A Spearited Debate

As some of you may be aware, Every Tribe Entertainment is putting out a movie entitled End of the Spear which relates Nate Saint's interaction with the Waorani tribe and the subsequent murder by the tribe of those missionaries (including Saint) and the later transformation of the tribe. And you may be aware of Chad Allen playing Nate and Steve Saint in the movie.

The swirl of controversy, which has arose at various blogs in the blogosphere, surrounds the hiring of Allen, who is a homosexual and an activist for the gay movement. Some have said that for a Christian company to hire someone knowing this is irresponsible, while others see such criticism as a double standard that we elevate homosexuality to a higher level of criticism than other sins (as if it is "worse" than the others). The latter seem to indicate that the Gospel is presented in the movie, and state that the criticism is that it is watered down is not warranted; those criticizing the hiring of Allen states that being in the movie gives him a platform to promote his lifestyle. On the Larry King Show, Allen seems to indicate that he has a relationship with God, though some would say that he stops short of indicating that he is a professing Christian.

There is obviously a tension to be debated: a Christian movie, about a great story of what Christ did through a group of missionaries to affect change in the hearts of this tribe. However, one of the actors personally holds to a lifestyle that is blatantly sinful. Some who have criticized the criticism state that it is no different than the fact that someone such as Liam Neeson would play in a movie such as The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (voice of Aslan), but had before played in the lead role in the movie Kinsey.

Now, there are some differences to the case at hand with the example just given above--the movie company shooting Kinsey was hardly a Christian company, and certainly the content of the movie could not be said to be putting forth a Christian message. However, on the other hand, other movies that are put forth have used actors who are certainly not Christians--some have mentioned Joseph Fiennes playing the role of Luther (though it must be pointed out that they were not a Christian company, which those who criticize the action highlight).

Dan Phillips and the folks over at Pyromaniacs have said much on this whole topic, and so have others.

We must be careful that we do not hold to a double standard, taking outrage at one thing, and dismissing another. I'm sure that no Christian would admit to going to a movie that glorifies adultery or lying or any other sin that God would abhor, but it may in some ways be easier to justify in our own minds because these have come to be somewhat "accepted" as "normal."

I don't know if I'll go see the movie or not, though I think that my wallet (and the absence of required dollars therein) may determine that more than anything. :)

Interview tomorrow

Well, I have an interview tomorrow--it's actually in the same area where before I actually got a follow up interview (the whole "wining and dining" idea). I'm not too sure what to expect, only that it's another prosecutor position and certainly not something I would mind doing at all.

I've sent out lots of resumes, and I've actually got some in to folks that actually went to my law school--I don't know how many more I can send, but I'm sure there's attorney under some rock that hasn't heard of me yet. :-)

More on Sanctification....

Most Christians would agree that grace is certainly a part if not central to the justification of an individual. But some would say that after justification, grace plays a different role in sanctification.

Now, aside from those who hold that one can in fact lose their faith, there are those who believe that "once saved, always saved." Reformers term this as those who persevere in the faith.

Philippians 2:12 states: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

Many here would stop and state, well, I have a great responsibility to keep up my faith--this is true, in a way. Some would hold that there is action on our part and then God gives grace to sustain us because of our faithfulness and obedience. But what does verse 13 say?

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Now let's analyze this. We should work out our own salvation, fearfully, for it is God who is the one working in us. Does verse thirteen seem to indicate that He relies on us to do His work in us? Doesn't seem so to me. In fact, countless times, He is faithful when we remain faithless (see 2 Timothy 2:13), for He cannot deny Himself (because we as His chosen, are His).

Not only does God give us the faith to believe by awakening our hearts to the truth in justification, but He constantly helps us to grow with the help of the Holy Spirit, giving us a desire and the grace to "work out our salvation." So why does Paul say this here? In Romans 6, Paul exhorts the Roman church not to commit the fallacy that they should sin so that grace would then be exalted all the more. Similarly here, Paul tells the Philippians that they should be concerned with their sanctification, but ever recognizing that God is the one that first helps them to do this work. Grace first, and not our obedience and then God's response of grace, helps us to perservere to the end. Paul wants them to recognize that fact. Complacency in our Christianity is not an option--Paul is telling them not to fall into that, just as he was doing in Romans 6.

