The Once and Future Blog

After reading this title, many of you might be thinking, “We’ve lost Mike. He’s gone off the deep end. We always knew he was one quirk away from dementia, and well…it’s Leviticus.”

My current Bible reading has me in Leviticus. Let’s face it: among contemporary evangelicals, Leviticus is not likely to win the “book we’re most eager to read” award. Even for those of us who have a relatively high view of Scripture, Leviticus is often seen as one of those “suck it up and deal with it” ordeals to persevere through on our journey of Christian piety. Rarely preached on or read from in church, this book is exiled to the private Bible reading of individual believers (and probably skipped whenever possible).

I went into Leviticus this time after having just finished Jeffrey Meyers’ fantastic book The Lord’s Service, so I was much more excited about reading through Leviticus with an eye toward the “covenant renewal” pattern of worship. I have also been listening to several lectures by James B. Jordan, in which he lectures on Biblical symbolism.

So I’m reading along and I hit Leviticus 14:1-32, which is about cleansing from leprosy, when I’m simply taken aback by the glory of God. A little background (heavily borrowing from Jordan):

1. Ceremonial uncleanness is symbolic death. Leprosy was the most extreme example of this. A leper was cut off from the people and exiled to the outside of the camp.

2. When a descendant of Aaron is ordained as a priest, blood is placed on his right ear, his right thumb, and his right big toe. This represents the four horns of the altar. (Circumcision symbolically being the fourth horn.) He is also anointed with oil.

So what do we see when a leper is cleansed? Blood is placed on his right ear, his right thumb, and his right big toe, and he is anointed with oil. This is priestly language, and is almost exactly parallel to the account of Exodus 29 and is not used in any other ritual. What do we learn from this? The leper is brought from the most stark ceremonial death and raised in glory on the eighth day as a symbolic priest. This ritual was not performed on kings or even the Levites that weren’t priests.

My mind is immediately drawn to the parable of the prodigal son. Kill the fatted calf! My son was dead but now he is alive! God does not merely take us back to where we were in the resurrection. This is no crude medical resuscitation. Nay, we are transfigured and brought to a more glorious state of being. This is the Triune God we worship; the God of death and resurrection. We also experience this death and resurrection to a degree every Lord’s Day as we worship and offer ourselves as living sacrifices to the Lord Most High!

Glory to God in the highest!

I was recently involved in a scrum in the comments section of a post on Doug Wilson’s “Blog and Mablog” where I was arguing with a couple of other readers  about foreign policy.  I confess that I was not as sober-minded as I should have been and didn’t guard my electronic tongue as well as I should have, especially in the beginning of the discussion.

Anyway, my conversation on that post gave me an idea.  I believe that there are many cases where we as Christians assume we’re right when we’re not being faithful to the teaching of scripture.  Often this happens when we accept the presuppositions of the world around us.  Rather than thinking Biblically about a topic, we think Victorianly, or Americanly, or conservatively, or gnostically, legalistically, or Hellenistically.  The Pharisees thought that they had it all together in terms of virtue and righteousness.  They were the religious conservatives of their day.  They were the moral values crowd of the most impressive pedigree.  But when they encountered God incarnate, Jesus showed that they had invented many of their “virtues” as a way of circumventing the Word.

While this problem plagues both religious liberals and religious conservatives, I will focus on the “virtues” of religious conservatives, since I am one, and one of the “virtues” that we as conservatives need to confess at the outset is the that we are really good at preaching against that sin “out there” while being suspiciously quiet about our own sins and temptations.  Nothing seems to mobilize religious conservatives more than preaching about the sins of religious liberals and unbelievers.  Of course, if you’re a liberal of any kind (except for possibly “classical”) don’t worry–you’re bound to be offended by my commitment to the authority of Scripture in spite of inconsistencies or blind spots I’m bound to have.  During this series, I plan to stick to “virtues” I have personally held at some point in my life.

Assuming somebody reads these blog posts, I’m bound to offend just about everybody at some point during this series.  If I give offense because I am being unbiblical, unfaithful, crass, or arrogant, I apologize in advance and hope that I will repent.  If I give offense because I am making a biblical argument and I strike a nerve, well… to quote Adrian Monk: “You’ll thank me later.”

In the life of religion, there are always ditches on both sides of the proverbial road of faithfulness and obedience.

On the right we have superstition.  This ditch is characterized by  adding to the word of God.  The superstitious are often seen as being more “religious” than the faithful, and are proud of it.  The superstitious bind the consciences of others with all kinds of scruples.  They judge others for not tithing from their spice racks while they devour widows’ houses.   Fundamentalism often  ends up in this ditch, and this ditch contains the devout adherents of false religions.  Your classic poster boys for superstition are the Pharisees, the Judaizers and some of the late medieval scholastics.  A lot of monasticism ends up in this ditch as well.  Superstition is legalistic.

On the left we have what I will call “substition”.  This ditch is characterized by an outright rejection of God’s standards.  It is also the home of the self-conscious unbelievers.  All of your self-conscious agnostics and atheists are deeply entrenched in this ditch.  The substitious person overtly rejects the Word of God.  “Higher criticism,” theological liberalism, and overt atheism are all examples of high-handed substition, but you also see substition within Christianity.  The Christian who is quick to respond “we’re not under law but under grace,” and “judge not lest ye be judged” whenever their sin is confronted by the Bible, is also substitious.  The Sadducees, Sodom and Gomorrah, transcendentalism, Epicureanism, and civil religions like the “social gospel” are examples of substition.  Substition is antinomian.

