Follow by Email

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Notes on Philippians 4


            First, I would like to provide a little explanation about my notes on various chapters of the Bible.  At the church I am a part of, I, and everyone there, usually knows what the chapter for study will be.  In this aspect, a participatory Bible study takes the place of a sermon in an institutional church.  As such, anyone can ask a question, and there is the great possibility that the actual topic taught is not the one that those who prepared for the study prepared for.  One might say that this method would not work in most settings, but I would maintain that, if something came up that no one knew the answer to, the proper response is (and would also be in a witnessing discussion), “I don’t know, but I’ll find out.”  Over the past three years, this has actually happened a couple of times, even though my church has a few people who have been believers for decades.  I think of this, as such a point comes up in these notes on Philippians 4.

 

            Usually, I put footnotes at the bottom, but just to highlight the works I looked at, I wish to mention them right up front.  One reference work I find invaluable is:

Craig Keener, ed., “The IVP Bible Background Commentary—New Testament”.

            Two other works I used, which I have not in previous chapters:

Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Writings of the New Testament”

IVP New Testament Commentaries, Phil. 4, online, www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT   I have been using a commentary that was printed in about 1928, but this online one I find to be more thorough, and deals with issues current to our world culture.

 

Verse 1:  I covered verse 1 back with Phil. 3, because it belongs with the previous paragraph.  We need to remember that chapter and verse divisions were added centuries later and are not part of the inspiration of the Bible, along with any notes and even the book names, i.e. the book we call Genesis, if one translates the name of the book in Hebrew, would be In the Beginning.  Both were added later.

Verse 2: “Euodia, Syntyche” are Greek names.  It may have been more acceptable in Philippi than in some other cities to refer to these women as co-workers. 

Verse 3: “Clement” was a common Roman name, so this person may or may not have been the author of the New Testament Apocrypha book 1 Clement.  “Book of Life” is an idea that appears in the Old Testament (Ex. 32:32-33, Dan. 12:1, Mal. 3:16, other non-scripture writings) and would be further developed in Revelation.

Verse 4:  The threefold expression of Jewish piety was a) rejoicing in the Lord, b) prayer, and c) thanksgiving. (Ps. 61, 64, 84, 95, 97, 100)  From Old Testament days, devotion and ethics were considered responses to grace.  Gratitude begets generosity, which is the opposite to anxiety.

Verse 5:  “Gentleness” was a trait then and now of how a believer cares for those around him/her, and differentiates one from the average person pushing for their own wants. In Hellenistic culture, gentleness was an attribute of the gods and the nobles.  This is similar to 1 Pt. 2:23.

“The Lord is near” could be referring to the Second Coming, that the Holy Spirit indwells, it could be referring that He is close to us and knows our needs and troubles, or all at the same time. The believer was to live without care, but not uncaring or careless.  Since this mentioned wants and needs, in that day “needs” were thought of very narrowly, as those things one needed, like food, health, clothing—the extreme basics. 

“…be evident to all” includes those to opposed the believers.

Verse 6:  “Peace” could mean inner or outer tranquility, or peace with another (person or nation).  The latter was a common theme in Roman oratories on this subject, and Paul often either quoted or parodized common cultural ideas, as comes up again and again in this chapter.

“…be anxious for nothing” there was opposition and suffering at the time.

Verses 6 through 8:  Paul recites a list of virtues, similar to what Roman moral speakers might, and he uses their phrasing, although what he says here would not be objectionable to Jews or Christians, as it is Jewish wisdom in the terms of Hellenistic morality.  Notable is that the Roman moralists would have included “beauty” in their lists of virtues, and it is notable by its absence.  Beauty, then and now, was less a virtue, from a Jewish/Christian perspective, as an open door to the opposite.

“Meditate” meant to think upon what believers  had been taught about following Jesus, and is nothing like the modern western culture’s acceptance of blank-minded eastern meditation.

Verses 8 and 9: “Praiseworthy/excellent” (arĂȘte) was a word used by Greek moralists; “learned and received and heard” reflects Paul’s Jewish background. This is an example of how Paul wove different cultures phrases together to communicate.