I will end the post with a quote from Matthew Henry's Commentary:

It should encourage us to do our utmost, because our labour shall not be in vain. God is ready to concur with his grace, and assist our faithful endeavours. Observe, Though we must use our utmost endeavours in working out our salvation, yet still we must go forth, and go on, in a dependence upon the grace of God. His grace works in us in a way suitable to our natures, and in concurrence with our endeavours; and the operations of God’s grace in us are so far from excusing, that they are intended to quicken and engage our endeavours. "And work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for he worketh in you.’’ All our working depends upon his working in us. "Do not trifle with God by neglects and delays, lest you provoke him to withdraw his help, and all your endeavours prove in vain. Work with fear, for he works of his good pleasure.’’—To will and to do: he gives the whole ability. It is the grace of God which inclines the will to that which is good: and then enables us to perform it, and to act according to our principles. Thou hast wrought all our works in us, Isa. 26:12. Of his good pleasure. As there is no strength in us, so there is no merit in us. As we cannot act without God’s grace, so we cannot claim it, nor pretend to deserve it. God’s good will to us is the cause of his good work in us; and he is under no engagements to his creatures, but those of his gracious promise.

On another sports note....

I also happen to be a fan of the Red Sox baseball team--and it seems that now with Theo back, we aren't wasting any time. The Coco Crisp deal is now official, so he's coming from the Indians to be the new center fielder for the Sox. I did catch a few Indians games this year, and his defense seems to be pretty solid, which will be a nice fill-in now that Damon is gone. The at-bats will remain to be seen--he had a decent year last year, so perhaps he will flourish in Boston.

As an aside, it troubles me just a little that many great minor league prospects are being tossed in these deals--I guess they know what they are doing, but it's just a little odd to me.

Fowler is back!

I went to Liverpool's site today and found out that Robbie Fowler has just signed with Liverpool after a three year stint at Manchester City. When with Liverpool previously, he made 330 game appearances and scored 173 goals!

He is a great goal scorer and a great player to watch--he has much passion for the game, and should take the team to a new level. Glad to have you back Robbie!

An Observation...

Not that movies, for the most part, have a lot to teach, but I thought about something after watching Master and Commander today. The men on those ships fought (and some died) for the cause of defending England. I remember as well a quote from Braveheart, where Mel Gibson's character, William Wallace, remarked: "every man dies, but not every man really lives."

So often we watch people who commit themselves in this way to a cause or a belief (and no, I'm not talking about people who go to the wrong extremes, such as terrorists) and either we: 1) label them as crazy people or 2) admire them for their dedication (though we certainly would not ever imagine us doing so).

I guess the question is: if called to "defend" the Lord's cause, either through actual missionary work or physical persecution, or thrown into a situation where the Gospel needs to be proclaimed, will we rise to the occasion? So often, in our American culture, defending the faith is the last thing on our minds--we are preoccupied with the presence of prayer in schools or the makeup of the Supreme Court, but on the whole, our families (yes, "Christian" families) are falling apart from the inside--all the while we are championing Christian issues. Reforming mankind can only be done by the Holy Spirit, who moves at the will of the Father concurrent with the proclamation of the Gospel.

The soldiers on the English ship in the movie were not concerned (in the heat of battle) about their own lives or own concerns--only the task at hand, defending England. We too could take a lesson from this--the apostle Paul threw himself fully in the ministry and did not ever take concern of what would become of him. Does this mean we are to be reckless? No.

But a little less self-absorption in our daily "issues" might do us some good, and help us to focus on the bigger picture.

On Being Relevant

I had the chance to sit down for a while with my pastor today and chat (when you're unemployed and looking for a job, you fortunately, and unfortunately, have the time to do this). We talked about trends in the modern church.

Many churches are growing larger because of what is termed the "seeker-sensitive" focus. Let me be up front: I am not against reaching out to non-Christians in the community. However, we discussed the trend of churches today that go so far as to create a church that a non-believer would not object to.

What do I mean by this? Well, not to pick on anyone particular (because more than one church is doing this), but Rick Warren certainly comes to mind. He's the author of the book A Purpose Driven Life and pastors a church of close to 20,000 people. I do not have a problem with the beliefs that are proposed on the website, it's the absence of them in the services (of which, there are eight different worship rooms you can choose from, depending on your taste in music). Gearing the worship service--the music, the sermon, etc. toward what the audience will tolerate or want to hear is going beyond being relavent. It can be almost irresponsible.