Our third option is simply “stition”, that is to obey the Word of the Lord cheerfully and thankfully.  God’s word is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path.  It is the only way to avoid falling into either ditch.  Those who do not follow this light grope about in darkness.  If they get out of their own ditch, they will always overreact and land in the other ditch.

There are degrees to this.  There is a difference between tripping on a divot at the edge of the path and being at the bottom of a ravine.  There is a sense in which the genuinely saved still fall into both of these ditches after they are regenerated, as we are not perfected on this side of the resurrection.  We can also be inconsistent.  There are some issues where my greater temptation is superstition and other issues where my greater temptation is substition.  Thanks be to God that he has made a covenant with us.  We have a Good Shepherd whose rod and staff are a comfort to us.  He keeps us from falling into the ditches we otherwise would and leaves the ninety-nine sheep to rescue the stray.  God uses ordinary means to strengthen and encourage us.  This is another reason why it is so important to go to church to hear the Word preached and partake of the Lord’s Supper every week.

I had 22 spam comments to moderate this afternoon.  As a result, I have changed the settings such that in order to comment, you must be a registered user.  I apologize for the inconvenience.

It’s interesting how God works things together some times. If any of the following recent events did not happen to me, I probably would not have ended up writing a hymn.

1.) I recently purchased the Academic/Theological edition of Finale 2009, a music notation program from Make Music, Inc., which I wouldn’t have done unless I was made choir director of Christ Church of NC in January.

2.) I listened to the 1999 Christ Church Ministry Conference on “Poetic Knowledge” which is available from WordMP3.com.  I wouldn’t have done this unless my father in law, Marshall Joiner, hadn’t given me his old edition of the entire WordMP3 library.

3.) I then listened to several years of ACCS conferences in which Matt Whitling talked about the basics of poetry.

4.) One of the members of my church, David Stambaugh went out of town on the weekend of 03/15/09 and asked me to switch prayers with him.  (He was scheduled for the prayer of praise on 03/15 and I was scheduled for the prayer of thanksgiving on 03/29.)

When I received the request to take over the Prayer of Praise on 03/13, I decided to arrange my prayer in verse.  Most of the prayers you see in the Bible are poetry rather than prose, so I decided to take a stab at it.  To quote Adrian Monk, “Here’s what happened:”

Poetry: The discussion of poetry should begin with a disclaimer.  I have little experience writing and studying poetry, so I’m splashing around in the shallow end of the pool here.  I hope that it’s at least marginally better than Vogon poetry.  I set the poem in “Common Meter Doubled”  (8 lines per stanza of alternating iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter).     There are 6 stanzas in the poem, eight lines each.  The first two lines of trimeter rhyme with each other and the last 2 lines of trimeter rhyme with each other.

The stanzas have a chiastic structure.  The first and last stanzas contain Jesus-as-bridegroom imagery. The first stanza dealing more with the establishment of the covenant; the last dealing with the consummation of the covenant.  The second and fifth stanzas are dominated by nature metaphors.  The second stanza dealing more with the attributes of God, the fifth dealing with the nature of the kingdom.  The third and fourth stanzas contrast the wicked and the righteous.  The cross is at the very center of the chiasm, being that which distinguishes the wicked from the righteous.  So without further ado, here’s the text:

Jehovah’s covenant is sure
His name is lifted high
By his own name he swore an oath
To Abram’s seed draw nigh
Those purchased by the blood of Christ
On whom thy favor rests
Predestined ere the dawn of time
The bridegroom’s prized bequest.

Transcendent yet incarnate Lord
Sublime in mystery
For who can know the ways of God
Unless revealed they be?
Unchanging as a mountain high
Or like a cedar tall
Yet like a river giving life
And hearing when we call.

Our enemies and yours decry
Your righteous name in vain
They blasphemously gnash their teeth
And mock you in disdain
They shriek, connive, conspire, and howl
In evil schemes they plot
Your cross, O Lord, has cast them down
And brought their plans to naught.

You save the wicked from the pit
You raise the dead to life
You vanquish sin and Satan to
Secure the Son a wife
The proud don’t understand thy pow’r
In weakness made complete
While elders take their crowns of gold
And lay them at your feet.

Your kingdom like the mustard seed
Grows slowly by design
As fam’lies, nations, tongues, and tribes
Are grafted to thy vine
While principalities and pow’rs
Against your saints inveigh
The order of Melchizedek
Grows stronger day by day.

Lord hasten consummation’s hour
When bridegroom shall return
To claim his chaste, unblemished bride
And make the serpent burn
The goats shall separated be
Expelled by thee for aye.
Thy sheep shall in thy fold abide
And death shall pass away.

Music: Early on in the process of composing the poem, I considered the idea of setting it as a hymn.  I think I started out in G major, but abandoned it pretty quickly to D major, primarily for range considerations based on how I wanted to write the tune.  Since the poem was iambic, I began the hymn with a pick-up note.  I did a little bit of tone painting (”name is lifted high“), but that’s hard to do when you’re setting six verses.

I tried to look at what the verses had in common.  I noticed that lines 5 and 6 of the vast majority of the verses were darker in content, so I dabbled in the relative minor (b minor) there.

I also needed to think of a name for the hymn tune.  This kind of stumped me, so I decided to name the tune “Stambaugh,” since this wouldn’t have happened unless David swapped prayer assignments with me.

The .PDF of the music can be found here.  I was also able to export audio files from Finale.  I saved the hymn as piano, string quartet, pipe organ, and choir (midi).  I also saved one track where each of the four voice parts (bass, tenor, alto, soprano) is isolated in the left channel so people can learn their part easier by adjusting the balance setting on the playback device (or removing the right earphone).  Enjoy!