Verse 9:  Paul uses himself as an example on how to live.  It is notable how rarely we hear this from Christian leaders today, in part because they are separated from average believers and the rest of society in a way that those not on a salary cannot possibly be.

“God of peace” is a rough equivalent to “Wisdom” in Proverbs.  Peace guards the hearts and thoughts, not just of individuals, but of the community.  “Lovely, admirable” relate to the concept of common grace (God has given gifts and/or abilities to all men).

Verse 10 and 15:  The Roman writer Seneca indicates that a person from Macedonia, where Philippi was, was prosecuted for being ungrateful.  In the section beginning with verse 10, Paul indicates gratitude without directly saying “thank you”, which in that culture might have implied being subordinate to the giver, which was connected to the Greek-Roman concept of friendship.  At Jesus’ death, it was understood that the Law of the Old Covenant held had been completed in Jesus, but the New Covenant’s Law of the Spirit was that the believer desired to give all of oneself to honor Jesus, so such generosity was only reasonable, if it was possible to do so.

“At last” might, in our culture, sound like a subtle complaint, but Paul is indicating that he means that they had the “opportunity” to help.  “…flourished again” is literally “blossomed again” as in perennials or flowering trees.

Verse 12:  “I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound.”  Stoics and Cynics held similar statements, although the Cynics made certain that they were always in the abased situation.  Paul’s statement differs, in that he makes it clear that it isn’t just a matter of self-control, but to honor Jesus.  We should note that Paul’s “abundance” would still be considered basic by our modern standards.

Verse 15: “Philippians” was bad Greek, but it was what Roman citizens of Philippi called themselves.  It indicates Paul was being sensitive to local traditions and culture.

Verse 16:  “…for my necessities” comes from the language of that day’s business documents, such as if a special account was set up for when he was in need.  We need to remember that Paul was under house arrest, and prisoners received extremely little unless others helped them while in prison.

Verse 17: “I seek the fruit that abounds to your account.”  Paul’s joy is more in their growing maturity in Jesus than in the items received.  This phrase also comes from commerce, as many transactions of the day involved crops.

Verse 18: The church (group of believers) in Philippi gave money to help Paul.  We see in the New Testament that the church spent money on two things—helping the poor and helping mature believers communicate the message of Jesus out to the world, of which this help fits both categories.  “I have all and abound” is a specifically Stoic phrase.

Verse 19:  Unlike how this verse is quoted among prosperity teachers, Paul’s prayer here is for their most basic needs, which was a matter of constant struggle for most people of that day.

Verses 21 to 23: This is a specifically Greco-Roman way of ending a letter, with concluding greetings, and a grace-benediction.

Verse 21:  Unlike the Romans, Paul is general in his greetings. “Saint” refers to individuals, “church” to the group.

Verse 22:  “…those of Caesar’s household” tells us that even at this early time there was at least one, and since “those” is plural, probably more, believers in Caesar’s household, which could refer to civil servants working directly for Caesar, slaves, and freedmen, and probably refers to the Praetorian Guard.  A slave working for Caesar held more prestige than most free persons.  Like Acts 17:6 “turned the world upside down”, this implies that faith is seditious to the world’s status quo.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

2012--eternal purpose

In today's edition of "Simple Church Minute", the broadcast said that the script appears at September 11, 2011.  Last night, in reviewing my writing, I realized that I made some corrections way back at the time of the posting, and, as such, it moved to September 18.  Anyway, given that it is usually easiest to have it on today's date, I have reposted it today.
While you are here, I will be reviewing Watchman Nee's "What Shall This Man Do?" on Thursday.
--------------------------------


2012—eternal purpose


My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute. Milt Rodriguez, in his blog entry for July 6, 2011, told an extremely short story, of which I quote:


A friend recently told me that the eternal purpose of God was so vast that it was difficult to grasp and even more difficult to explain. I told him that I agreed. He also said that it’s very difficult to put into one sentence. I also agreed with that, however, after thinking about this later, I decided to take on the challenge. So here is my contribution of consolidating the eternal purpose into one sentence:


“God’s eternal purpose is that the fullness of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, would be displayed and expressed visibly through a vessel that would be a Family/House for the Father, a Bride/Body for the Son, and a Temple for the Holy Spirit.”