Why? Well, when a non-believer visits and over a successive amount of weeks cannot make a distinction between himself and a professing believer, he may believe that he has come into Christianity. I mean, as long as he does the 4 things that will make him a better husband, 5 things to be a better father, etc., he thinks he's doing all he needs to do. Church should not be a self-help conference that has no distinguishing elements from a combination of a rock concert and Tony Robbins. Am I saying that having contemporary music is bad? NO! I'm simply saying that much of what goes on in contemporary churches simply is not God-honoring worship. I've sung some praise choruses that do in fact have deep meaning, but there are some that do nothing but try to stir the singers into an emotional high.

And if today's pastors are not willing to call sin what it is, and call for people to repent, then how is the Gospel preached? In our conversation, my pastor said that he views, in some way, the masses at these churches as the crowd of 5,000 that Jesus fed. They were supremely interested and amazed when they were given physical food by Jesus, and many wanted what He could possibly give them in the form of a militaristic or governmental Messiah in leading them to freedom from the Romans. But when He spoke of them having to partake of Him, and when Jesus said that the flesh did not profit, but that only the Spirit can give life, many left walking with Him (see the end of John 6). Similarly, a good number in these churches, if plainly told the Gospel and what that means for them, might leave. As it stands, they are given church on their terms, in the way they like it.

Am I saying that Warren is heretical? Certainly not. But I might say that He is doing many of his attenders a great disservice by trying to be so relavent as to water down the Gospel to the point that his hearers do not know what it truly is.

The upshot of all this: if these pastors created church in a way that will try to get unbelievers in the door at any cost (to grow numbers), can they draw the line anywhere?

Atonement

As a reformed guy, I believe in a limited atonement. What exactly does that mean, you ask?

Well, as best as I can understand it, Christ's death on the Cross was for particular individuals (all those that would ever be saved) and for their particular sins. Another view would take the tack that Christ's death on the Cross made it possible for everyone to come to the Father through Christ. Now we most of us would agree that not everyone is going to be saved (though there are some who do believe that), whether we think it to be by "free" will or by God's ordaining it.

Rather than try a long, drawn out discussion, let me posit one question to those who simply state that Christ's death made it "possible" rather than guaranteeing salvation:

If Christ died for everyone, then it is very probable that He died for the sins of those that will end up in Hell. Would that mean that His blood was in some instances shed in vain, or that its power is somehow lacking?

Clarification...

I'm not sure whether I made it clear in my previous post, but I wanted to say that wherever you stand on the free will/election issue, it doesn't determine whether you are saved or not. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord, where it is saving faith, will be saved, regardless of their view on this issue.

Why Definitions are Important

The most important class I ever took in college was the class on Psychology of Religion. This class taught me a lot on the way people think, and though I certainly don't think about Christianity now the way I did then, it did teach me a great principle: what is the definition of a term, and who is defining it?

It's very easy to think that two people are on the same page with a particular term of use, but after close inspection, they could not be farther apart. Let's take a simple example: A person says, "It's a nice day out there." Now, without any other information, someone might agree. But what if we're in New England, and it just barely broke 40 degrees in the winter--a person from Florida would think it to be "cold" or "freezing", whereas a person from that area might consider it warm.

How does this relate to the topic of theology? Well, as I have said before, theology is the study of God, and as a result, over the centuries, "systematic" theology or doctrine has been put forth by men of God to articulate the way one views God. Definitions are very important in this venture.

So let's throw out a term, which is not necessarily doctrinal or theological, but a term that comes up in the discussion: free will. Now, we would all agree that we make choices every day, right? However, put an Arminian and a Calvinist side by side, and they would view those choices differently. Arminians would view humans as having a free will that is capable of walking away from God and abandoning the faith--they would view the world as fallen, but each human fully capable of accepting the Gospel or not. Calvinists would state that man is depraved, and that while humans make choices, their will is so impaired by their sinful motivations and desires, that it can do nothing but sin (predisposed to it, as it were)--so in this sense, the will is not really "free" in the way that the Arminians would say it is (This discussion encompasses the differing views on the degrees of depravity and the role of God and man in salvation).