Legal note: Permission is hereby granted to make photocopies of the sheet music for the following purposes: worship in any Christian Church, family devotional worship, educational purposes, psalm/hymn singing  gettogethers (best accompanied by good, dark beer), and just about anything else that won’t make you money.  If you come up with a way to make money with the hymn, I’m all ears, but I still reserve all rights.  You can contact me about it.

Jehovah’s covenant is sure
His name is lifted high
By his own name he swore an oath
To Abram’s seed draw nigh
Those purchased by the blood of Christ
On whom thy favor rests
Predestined ere the dawn of time
The bridegroom’s prized bequest

Transcendent yet incarnate Lord
Sublime in mystery
For who can know the ways of God
Unless revealed they be?
Unchanging as a mountain high
Or like a cedar tall
Yet like a river giving life
And hearing when we call

Our enemies and yours decry
Your righteous name in vain
They blasphemously gnash their teeth
And mock you in disdain
They shriek, connive, conspire, and howl
In evil schemes they plot
Your cross, O Lord, has cast them down
And brought their plans to naught

You save the wicked from the pit
You raise the dead to life
You vanquish sin and Satan to
Secure the Son a wife
The proud don’t understand thy pow’r
In weakness made complete
While elders take their crowns of gold
And lay them at your feet

Your kingdom like the mustard seed
Grows slowly by design
As fam’lies, nations, tongues, and tribes
Are grafted to thy vine
While principalities and pow’rs
Against your saints inveigh
The order of Melchizedek
Grows stronger day by day

Lord hasten consummation’s hour
When bridegroom shall return
To claim his chaste, unblemished bride
And make the serpent burn
The goats shall separated be
Expelled by thee for aye.
Thy sheep shall in thy fold abide
And on them death shan’t prey

To Father, Son and Holy Ghost
One God, world without end
Be glory, honor, laud, and praise
In Jesus’ name, Amen
(The previous two lines are part of the Sunday prayer but not of the poem/hymn)

I might compose music to go along with this. I’ll edit this post and supply the tune if/when I do.

Just thinking out loud, which is part of the purpose of my blog.  I’ve had some stuff percolating around in my mind after listening to the 2004 Credenda/Agenda History Conference about Revolution and Modernity.  I had also recently finished Angels in the Architecture by Doug Jones and Doug Wilson.

When people choose to leave the membership of a church for “doctrinal reasons,” I fear that, more often than not, they do so within a revolutionary framework rather than a reformational framework.  In particular, I think of the Baptist who becomes a Calvinist and then jumps ship to a Presbyterian church at his first opportunity.  To generalize, the reformed churches have, by-and-large, been populated by people who have left their churches as revolutionaries rather than reformers.  (Luther didn’t wish to leave the Roman church -  he was thrown out by enemies of the gospel who had positions of power in that church.)  If we are to use the metaphor of the church as a body with many parts, the reformed camp at large is disproportionately represented by gallbladders.

In days when there was only one church in a town and there weren’t automobiles, there was a lot more of an impetus to stick things out and try to work with your borthers in Christ for unity.  There are complexities involved, especially if you have children (since their spiritual welfare is at stake), but what would it look like within a generation if the Baptists who became Calvinists had stayed in their churches (until the church either reformed itself or threw them out)?  We are children of modernity more than we realize, and as such we want instant results.  Our expectations for the Kingdom of God are more like an Air Force flyover than a mustard seed sprouting.  I know it’s easier to leave, but is it better in the long term?  It’s interesting to think of what might have been and what might still be if we do things better from here on out.

It appears that my blog has a reader.  This is a banner moment in the history of my blog.  ;) This reader, whose handle is “pcamper” has posted a couple of comments on my post “Something from nothing?” from last October.  I have reproduced his most recent comment verbatim below:

Thank you for your response. What I actually have a problem with is belief in the supernatural. I do not live by faith now, but by reason and hope. The main reason I do not believe any more is the atrocities attributed to your “god” in the bible against innocent babies and children. He actually murdered babies (See 2nd Samuel, the baby of David and Bathsheba) as well as the firstborn males and the flood (if it happened) must have caused many babies and children to perish. My question to you then is: Do you ENJOY believing and praising a being who did these things to babies and children and who would send someone to be tortured just because they exercise their right to think for themselves? Also, I have a problem wth the concept of “hell”. There are christians who believe that even good people will be tortured if they do not believe. This is riduculous. Why would anyone deserve that kind of punishment? This is a being worse than Hitler. However, there are christians who do not believe in hell. So, my question to them is: If you do not believe that part of the bible is true regarding hell, then isn’t it just common sense that the rest of the bible is not true either.

As far as evolution, it makes more sense than some invisible being in the sky judging us. I don’t believe in sin anymore, I believe in right and wrong and always striving to do what is right.

I also believe in evidence. If you are an intelligent person, I cannot believe you think the earth is only 6000 years old. To me, science equals evidence without certainty and religion equals certainty without evidence. I will stick with the evidence without certainty.

As far as faith, I believe that blind faith equals blind obedience.

As far as the trinity, no one can explain that. It was decided upon at the council of nicea.

On the bible: I will quote Mark Twain who said that “most people are bothered by passages of scripture that do not understand, but I am bothered by the passages of scripture that I do understand.

Yes, it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe superstitious things, so I will stick with reason and hope instead of christianity.

