatable view that the government should only collect enough taxation to pay for the judiciary, the police, the prisons, border controls, the army (if you like) - and a few embassies around the world. That's it. No NHS. No National Curriculum. There'll be plenty of schools. And plenty of hospitals - funded in a myriad of different ways, depending on local population and preference. There'll be hospitals for the super rich that most of us can't afford. There'll be John-Lewis/Tesco middle-income hospitals that most of us will use (and be able to afford since top rate tax will be 10%). And there'll be hospitals for the poor, broadly managed and manned by Christians - who have a mandate to help the poor. (And there'll be one or two charity hospital run by secularists that will also be perfectly decent places to receive treatment.) Once we've stopped looking to Westminster and start looking to each other - and churches - things can change considerable. Obviously, this can't, and won't, happen overnight. But is it not something worth aiming for? Or do we prefer an over-mighty state that continues to take money from those on a minimum wage, and uses to pay for the sins of greedy bankers that have costs the nation hundreds of billions of pounds in pursuit of quick profit?

Clearly this vision rules me out of any kind of political career. It's completely unthinkable at the moment. Which is interesting as it was the norm in Britain for hundreds of years. It was certainly the norm 300 years ago in 1708. And it may be again in 2308. Let's look beyond the next twelve months, shall we? Even beyond the next 12 years? What could Britain look like in 120 years if the gospel spread?

In the autumn of 2005 I did some work on the book of Obadiah in order to produce a small Bible Study Guide.

This has now been published by Day One as Exploring Obadiah. (The page struggles to load sometimes and, please note that Exploring Obadiah is a different book from Exploring Nahum and Obadiah.

It's a funny little piece: half of the chapters are really Bible study notes in continuous prose with lots of cross-references, lots of comment on particular words and phrases and the overall aim of making the text itself as familiar and clear as possible. Plenty of "application" along the way and study questions at the end of each chapter.

The other half of the chapters are more sermonic - they are meditations on "Jesus in Obadiah" and range from biblical theology to ethical exploration to adoration to consideration of Obadiah in and through the New Testament.

And then there are a couple of appendices, a couple of songs, and a list of other things worth reading.

So a bit of a hotch-potch but of some use, I hope.

"And the kingdom shall be the LORD's"

George Herbert explains in The Dawning:
AWAKE, sad heart, whom sorrow ever drowns ;
Take up thine eyes, which feed on earth ;
Unfold thy forehead, gathered into frowns ;
....Thy Saviour comes, and with Him mirth :
....................................Awake, awake,
And with a thankful heart His comforts take.
.... But thou dost still lament, and pine, and cry,
....And feel His death, but not His victory.

Arise, sad heart ; if thou dost not withstand,
....Christ's resurrection thine may be ;
Do not by hanging down break from the hand
....Which, as it riseth, raiseth thee :
....................................Arise, Arise;
....And with His burial linen drie thine eyes.
Christ left His grave-clothes, that we might, when grief
Draws tears or blood, not want a handkerchief.

It's more blessed to give than to receive.

If you try to save / keep your life you'll lose it.

You add to your wealth by giving things away.

Basic theological economics is about generosity, service, and trust.

And there's a nice illustration of that in this article - Jeff Tucker on the Mises Institute's web strategy.
"The guiding principle of management here can always and everywhere be summed up in a single principle: generosity. The Mises Institute gives as much as it can as often as it can."

Helpful comments on this pairing in Colossians 1.11:

• "There is a slight distinction to be drawn between 'endurance' and 'patience'. The former is what faith, hope and love bring to an apparently impossible situation, the latter what they show to an apparently impossible person." (Hwmnbn)

• "The difference of meaning is best seen in their opposites. While hupomonē is the temper which does not easily succumb under suffering, makrothumia is the self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong. The one is opposed to cowardice or despondency, the other to wrath or revenge. ... While hupomonē is closely allied to hope, makrothumia is commonly connected with mercy. (J.B. Lightfoot)
  

And both of these are to be "with joy" ...