Let's take another term: free grace. It's my understanding that the Arminians would view this as stating that the grace that Christ gives in salvation is free to all, meaning that all could be saved (a more universal approach). Calvinist would view the term as meaning that grace is free to those who are drawn to Christ (a more limited approach), in the sense there is nothing that a person does to earn this grace (though it must be noted that neither do the Arminians view it as earning grace, just a matter of who it is available to). This term relates more to the atonement, which I might post about more at a later time.

A reality that any Christian has to deal with is: some choose Christ and some do not when presented with the truth of the Gospel. Why is this the case?

My pastor has been preaching from the gospel of John over the past several weeks, and we have recently come to John 6, where Jesus performed the miracles of feeding the 5000 (and likely more) and walking on water. At the end of the chapter, Christ points out some things to his disciples. In verse 44, He says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws Him." In verse 63, He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail." Many disciples "turned back and no longer walked with him" after hearing "that no one can come to unless it is granted him by the Father." (v. 65-66)

So coming to the application of the definitions above, how does the Father draw? Seemingly, through the work of the Holy Spirit. In John, multitudes are hearing Jesus speak, and witness spectactular miracles--yet, there are some who turn away and do not follow Christ. Why is this? Did they merely "will" not to? They were walking with God incarnate! Why didn't they see and understand? Perhaps because the Spirit did not move in them to give them understanding, as the Father foreordained. My pastor pointed out that God does not actively work to condemn those that do not come to Him, but simply leaves them to themselves and their sin, so that they would receive justice; in His grace, He moves through the Spirit in others, to awaken them to the Truth, and never lets them go. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (v. 37).

Many preachers and church leaders today make telling stories a great part of their sermon, thinking that it can be relevant way to communicate the Gospel to others and it is more understandable; my pastor correctly pointed out that many of them incorrectly point to Jesus' ministry as a reason for doing so. Yet, if one examines the Scriptures, Jesus told such stories as a form of judgment, because in such stories as the parable of the farmer and seeds, some would be awakened to deeper truth in the story (or the thought would be put in their minds to pursue it), but others would see it simply as a story about the farmer and his planting of seeds. The disciples had to ask on some occasions about the meanings of the parables, since their meaning was not altogether clear, and Jesus indicates that the secrets of the Kingdom were given to some, but not to all.

And yet, the tension that must be dealt with is humans are held responsible for choices, yet God has chosen before time in whom His Spirit will move.

Reds Fall

Well, Liverpool apparently played a great match, but it was not to be--in the 90th minute, Man U scored the goal to win and on the same day when Chelsea actually tied, rather than won! Drats.

The Cup of Grace

Another "no" for the employment process today--I've still got an answer to get back from another interview, but it is hard to be hopeful. Continuous disappointment does rather wear on me, but it forces me to cling harder to Christ. For, as Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68-69)

Holding up one's cup daily for the grace that Christ pours out can be difficult, in that the grace given is not always for good times but also for hard times. Sometimes the cup is bitter (as it has been lately), but it is grace all the same, and sufficient.

The next step would be to find joy in such circumstances, and I must confess as the days go on, it becomes harder to find it. Knowing that God is sovereign in my job search, as well as everything else, I must press on with what I do, seeking guidance and comfort from His Word and resting in the fact that He will accomplish what He wants through me, in whatever time frame that will be.

My Reds

For those of you not familiar with the English Premier League, they play soccer (or football, if you're anywhere other than America). My favorite team is Liverpool, and I've been following them for about ten years now. I've been impressed at the new manager, Rafael Benitez, and what energy he's been able to infuse into the club. They have been playing better, but the draws at the beginning of the season may have hurt any title chances they would have--Chelsea, a rival of sorts, simply does not lose (they've only lost once!). And as it stands, Chelsea is 17 points ahead in the standings. Of course, Chelsea ran away with it last year, too.

Liverpool has a big match against Manchester United this weekend, so I look for Gerrard and the rest of the Reds to rise to the challenge.

Go Reds!

The Gravity of Grace

As I've mentioned before, I've been reading Knowing God by J.I. Packer. I got to the chapter on the grace of God. I was struck by several statements.

1. "Modern men and women...naturally incline to a high opinion of themselves. They...are resolutely kind to themselves....refusing to take seriously the idea that, morally speaking, there is anything much wrong with them."