In response, I have some comments and some questions:

1. pcamper’s claim that he doesn’t live by faith is epistemologically naïve to say the least.  Everybody lives by faith.  Faith is required to believe in anything, including evidence.  (In order to accept visual evidence, you need to have faith that your eyes are more-or-less representing reality accurately.)  The use of natural science requires faith that nature behaves in a law-like manner and that the laws don’t change willy-nilly from place to place or moment to moment.  The fact that he then goes on to say that he lives by reason and hope is especially delicious.  How can you have hope in something while not having faith in anything, unless you’ve got a really odd and arbitrary defininition of faith?

2.) Is it wrong to murder babies?  If so, how is that supportable on an evolutionist basis?  If evolution is true, then it’s survival of the fittest, and killing babies (who aren’t particularly fit) can’t be wrong.  In fact if your definition of the fittest is the one who leaves the most offspring (not uncommon), then it seems almost required by evolution that you kill other people’s babies whenever possible.  

3.) I also need to address the blasphemous accusation that God is a somehow a murderer.  God gives life and God takes it away according to his eternal decree.  The reason why men can’t do this (why it’s murder for men to do so) is that they don’t have the authority to take lives, including their own.  When one human being unlawfully takes the life of another, he is attempting to usurp God’s authority.  The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.  

In the case of II Samuel 12, the Lord’s causing the death of David’s son was not a bad thing for the son.  He went to heaven.  (See 12:23 “I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”)  Even if we didn’t have that verse to indicate this, it would be reasonable to believe this because he was a covenant child.   

In the other cases pcamper mentioned, these people were enemies of God as were their children.  In Adam, all rebelled against God and are deserving of Hell.  Refusing to submit to God of heaven is certainly worthy of the punishment of Hell.  It is worthy of immediate death, but God in his common grace continues to provide unbelievers with sunshine, rain, and crops.  The reprobate does not honor God as God, nor does he give thanks for these things.  There are no innocent or good people who die or go to hell.  No one is righteous, not even one.  I am therefore not one of those Christians who believe that good people are tortured in Hell.  There are no good people, and apart from the saving grace in Jesus Christ for His church, everybody would go to Hell.  God is perfectly just and the standard by which humans ought to define justice.  I believe that every jot and tittle of the Bible is true, including the verses about Hell, to answer pcamper’s question.

4.  I find it amusing that the only defense of evolution yet offered is that “it makes more sense than some invisible being in the sky judging us.”  If this is living by reason, I’d hate to see living irrationally.  pcamper has no answer to the something- from-nothing argument.  This is clearly self-contradictory.  Either you have evolution or you have the conservation of matter.  You can’t keep both of them and remain consistent.  Belief in evolution must necessarily overthrow the validity of natural science.

5. As alluded to in point 2, pcamper has no basis for believing in right in wrong.  I’m not denying that he does actually believe in right and wrong; I’m just saying that he has no philosophical warrant for doing so.  On an evolutionary foundation, there cannot be any such thing as right and wrong.  If everything is just matter in motion, how can anything be right and wrong?  Stalin understood this better than pcamper does.  Stalin was a consistent materialist.  He believed that killing 20 million of his own people was no different than mowing a lawn.  In order for pcamper to believe in right and wrong, he needs to be a hypocrite (saying he believes one way and acting in another) and borrow from the Christian worldview.

6.  pcamper states that he believes in evidence, but ironically offers none.  He doesn’t even offer an appeal to evidence, because evidence is damning to the evolutionist.  Evidence must always be suppressed or else the whole theory will unravel.  This is, of course, because all of the evidence indicates creation by the Triune God of the Bible.  This isn’t a tradeoff between evidence and certainty.  I have both on my side, and he has neither.

 7. “As far as faith, I believe that blind faith equals blind obedience.”  This is a complete non-sequitur.  Where have I advocated blind faith anywhere?  The evolutionist is the only one here with blind faith.  I have the revealed Word of God which provides the basis for my faith and the created order that corroborates this.  pcamper wants people to believe that something came from nothing, life came from non-life, intelligent from non-intelligent, and moral from amoral–all without shred of evidence to back it up.  I’m sorry, I just can’t take a blind leap of faith like that.

8.  ”As far as the trinity, no one can explain that. It was decided upon at the council of nicea.”  I’m not sure exactly what pcamper is trying to argue here, so I’ll have to give it my best guess.  I will readily grant that the Trinity cannot be understood exhaustively by any creature.  What I fail to see is why I must exhaustively understand something in order to believe in it.  Neither pcamper nor I understand anything exhaustively.  We don’t even understand ourselves exhaustively.  A common problem with unbelieving epistemology is that you must know everything in order to know anything.  Christians don’t have that problem.  I deny that you can’t explain the Trinity at all, and so does Nicea.    

Conclusion: pcamper’s main objection to Christianity is that he believes God is evil.  He accuses God of all these things but has no philosophical basis for making these accusations.  In order for him to argue against Christianity, he must implicitly concede that his evolutionary worldview is not true and that Christianity is true.  In order to object against God, he must borrow from the Christian worldview and adopt the Christian concept of ethical absolutes (albeit in a distorted manner).  pcamper has no leg to stand on here.

 pcamper, you have no reason for hope at all, even though you claim to live by hope.  What do you have hope in?  Objecting to the concept of Hell won’t keep you from going there, no matter how loudly you complain.  You are dead, but I believe in a God that can raise the dead.  God is calling men everywhere to repent and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all.  God has been in the business of saving hopelessly wicked men since the Fall.  He saved Saul of Tarsus (who was on his way to kill Chrisitians) and turned him into the apostle Paul.  Obviously this is all of grace and all of God–not of man’s autonomous free will.  Nobody chooses to repent and believe unless the Holy Spirit regenerates their heart.  Jesus is reigning now.  You can either bend the knee and be adopted as a son in His church, or you can perish.  I’d personally much rather see the former than the latter.