• Patience with joy is not despondent self-pity which trudges on. It sings trusting songs of praise.
• Longsuffering with joy is not grumpy gritting of teeth which grudges on. It thinks on whatever is noble and good and excellent.
  

For such graces we shall indeed need to be "empowered with all power according to the might of his glory". But then, our God is a God of purposeful patience and generous longsuffering so it's well worth joining Paul in asking and hoping for these things.

I thought this was a good chance to do a top ten of 2008 in the world of coffee. 2008 for me is the best ever year for great coffee.

So my top ten

1 Bolivia Machacamarca

I love this coffee great quality from a very small farm, on its way is the 2009-2008 lot for us I can’t wait. Exclusive also which is exciting.

2. Brazil Cachoeria 2008—2009

This farm is amazing and year on year it gets better. One of my all time favourites. This years is the best ever. My epiphany moment in coffee, truly special.
3. El Salvador La Ilusion

I remember trying this coffee this year and getting very excited. Ernesto is a good man, and I am looking forward to developments in 2009, I expect this to be even better this year.
4. Kenya Gethumbwini

An old favourite back to form, for a couple of years Gethumbwini has been good, but this years WOW I love it. I think we have one of the best farms in Kenya and one of the best lots so the best of the best.
5. Guatemala El Bosque
I’ve loved this coffee for years, its consistency is its best attribute.

6. Brazil Inglaterra Canario

Came from left field but really good coffee, shame its such a small lot but right up there as one of my best coffee moments taste that pineapple cubes.

7. Costa Rican Licho
some will be surprised by this but this years licho rocks, I don shout don’t it as much as I should and for 2009 a resolution to make sure I do.

8. Indian Balmaddi Natural
Flying the flag for Asia this coffee is the most original coffee of 2008 and I liked it. With the descriptor of strawberry’s dipped in cow dung doesn’t do it any favours but seriouslt unique and seriously good.

9. Nicaraguan Limoncillo
Loved this coffee last year from the COE and it was close run between this and the pacamara, but I think the ‘normal’ limoncillo just wins. Toffee apple, caramel sweetness. Top draw stuff.

10. Nicaragua El Quetzal
Two Nicaraguan in the top ten, that shows the good things happening there. Close run thing again against the los alto but this is top draw again. Sweet nutty and rich.

Notable exceptions
Panama Esmerelda

Good put you know what, didn’t light my world up, was good but all ten of these I think are bette.r
Kenya Kariga
Were it not for amazing Gethumbwini this would have been top 5 but two kenyans come on!!!

Kenya Gethmbwini Peaberry
Same as above couldn’t have two Kenyan’s they are all great. But the AA gethumbwini is stunning.

Hawaiian Extra Fancy Smith Farm Kona 2008-2009

If we had had it a little longer it would have been in there. But its only been on sale for one week of the 52 of 2008, but a big contender next year.

A foretaste of glory - the joy of loving dominion

Christian, the Lion

It’s great to see David Field is back blogging with some really helpful and humble reminders of actual and potential sins of blogging and reading blogs.

      

So at this time of year, its traditional to make some resolutions. So I’ve done some coffee ones as a little bit of fun.

1. I will blog more, feel like I’ve fell of the blogging horse of late, and I will get back on and ride. Expect lots of posts in 2009 (or at least an attempt to post more).

2. 12 second TV I am going to try and embrace 12 second TV, but you got to follow me to make me http://hasbean.co.uk/go/12second

3. Do more newsletters. On the new cart we have a wonderful built in newsletter option, so I will try and do 12 next year, one for each month.

4. Keep in my mug growing and getting better,its been a great time with this project, I love it so much and its been good feedback some exciting ideas for 2009

5. Keep searching and cupping more coffees and more exclusives for 2009 for Has Bean.

Lee Irons' plan to help you Read the Greek New Testament in 2009.

James C Goodloe IV's plan to help you Read Calvin's Institutes in 2009.

A reminder from the Audio Bible Page that it only takes around FIFTY FOUR HOURS to listen to the entire Bible being read out.

And some help in constructing your Bible Reading Plan from James Oakley's Bible Reading Plan Generator.