What in the world does that mean? Most believers have never heard anyone overtly speak on this subject—God’s eternal purpose. Implicitly, most of us who have been part of evangelical or fundamentalist or Bible-believing (choose you favorite phrase) church understand that the thing to do that is most emphasized is wishing other persons to come to faith in Jesus, that is, evangelism. If I point it out, it is obvious, that in that part of time previous to Genesis 3, the story of the fall, there was no place for evangelism in the whole universe. At the other end, beginning at Revelation 21, the final judgment, there will once again be a time where there will be no place for evangelism.


Now, just for a moment, glance at what things would look like from a liberal progressive church position. There, doing good is the emphasis. Once again, before Genesis 3, there is no place for that, as sin had not entered the human race, and some period of time before that, the fall of Lucifer that is told us in Ezekiel 28. On the other end, after the judgment in Revelation 21, there once again will be no room for doing good, because sin will have been banished. Therefore, neither of those things can possibly God’s eternal purpose.


Let me go over those items in the Rodriguez quote. God wants the fullness of Jesus displayed. That was the plan before the creation of the universe. How do we know this? Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” If we follow Jesus, then we have to take God’s word that what he has told us in the Bible was what he meant to tell us. He tells us that he wants a family. The chosen people of the Old Covenant, were a physical, and imperfect, type of a New Covenant chosen people that are a new creation by faith, a people that deep in our hearts want to be his chosen people. We also are God’s house. John, in Revelation 21 verse 3 tells us, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.” On this idea, Frank Viola, in his book, “From Eternity to Here”, wrote,


“John’s climatic vision in Revelation 21 and 22 gives us an intriguing window into the ultimacy of God’s house. Therein we discover that the house is a city. As we read further, we discover that the city is also a bride, and that the bride is also a dwelling place, and that the dwelling place is also a wife, and that the wife is also a temple, and that the temple is also a garden. All are graphic, mind-grabbing images of the same reality. All speak of God’s ultimate purpose.”*


God’s ultimate purpose is that temple of the Holy Spirit from 1 Corinthians 6 verse 19, that bride of Christ from John 3 verse 29, the body of Christ from 1 Corinthians 12 verse 27, that family of God from Galatians 6 verse 10, that house of God from Hebrews 3 verse 6. That all is us, the saved, the believers in Jesus, who wish to desire to do His will in everything. Good works are good, communicating the message of Jesus’ love for us is good, it is part of how we desire to honor God, but there is a time coming that those things will be irrelevant, and God’s plan in some way accounts for a time that we only can understand at this point in time quite dimly, and trying to hold onto any chaff that the wind and fire of the Holy Spirit is blowing and burning away is counterproductive.
I can be reached by email at simplechurchminute@yahoo.com or at 757-735-3639. What I just said went fast; to read what I just said, I have it posted on my blog, tevyebird.blogspot.com, with additional information, posted to September 18, 2011. To find out more about simple church on a national and international scale, visit www.simplechurch.com and, for this area, at www.hrscn.org.


Milt Rodriguez quote from his blog, miltrodriguez.wordpress.com, from 7/6/2011. Frank Viola quote from his book, From Eternity to Here (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2009) p. 213-214. This book is an excellent, thorough examination of this subject. Frank has additional resources at his website www.ptmin.org, and his blog is www.frankviola.org.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

A thought about why organic church isn't flourishing in North America

I have been reading and hearing people speak about why simple, organic church isn't flourishing the way it appears to be in some Third World countries, particularly ones which face overt persecution.  I will write more on this later when I have thought through this more thoroughly, but I have an idea, which, I admit, may be totally wrong, but also might be worth thinking about.

Could it be North American culture is different in some way or ways from other cultures that the person-by-person, word of mouth method doesn't work here?  We have now been in a culture where every important and not so important idea, right or wrong, is crammed down our throat by advertising and media commentary, that we in this culture, believer or non-, cannot picture receiving any important thought by any other means?