Today marks the 200th anniversary of the births of Abraham Lincoln, and Charles Darwin.  These are two of my least favorite human beings ever, and the fact that they were both born on February 12, 1809 makes that one of my least favorite dates.

Abraham Lincoln is the preeminent politician of modernity.  He was such a skillful, slick politician that nearly 150 years after his reign of terror, he still has the majority of the world fooled.  Lincoln wanted a war so he could consolidate power.  Every nefarious, warmongering assault on liberty and justice that the Bush/Cheney regime was guilty of pales in comparison to Lincoln.  Lincoln had a tremendous influence on the bloodthirsty 20th century totalitarian tyrants.  They learned from the master how to implement total war, curtail civil liberties, silence the opposition, maneuver themselves into wars, and increase their political power.  He ranks as my all time least favorite U.S. President.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution provided unbelievers an alternative to the creation account that had a façade of being “scientific.”  The implications of his entirely bogus and completely unscientific assertions led to a devaluation of human life that produced the unprecedented body count of the 20th century.  Darwin’s theories were thoroughly discredited shortly after his publication of On the Origin of Species, etc. but the truth never really mattered.  Evolution has always been about public relations and propaganda.  The evolutionists must run to the State to enforce and mandate the propagation of their theory because they know they can’t win honest debates.  Darwin wouldn’t have attained the fame he did unless T. H. Huxley shamelessly pimped his theory.  To this day the evolutionists use politics and manipulation to maintain their stranglehold on academia.  People who are critical of The Theory (all hail) had better keep their mouths shut or they will be denied teaching jobs, admission to graduate schools, professorships, research grants, and tenure.  The body count continues to rise, and the only reason people hold to The Theory is so they can delude themselves into thinking they have an intellectual reason for not submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

We’ve been busy buying a house, moving, and unpacking for the last few months.  We are now homeowners in Fuquay-Varina, NC.  We have a basement, which is very rare for NC and very exciting.  Hopefully we won’t be moving again for a very long time.  I don’t particularly enjoy it.  Thankfully, many wonderful people from the church volunteered a Saturday to assist with the move and a few of Shelley’s siblings spent the better part of a week helping us pack.

The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all

The LORD executes righteousness
And justice for all who are oppressed.
He made known His ways to Moses,
His acts to the children of Israel.
The LORD is merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.
He will not always strive with us,
Nor will He keep His anger forever.
He has not dealt with us according to our sins,
Nor punished us according to our iniquities.

This reconciliation was accomplished through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.  By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.  The second person of the Godhead took on a human frame and became flesh.  And our only appropriate response can be to burst out into doxology.

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD?  Or who has become His counselor?  Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be repaid to him?

Lift up your heads, O you gates!
Lift up, you everlasting doors!
And the King of glory shall come in.
Who is this King of Glory?
The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.

He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.

Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel has come to thee, O Israel.

You have sent the rod of Your strength out of Zion.  Rule in the midst of Your enemies and hear our cry, for we offer it in the mighty name of your only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  Amen.

[The prayer was more compiled than it was composed.  Sources include Psalm 24, Psalm 103, Psalm 110,  John 1, Romans 11, the Nicene Creed, John Chrysostom’s Easter sermon, & O Come O Come Emmanuel

It was a rather strange year for ACC football in which every team except for Duke and Virginia is bowl eligible.  During the regular season:

Duke beat Virginia

Virginia beat Georgia Tech

Georgia Tech beat Clemson

Clemson beat Boston College

Boston College beat Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech beat Maryland

Maryland beat Wake Forest

Wake Forest beat Florida State

Florida State beat NC State

NC State beat UNC

UNC beat Miami

Miami beat Duke

There are several ways I could have gotten from Point A, around the circle, and back to Point A.  To make matters even weirder, there were some great non-conference wins and some horrible non-conference losses.

Georgia Tech beat Georgia (the preseason number 1)

NC State lost 41-10 against South Florida (who are 2-4 in the Big East)

Clemson beat up on South Carolina

Wake Forest lost to Navy

Maryland beat California (ranked 23 at the time)

That same Maryland team lost to Middle Tennessee (yes, Middle Tennessee) the week before.

Duke beat an SEC team.  (Granted, it was Vanderbilt.)

Virginia Tech lost to East Carolina.

Wake Forest beat Mississippi, the only team to defeat Florida.

It has really been a difficult season to pin down.  Of the 12 ACC teams, 9 have been ranked at some point of the season, but most of the time it has been between 20 and 25 when they were ranked.

If Middle Tennessee beat Maryland, and Maryland beat Wake Forest, and Wake Forest beat Ole Miss, and Ole Miss beat Florida, does that mean that Middle Tennessee could beat Florida?  No.  It just means the ACC has been wildly inconsistent.

Well, I’m back from vacation.

While I was gone, there has been a major coup for those of you who love the State.  I’m not surprised.  President Bush has been so horrible while in office that he guaranteed a big Obama victory.  McCain got Bob-Doled.  Hard.

McCain wouldn’t have been much better than Obama (not at all better on most issues and even worse on a few), but at least with one party having the White House and the other controlling Capitol Hill, there would have been the possibility for gridlock.  The Obama presidency /  Republican congress combination would have yielded the most gridlock unless McCain died in office, but instead there will barely enough people to filibuster and that only if the Republicans grow a collective backbone.  I’m not holding my breath.  Government is a scary thing when it can get things “accomplished” without opposition.