He goes on to say that they might see the faults they have, but they believe they are "good folks at heart." The problem with the way the seeker-friendly church operates, is that it feeds this point of view--if we have guys like Olsteen who refuse to use the words "sin" or "sinner" when preaching, and instead gives them a list of things that makes their life better, does grace have a place in the discussion? People simply reform (or attempt to reform) their lives, thinking that this is what Christianity means, when it in fact is just the opposite.

2. "Willingness to tolerate and indulge evil up to the limit is seen as a virtue, while living by fixed principles of right and wrong is censured by some as doubtfully moral."

The culture of "tolerance" that surrounds us challenges the very notion of objective truth. The world is very aware of the Scripture, "judge not, or you will be judged." They use it often in response to our call to others to adhere to the commands God has in the Bible. Even some who profess Christianity would immediately say others are being legalistic if someone points out that something is sin. It's important to note something: being personally in judgment over someone and pointing out truth from the Scripture are two completely different concepts. We should shy from the former and embrace the latter. The very nature of grace is that we could not live the perfect life that God demanded (and still demands) under His law--the beauty is that Christ did live that life and upheld the Father's justice and holiness by His sacrifice on the Cross, taking the Father's righteous wrath for us.

3. "Modern paganism has at the back of its mind a similar feeling that God is somehow obliged to love and help us"

This feeling is behind much of the world's belief that all will go to heaven, because "hey, I've lived a good life and done the best I could--a loving God couldn't send me to hell, right?" Packer correctly stresses that "the grace of God is love freely shown toward guilty sinners, contrary to their merit and indeed in defiance of their merit." This is the greatness and the gravity of grace--the Father didn't have to save one, but because it pleased Him to do so, He did.

This is the magnitude of grace--that the Father, in His pleasure, decided to awaken some to the mercies that can be had through Christ. Praise, adoration and worship to the King of Kings for the riches of His grace!

Why Theology Matters

Recently, in speaking with some people on this topic, I have gotten a response something to the tune of "We just need to all love Jesus and get along." Well, maybe I added the "get along" part, but this is the attitude of many in the modern church.

So why does theology matter? Isn't knowing Christ as Savior all you need for the Christian life? OF COURSE, we are saved by grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone--but this is justification. Many Christians ignore (or severely undervalue) the next step between this and our ultimate glorification, that being sanctification.

I would define this process as an ongoing work of the Spirit in our lives that makes us more like Christ, continually changing us from our old self (though it never actually makes us more righteous in God's sight--Jesus' sacrifice credited righteousness to us). What role does theology have in this?

One means of sanctification is the hearing God's Word preached and the study of the Word. Theology, or the study of God, naturally flows from this. I am currently reading (and when I say currently, I mean for the past several months) Knowing God by J.I. Packer--this book warns against simply having head knowledge for its own sake, but stresses that knowing about God can help you to know God.

Why is this important? I mean, if I have accepted Christ as my Savior and I go to church, pray, and read my Bible, why is this even necessary?

The New Testament warns about false teachers (one such example is in 2 Peter 2), and without wrestling with topics such as the sovereignty of God, the Trinity, and salvation, it would be quite easy to be swayed by outright heresies without knowing that they are false. The easiest way to deceive another is to take truth and slightly twist it, though these days heretics are much more bold and unbiblical in their statements (Kenneth Copeland and Paul Crouch come to mind--both of whom, surprisingly, were put in the top ten of the Church Report's 50 Most Influential Christians, h-t to djp at Biblical Christianity).

Theology is important not for the knowledge that it provides, but for the firming of the Christian faith and for its protection. I had a Muslim ask me (when I was at a summer job in college), why did Christians believe in a Triune God, as Muslims only believed in Allah. Do you think the appropriate response should have been, "well, we just all love Jesus--don't worry about that"? True, the Trinity is a difficult doctrine and still somewhat of a mystery in my own mind to even comprehend, but these are answers that we need to formulate, if not for the sake of others when they ask, for ourselves.

Knowing the "whole counsel of God" as my pastor likes to call it--the entire of God's plan--means wrestling with how God ordained creation, destruction and redemption. It's not easy, for sure, but in the end quite edifying.