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Eternal Purpose

Today's Simple Church Minute broadcast was on the subject of God's Eternal Purpose.  In reviewing the recording, I see that at the end, I said that is was posted on September 11, 2011.  I actually posted it on September 18, 2011, so it is better that I have reposted it today.
   
 
          I have been attempting to include quotations from a variety of persons writing on simple/organic/house church, and this rewrite turns out to allow me to add quotations from two prolific writers on this subject, Milt Rodriguez and Frank Viola.  In spite of most of these blogs being heavily built on the research from George Barna and Frank Viola’s book, Pagan Christianity, I had not put an actual quotation in any of the commentaries, heretofore.

2012—eternal purpose

            My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.  Milt Rodriguez, in his blog entry for July 6, 2011, told an extremely short story, of which I quote:

            A friend recently told me that the eternal purpose of God was so vast that it was difficult to grasp and even more difficult to explain.  I told him that I agreed.  He also said that it’s very difficult to put into one sentence.  I also agreed with that, however, after thinking about this later, I decided to take on the challenge.  So here is my contribution of consolidating the eternal purpose into one sentence:

            “God’s eternal purpose is that the fullness of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, would be displayed and expressed visibly through a vessel that would be a Family/House for the Father, a Bride/Body for the Son, and a Temple for the Holy Spirit.”

 

            What in the world does that mean?  Most believers have never heard anyone overtly speak on this subject—God’s eternal purpose.  Implicitly, most of us who have been part of evangelical or fundamentalist or Bible-believing (choose you favorite phrase) church understand that the thing to do that is most emphasized is wishing other persons to come to faith in Jesus, that is, evangelism.  If I point it out, it is obvious, that in that part of time previous to Genesis 3, the story of the fall, there was no place for evangelism in the whole universe.  At the other end, beginning at Revelation 21, the final judgment, there will once again be a time where there will be no place for evangelism.

            Now, just for a moment, glance at what things would look like from a liberal progressive church position.  There, doing good is the emphasis.  Once again, before Genesis 3, there is no place for that, as sin had not entered the human race, and some period of time before that, the fall of Lucifer that is told us in Ezekiel 28.  On the other end, after the judgment in Revelation 21, there once again will be no room for doing good, because sin will have been banished.  Therefore, neither of those things can possibly God’s eternal purpose.

            Let me go over those items in the Rodriguez quote.  God wants the fullness of Jesus displayed.  That was the plan before the creation of the universe. How do we know this?  Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.”  If we follow Jesus, then we have to take God’s word that what he has told us in the Bible was what he meant to tell us.  He tells us that he wants a family.  The chosen people of the Old Covenant, were a physical, and imperfect, type of a New Covenant chosen people that are a new creation by faith, a people that deep in our hearts want to be his chosen people.  We also are God’s house.  John, in Revelation 21 verse 3 tells us, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.”  On this idea, Frank Viola, in his book, “From Eternity to Here”, wrote,

            “John’s climatic vision in Revelation 21 and 22 gives us an intriguing window into the ultimacy of God’s house.  Therein we discover that the house is a city.  As we read further, we discover that the city is also a bride, and that the bride is also a dwelling place, and that the dwelling place is also a wife, and that the wife is also a temple, and that the temple is also a garden.  All are graphic, mind-grabbing images of the same reality.  All speak of God’s ultimate purpose.”*

            God’s ultimate purpose is that temple of the Holy Spirit from 1 Corinthians 6 verse 19, that bride of Christ from John 3 verse 29, the body of Christ from 1 Corinthians 12 verse 27, that family of God from Galatians 6 verse 10, that house of God from Hebrews 3 verse 6.  That all is us, the saved, the believers in Jesus, who wish to desire to do His will in everything.  Good works are good, communicating the message of Jesus’ love for us is good, it is part of how we desire to honor God, but there is a time coming that those things will be irrelevant, and God’s plan in some way accounts for a time that we only can understand at this point in time quite dimly, and trying to hold onto any chaff that the wind and fire of the Holy Spirit is blowing and burning away is counterproductive.
            I can be reached by email at simplechurchminute@yahoo.com or at 757-735-3639.. What I just said went fast; to read what I just said, I have it posted on my blog, tevyebird.blogspot.com, with additional information, posted to September 11, 2011.  To find out more about simple church on a national and international scale, visit www.simplechurch.com and, for this area, at www.hrscn.org.  