I’m mildly amused about the emails I get from conservative groups about how we need to “resist” the new administration.  Funny that these things didn’t happen when Bush was suspending habeas corpus, say.  I think that an Obamanation can be worse than the Bush administration, but I don’t believe that it necessarily will be worse, especially if the legislature turns Republican in 2010.

Thankfully Hillary wasn’t elected, so the likelihood of homeschoolers being imprisoned forever without a trial during the first 100 days of the Administration is slim.

Sadly, there is little to be excited about in terms of small government people being elected to office.  Ron Paul ran unopposed and was reelected to Congress, but Bob Conley got clobbered by Big State Republican Lindsey Graham, and BJ Lawson lost big to the evil David Price.

For the most part, I will just resign myself to being oppressed by my government like a peasant being burninated as his thatched-roof cottage is set ablaze by Trogdor the Burninator.  It’s not the end of the world, contrary to what the Chicken Little types say.  There have been worse rulers before.  There will be worse rulers again.  Jesus Christ reigns over the world from the right hand of the Father Almighty now as He did before.  His kingdom will know no end.

If Obama starts requiring people to worship him, I might grab a pitchfork (guns likely being outlawed by that time).  God has a sense of humor, especially when it comes to discrediting false messiahs.

I’m currently on vacation. As such I will take a break from blogging about weighty matters like theology, politics, and the like to post about the popular Merrimack Valley card game “forty-fives”, an example of folk culture. It is almost unknown outside of northeastern Massachusetts and southeastern New Hampshire. Variations are played in Nova Scotia and Ireland. There is a little dispute about the origin of the name, seeing as how the game has nothing to do with the number 45. The likeliest explanation is that it started out as forte fives. (Forte means “strong” in Italian.) Much of the ethnic make-up of the area is Irish or Italian, and the game as it’s known today might have been a product of those two ethnic groups. This is more speculation than scholarship. Because of the New England accent, it sounds more like “fotty fives” when the locals say it. My recap of the rules is mostly lifted from <http://www.the45scardgame.com/Rules.htm>. I have added commentary where appropriate and edited it slightly

Objective: Partners try to win tricks and prevent their opponents from doing so. The first team to reach 120 points wins the game. (Exceptions explained below.)

Scoring: Each hand is comprised of 5 tricks. (A trick is each time all players play a card.) Each trick counts for 5 points, and the highest trump in play (known as the “boss card”) is an additional 5, for a total of 30 available points per hand. After the hand, each team counts what they have taken. If the bidder’s team has taken at least the amount of their bid, they score all they have won. If this team fails, the amount of their bid is deducted from their score. The non-bidding team(s), in either case, always score what they have won in tricks.

Winning the Game: The team to first reach a total of 120 points wins the game. If both teams are 90 points or higher (referred to as being “on the green”), you must bid in order to win. If you don’t bid and reach 120 points, play continues. This goes on until either the bidding team goes out or all other teams fall off of the green.

Players: This game can be played with anywhere from 2 to 6 players. It can either be played in partners or “cut throat” (every man for himself). Changes in the amount of players don’t often fundamentally alter the rules of the game, but greatly affect the probabilities (and consequently strategies) involved.

Cards: A regular deck of 52. The highest trump is the 5, then the Jack, then and Ace of Hearts (no matter what suit is trump). After that it goes Ace of suit, King, Queen, and then it black it goes 2 through 10 and in red 10 through 2 (in both cases skipping the 5). The Full rank in the trump suit is the following, from highest to lowest:

Hearts: 5♥, J♥, A♥, K♥, Q♥ 10♥, 9♥, 8♥, 7♥, 6♥, 4♥, 3♥, 2♥

Diamonds: 5♦, J♦, A♥, A♦, K♦, Q♦, 10♦, 9♦, 8♦, 7♦, 6♦, 4♦, 3♦, 2♦

Clubs: 5♣, J♣, A♥, A♣, K♣, Q♣, 2♣, 3♣, 4♣, 6♣, 7♣, 8♣, 9♣, 10♣

Spades: 5♠, J♠, A♥, A♠, K♠, Q♠, 2♠, 3♠, 4♠, 6♠, 7♠, 8♠, 9♠, 10♠

The Full rank in off suit is as follows: (the Ace of Hearts is not shown since it is always a trump and always the third highest card); From highest to lowest:

Hearts: K♥, Q♥, J♥, 10♥, 9♥, 8♥, 7♥, 6♥, 5♥, 4♥, 3♥, 2♥

Diamonds: K♦, Q♦, J♦, 10♦, 9♦, 8♦, 7♦, 6♦, 5♦, 4♦, 3♦, 2♦, A♦

Clubs: K♣, Q♣, J♣, A♣, 2♣, 3♣, 4♣, 5♣, 6♣, 7♣, 8♣, 9♣, 10♣

Spades: K♠, Q♠, J♠, A♠, 2♠, 3♠, 4♠, 5♠, 6♠, 7♠, 8♠, 9♠, 10♠

Dealing: Each player is dealt 5 cards in batches of 3 then 2. After the initial 3 cards to each player, 3 are dealt to a kitty followed by 2 more to each player.

Bidding: The bidding starts with the player to the left of the deal and continues clockwise. Each player in turn may either bid or pass. Bids are made in multiples of 5 up to 30, with the minimum opening bid being 15. (An optional house rule allows you to bid “30 for 60.” If you get all 30 points for that hand, you get 60 points. If you don’t make your bid, 60 points are subtracted from your score.) No suit is mentioned during the bidding process until all bids have been made. The highest bidder names the trump suit. If nobody bids the dealer is “bagged” and forced to bid 15 for that hand.