Crazy Weather

A fairly random topic, I guess, but it's the weather that has me up late blogging. I live on the East Coast, and here, January is quite a random month. Take this morning, for example. The temperature outside is close to 68 degrees. Our thermostat is set close to this, but it now reads several degrees higher than that, due to the efficiency of our recently installed windows and sliding glass door--the HIGH today is only supposed to reach 60 degrees, and then have a low of 33 degrees tonight.

Hopefully, February will be more consistently winter--I really don't mind any of the seasons (except the summer, when it gets humid and dreadfully hot), but I hate when the weather can't decide on one.

Never Miss a Chance To Keep Your Mouth Shut....

For those not familiar with this saying, I did research and found it was attributed to Robert Newton Peck (from A Day No Pigs Would Die), a children's book author who grew up in Vermont (he authored other titles as Soup and Me and Soup on Wheels).

Why quote this, you ask? I have fought the urge to comment on those claiming to hear from God, but after New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's comments yesterday, I can't refrain. It seems that everyone these days has an opinion about something, and the above phrase might be applicable in this case--granted, Nagin had a captive audience during the speech he made on Monday, but public speakers ought to be deliberate in their words and not spout off. Later, Nagin apologized and indicated that he "said some things that were totally inappropriate."

America is a great place where we are all allowed to voice our opinion, but it doesn't mean that every thought should be voiced out loud, for the whole world to hear. Pat Robertson has had several situations that have created quite an uproar and ended in him apologizing for his comments, though some of it may be due to his age. Still, with Nagin and Robertson being public figures, some responsibility has to come into play--for Robertson, while I might agree that Chavez in Venezuela is not the best news to American policy, calling out a hit is not something I'd say on national television.

Of course, claiming that one has heard from God that "God is mad at America" (said by Nagin, he said, evidenced by both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hitting in rapid succession) is something on quite another level.

How I came to Reformed Theology

I have to start with a little background....I attended several churches growing up--first Methodist, then several non-denominational Christian churches. I attended a Christian College heavily influenced by Wesleyan thinking. My spiritual growth towards what I now believe began in college--the Lord was very faithful in helping me to grow past an incessant pattern of worry and distrust.

Over time, I realized that the more I trusted in Christ and focused on His provision and His sovereignty in any situation, the more at peace I felt. This trust was in itself a gift, as was the gift of coming to the church I now attend. It was at my present church that I was first exposed to Reformed doctrines and Paul's letter to the Romans sprung to life for me, as if I could not believe that I had ever believed anything else (of course, the near absence of truly expositional preaching was one reason and secondly, that I had never heard any pastor preach completely through Romans).

And what was the "anything else"? I could write a list, but it would take too long--things such as gratuitous evil and other explanations that are man-centered and not God exalting (much less with a basis in Scripture).

For me, the whole of the Gospel has been opened through learning these doctrines, as it encourages one to see the whole Bible (Old and New Testament) pointing to the cross and the glory of God.

For those that are now Reformed, I'm curious to hear about your experience.

Getting a job

My wife wants me to get a job more than I do. It's true. While I want employment very badly, she wants it more (how much more? In a year, she's gone from I really like this area and don't want to move to "wherever you can get a job, I'll go"). You see, I've been blessed with a wife who wants to stay home and raise kids. In fact, we even made an agreement of sorts--the day we graduated from college, I asked her (we were not yet married), still standing in our regalia, did she want to get a masters or anything like that? She said that she was done with school, and that she would put me through law school if I would get a job that allowed her to stay home.

Flash forward to the present, where I have sent (at last count) about 250 resumes, called close to 400 law firms, had a handful of interviews, but nothing going yet (I've even applied for temporary work with such places as Target and Blockbuster, and even they haven't called back! :-) ). I guess when close to 900 other people pass the bar exam as well, it makes it a little difficult.

I've found in my searching that most firms want two or more years of experience--only the top firms take entry level folks, I guess. Which leaves me with the question, from what vending machine can I get this two years of experience? I'm still looking for it, and if anyone finds such a machine, do let me know!

Welcome to my blog

Hello to the blogworld. I am a recently licensed attorney who unfortunately can't find a job, so I decided to spend some of my time blogging about the job application process, Reformed Theology and English Premier League soccer. (weird combination, for sure)

Thanks for stopping by!