            Milt Rodriguez quote from his blog, miltrodriguez.wordpress.com, from 7/6/2011.  Frank Viola quote from his book, From Eternity to Here (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2009) p. 213-214.  This book is an excellent, thorough examination of this subject.  Frank has additional resources at his website www.ptmin.org, and his blog is www.frankviola.org.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Simple Church Minute--on preaching (program 2007)

 On today's "Simple Church Minute" program, I said that the transcript of today's program is located at June 12, 2011, but I have come to realize that, according to the way this blog is programmmed, it would be easier for anyone who might come here to find it under this day's post. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007--preach
My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, the definition of “preach” is 1) to deliver a sermon, 2) to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically: to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner. These definitions truly indicate the modern understanding of the word “preach” and also, to a degree, the negative attitude a significant segment of our society has towards what we call preaching. Is that what the Bible means by the word? I know—for me to bring this up implies that I’m going to say “no”, and that is correct. Somewhere after the recording of the Scriptures, preaching became a Christian form of the equivalent of Roman oratory, a one-way form of communication. Interestingly, if one looks at pieces of speaking in the Book of Acts and later, one can find that a speech is preceded by words like “said” or “speak”, and not preach. This does, though, vary by translation.

The Bible tells us Jesus preached. What did he do? His style of speaking was like that of the style common to Jewish culture, in that it was two-way communication. We are fully well aware that Jesus had to tell the disciples that it was ok for children to be around him, John 3 and 4 tells of Jesus speaking one-on-one to two extremely different persons with regard to their spirits. The Jewish religious leaders overtly came up to him to ask him tricky questions. It was the style the rabbis had taught the people with.

In Acts and following, we see that preaching was sporadic, unplanned, without rhetorical structure, delivered on special occasions to deal with special problems, and was dialogue, not monologue. A word found in the original Koine Greek that is sometimes translated preaching is dialegomai, which is obviously where we get the word dialogue from. In the early days of the New Covenant, ministry came from all believers, and worship in the early church included teaching, exhortation, prophecy, singing, admonishment, speaking was conversational and even the teaching of local elders was normally impromptu.

For many years, it was something I noticed, but didn’t understand, that all the times that it seemed that the Spirit taught me the most significant things about following Jesus came through situations that were not what we in our western Christian culture consider regular worship services. I must now say that the reason for this is that those informal gatherings of believers, whether we call it a home or cell group, Bible study, prayer meeting, or maybe even no meeting, but just believers living and working together, outside the building walls, are more congruent with what the books of the New Covenant, that is, Acts to the end of the Bible, showed as being church than what we call church in our culture. Conversely, our ritualistic services, and any regular way of a service that is always or almost always the same way is ritualistic, is not taught in the Word. A regular order of worship is common for most beliefs in the world, and the Roman Empire forced buildings, paid leaders, and official structures into the church, and those structures have morphed over and over again over the centuries, An unbeliever can understand that structure, as a strong head person structure is used in government, military, and business, but God gave us, the true church, the Holy Spirit for us to follow where He wills. When we don’t do that, we get messed up. If there is any official titular office in the New Covenant church, it is in Colossians 1 verse 18 and Ephesians 5 verse 23, which mentions what could be a title, head of the church, which is filled by Jesus. I believe a further indication of God’s blessing upon living informally and meeting informally as the proper way to honor Jesus in our lives is how we see the church throughout history in persecuted areas see the blessing of growth, where the organizational church in the West has forgotten the Great Commission for centuries and has tied itself up in its bureaucratic complexity, and has not seen such growth.