Drawing: After the highest bidder names the trump suit, he gets to look at the kitty and take whatever he wants from it. Each player discards as many cards as he wishes from his hand, usually discarding all off-suit cards. (Note: If there are 6 players, each player can discard a maximum of 3 cards. If there are 5 or fewer players you can discard a maximum of 4 cards. An optional house rule may allow players to discard all five of their cards. If this is the case, then the fifth card is dealt face-up.) The dealer then restores each player’s hand to 5 cards, starting with the player to his left. Cards are dealt all at once to each player (no 3-2 method).

Playing: The bidder makes the opening lead. The hand is played out in 5 tricks. If a trump is led and you have any trump cards, you must follow suit.* If an off-suit card is led, any card may be played. (Note: A somewhat common variation of this is that you need to follow an off suit that is led if you are able to before being able to play an off-suit card from a different suit.) A trick is won by the highest trump or the highest card of the suit led if no trump cards are played. The subsequent tricks are led by the player who took the previous trick.

*Reneging exception: The three highest trumps (5, J, Ace of Hearts) have the privilege of reneging when a lower trump is led. For example, if the trump 6 is led, a player holding any of these three top trumps without lower trumps may throw off-suit instead of following suit (if he has lower trump also, then he must play a trump). But there is no reneging when a higher trump is led. For example, if the trump Jack is played, the holder of the 5 may renege, but not the holder of the Ace of Hearts.

Partner Play: If you have four or six players, you can play the game with partners. Partners sit across from each other. (If you have 6 players, you would have 2 players from other teams to either side of you.) Tricks taken by either member of the team count toward that team’s total.

Strategy tips:

•When playing partners, watch to see how many cards are drawn. If a bunch of people draw the maximum, you may want to lead with the 5. Otherwise, you would generally lead low and let your partner take the first trick. If you have a lot of trump cards, lead on-suit. If you don’t have many, lead off-suit.

•Bidders have a significant advantage because they get the kitty and get to choose the trump suit. If you have decent cards, don’t be timid. You should just about always bid 15 if you have a five and 20 if you have a five and jack of the same suit. Because of the risk of losing points, there is a greater risk involved, but there is also a greater award. When bidding, take note of how many people are playing. If you have good cards for a suit but don’t have the 5, you can bid 20 in a two player game, but you should almost never bid without the five (and never bid 20 without the 5) in a six player game.

•Don’t be too predictable in how you play. Sometimes, you may want to play your best cards early, and sometimes you want to save them. If you always play the same way, you give observant opponents an advantage. (This is by no means a suggestion to play crazy random cards; just switch things up every once in a while. To use a baseball analogy, a good change-up will make an average fastball much harder to hit.)

I will go over my ballot position by position.  For those of you outside of my district in NC, this may not be all that relevant to you, but it will reveal a little bit about my rationale about whom I vote for and why.

President: (Options are Obama/Biden (D), McCain/Palin (R), Barr/Root (L), and write in)

Obama/Biden isn’t even worth considering.  Pro abortion, functionally Marxist.  I have no faith that he will cease US interventionism abroad.  McCain/Palin are also not worthy of consideration.  McCain is a war monger who is an economic ignoramus.  I have no reason to believe that he will turn things around on abortion.  (That will be one of the first “bi-partisan” compromises he makes when he’s about to nominate a judge.)  Barr is by far the best of the three policy wise, if he can be believed.  Rather than the common “I’m personally against abortion, but..” line it appears that he’s publicly against abortion but his wife had one in 1983.  He went to Washington and was easily corrupted by the small power of being a congressman.  I shudder to think what would happen if he had access to presidential power.  Throw in the fact that he’s former CIA, and it becomes clear that I’m making a write in vote here. Vote: Ron Paul (write in): I know he’s no longer an active candidate for the office, but if you’re voting for a guy who won’t win anyway, I see no sense in voting for the lesser of two goods.  (Honorable mention Chuck Baldwin.)

U.S. Senate: (options are Kay Hagan (D), Elizabeth Dole (R), Christopher Cole (L), and write in)

Another case where the Republican and Democratic candidates are not even worth consideration.  Dole is horrible, and Hagan will be worse.  I spent a long time researching Chris Cole.  I do have some serious reservations about voting for him in that he is openly homosexual and supports gay marriage.  In looking at his positions, he believes that abortion is a state issue and opposes any federal involvement in the issue at all, whether it is funding, promotion, or banning at the federal level.  He does not disclose what he thinks the states ought to do.  As such, I think he would be far more likely to help end federally protected abortion than the “Pro-Life” Republicans in the federal government who want to keep abortion an issue forever by not stopping it.  He is really solid on everything a senator might vote on.  He wants to eliminate the fed, just about every federal department, and the income tax.  He essentially has the same positions as congressman Paul on federal issues with the exception of gay marriage where he believes in a very limited role of the Federal government anyway.  As Luther might say, I’d rather be ruled by a homosexual who rules like a Christian than by a Christian who rules like a homosexual.  Vote: Christopher Cole.