You can contact me at simplechurchminute@yahoo.com or by phone at 757-735-3639. If you wish to review what I just said, a transcript is posted at my blog, tevyebird.blogspot.com, at the entry dated June 12, 2011. You can find out more about being church without corporate structure in this area at www.hrscn.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost all of what I said here comes from Frank Viola and George Barna’s book, “Pagan Christianity” page 88. That, in turn, has seven footnotes for the person looking to verify the historicity of what I said. As most bookstores in this area, Christian and secular, will not have this book on the shelf, one can obtain it quickest from www.frankviola.com or www.amazon.com.
For reference, the Greek word dialegomai appears in Acts 17:2, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-9, 20:7, 20:9, 24:25. None of the other words translated “preach” imply a speech, oration, or rhetoric, either.

Friday, October 12, 2012

On the words "postmodern" and "existential"


One of the RSS feeds I get is the House 2 Harvest Network, which emphasizes completing the work of the Great Commission through the establishment of simple, organic churches.  Over the past couple of weeks, I have been receiving the blog entries of one a certain blogger who will go nameless here.  While it is clear that this person is traditionally trained in church leadership, and now is part of, and probably one of the leaders of, a house church in northern Virginia, and what he writes does not seem to have any connection to world missions, which is supposed to be the theme of that online group, I do not see that as much of a problem, either.  We have all said or written things that are not quite on topic.

            There is one thing I find disagreement with.  From his writing, it appears that he has been in contact with Frank Viola and some other known writers on the topic of simple, organic church with regard to their functioning as church planters, and is somehow unhappy with them.  To this regard, in every blog I have received over this period of time, without regard to what subject Jim begins to write on, somewhere in the article will be a veiled or not-so-veiled criticism of Viola.  Two specific criticisms of Viola have been applying the words “postmodern” and existential” to describing either him and/or his work, and, to me, it became less and less clear what he was attempting to communicate. 

            Personally, I do not know Frank.  In writing this blog, and preparing for my radio program, I have had the opportunity to communicate with a number of persons around the country involved in simple, organic church.  One difference in communicating with Frank is that the response always comes from a person on his staff, whereas I at least feel that the other persons I have written to were the persons responding to whatever I wrote.  This, in and of itself, is not wrong, only different.  I might say that if I were to send a communication to almost any sizable traditional church pastor, the response would be from a staff person, also. 

            Anyway, this morning, I decided to do one thing I can do passably, and that is research existing ideas.  As you will see, this is not really heavy research, maybe junior high level or lower research.  What do the words in question, postmodern and existential, mean?

            According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Modern, “post modern: Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative.” 

            According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism, “There is no consensus among scholars on the precise definition…”  With all due apologies to the anonymous writers of those definitions, the first defines postmodernism, and the second defines nothing.  Might I suggest, to use that first definition, postmodern is, therefore, a synonym to contemporary culture.

            As for the word “existential”, according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism, “Existentialism is the philosophical and cultural movement which holds that the starting point of philosophical thinking must be the experiences of the individual.”  Now, this definition isn’t particularly good, in that, for the believer in Jesus, our experience of the Holy Spirit speaking into our spirit before repentance is certainly part of our life experiences, but the unbeliever cannot truly understand that, and, as such the person we might think of as being existential would not see things that way.

            Another definition I found is from www.thefreedictionary.com/existential, which defines as such:  1. Of, relating to, or dealing with existence. 2. Based on experience, empirical.  3. Of, or as conceived by existentialism or existentialists: An existential moment of choice.

            I went to post this as a comment on the last blog of his I received, but I couldn’t without a Wordpress password.   Just as a note, if you have trouble leaving a comment on my site, send me an email at simplechurchminute@yahoo.com. I’m just curious; I’ve been writing this for nearly two years and never received a comment.  For about the first four months, comments weren’t turned on (my error).

Saturday, October 6, 2012

One little error

On today's episode of my radio program, "Simple Church Minute", I quoted Ross Rohde's blog, www.thejesusvirus.org from his post of May 30, 2011 (editing a couple of sentences out to fit the time allotment).  Actually, its the first time that I actually got to hear the program over the air to see how it sounded.  It occurred to me that, unlike the programs that I had written, I should have a link to his post.  Given the fact that this quote is from about sixteen months ago, I can't figure out how to link to it on his site.  This goes only to show that I'm still learning how to use this medium.   I will attempt to have this corrected shortly.
Addendum: the link is http://thejesusvirus.org/2011/05/30/