U.S. House District 13: (options are Brad Miller (D) and Hugh Webster (R))

I thought for sure that I was in B.J. Lawson’s district (4), but I found out to my horror when I received my ballot that I’m in district 13, where the candidates are Hugh Webster and Brad Miller.  Miller is horrible.  He voted for the bailout and is about as statist as they come.  Hugh Webster is a typical conservative who believes that liberals are the problem rather than bipartisan statism.  His biggest issue is to stop illegal immigration (presumably by making the state stronger.  His second biggest issue is that “it is imperative that we fight the War on Terror on foreign soil.”  Energy is a “national security” issue, and abortion isn’t even important enough to him to make his issues page.  No thanks, I’ll pass on this one since I do not have the opportunity to write-in.  Vote: Nobody

NC Governor: (options are Bev Purdue (D), Pat McCrory (R), and Michael Munger (L))

All of the negative adds between Purdue and McCrory are right.  They’re both crooks.  Purdue is worse on paper, but McCrory is more corrupt.  Michael Munger is by far the best of the three.  He’s really solid on annexation, eminent domain, and corporate welfare.  He’s good on election reform and victimless crimes.  He’s not great on education, believing that a government controlled system with the appearance of choice but still supported by coercive taxes (also known as “charter schools”) is the answer.  He’s bad on marriage, and horrible on abortion, which is a state issue.  Vote: Nobody

NC Lieutenant Governor: (options are Walter Dalton (D), Robert Pittenger (R), and Phillip Rhodes (L))

This was my hardest decision on the ballot.  I was able to dismiss Dalton after looking at his campaign page for about 30 seconds and Pittenger after 20 seconds.  (Pittenger’s website was easier to navigate.)  Phillip Rhodes has some really good positions—some of the best I’ve seen in a candidate running for office.  He is my favorite candidate whose name is actually on my ballot.  He is in favor of amending the NC constitution to get rid of the reconstruction-imposed stipulations, such as the eternal ban of secession.  He’s great on all the things that Munger is solid and good on, and better on education (believes on working toward a separation of school and state) and marriage (none of the government’s business, period).  However, on the abortion issue, he’s a wuss.  Now, it isn’t likely that Rhodes will win, or that Roe v. Wade will be overturned during his tenure in office if he does win.  However, I can’t bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  So it is with a heavy heart that I will have to leave this portion of the ballot blank.  Vote: Nobody

NC Attorney General: (options are Roy Cooper (D), and Bob Crumley (R))

Roy Cooper is on a crusade against “price gouging” gas stations.  He also demonstrated just enough backbone to take a stand on the Duke Lacrosse issue once it was absolutely no risk politically for him to do so.  Crumley rides an anti-gang, anti-immigration hobby horse and thinks more laws and law enforcement is the answer.  Vote: Nobody

Auditor: (choices are Beth Wood (D) and Leslie Merritt (R))

Beth Wood has endorsements from the AFL-CIO and the National Organization for Women.  Her auditing “won’t be politically motivated.”  Yeah.  Right.  Merritt was one of only three statewide Republican candidates to receive an endorsement from the NC Republican Liberty Caucus.   Vote: Leslie Merritt

Commissioner of Agriculture: (choices are Ronnie Ansley (D) and Steve Troxler (R))

I spent some time reading these guys’ websites.  They are pretty much indistinguishable.  Both seem to believe that government is the answer, so neither of them get my vote.  Vote: Nobody

Commissioner of Insurance: (choices are Wayne Goodman (D), John Odom (R) and Mark McMains (L))

This is a political office?  Really?  Good grief!  Goodman is Dwight Schrute.  The only way I’d vote for anybody here is if they vowed to abdicate once taking office or to work toward repealing all state regulation of insurance and then abdicate.  Sadly, Mr. McMains must be one of those Big State Libertarians.  The only position of his that is remotely Libertarian is the idea of repealing the workers compensation insurance laws. Vote: Nobody

Commissioner of Labor: (choices are Mary Fant Donnan (D) and Cherie Berry (R))

Anybody who is running on a platform other than elimination of the position will not get my vote.  Vote: Nobody

NC Secretary of State: (choices are Elaine Marshall (D) and Jack Sawyer (R))

Marshall is the incumbent and is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the North Carolina Association of Educators.  I know whose interests she has in heart.  Oh, and she also posted hundreds of thousands of social security numbers on the NC Secretary of State website.  No thanks.  Jack Sawyer is the first Republican I’ve encountered on my ballot that actually wants to decrease the size of government and remove burdensome regulations.  I will give him my vote, but keep an eye on him if he’s elected.  Vote: Jack Sawyer

Superintendent of Public Instruction: (choices are June St. Clair Atkinson (D) and Richard Morgan (R))

As I have said elsewhere, a government-controlled school system is worse than a government-controlled press.  Both candidates want to increase the role and cost of the government in education rather than reduce it.  Vote: Nobody

NC State Treasurer: (choices are Janet Cowell (D) and Bill Daughtridge (R))

Cowell is endorsed by all the bad guys (AFL-CIO, NARAL, NC Academy of Trial Lawyers, etc.).  Daughtridge is certainly better, but he’s all about corporate welfare subsidies. Vote: Nobody

NC State Senate District 16: (choices are Josh Stein (D) and John M. Alexander Jr. (R))

Stein is a leftist.  Alexander is a “moderate” big-government Republican in the McCain mold.  Very similar to the presidential “choices.”  I’m similarly nonplussed.  Vote: Nobody

NC House of Representatives District 35: (choices are Jennifer Weiss (D) and Eric Weaver (R))

Weiss is a buddy of former Speaker of the House, felon, and current white-collar inmate Jim Black.  Weaver is worth a look.  I disagree with his positions on education and illegal immigration, but otherwise he’s solid.  I agree with him on enough that he gets my vote. Vote: Eric Weaver

County Commissioner District 4: (choices are Stan Norwalk (D) and Kenn Gardner (R))

Norwalk wants to find even more ways to tax people to “pay for growth”.  Gardner voted to increase property taxes and has some alleged shady conflict of interest issues.  He’s also in favor   Vote: Nobody

County Commissioner District 5: (choices are Harold Webb (D) and Venita Peyton (R))

You know, at first I thought based on the legion of typographical errors that Venita Peyton was going to ask me to wire money offshore in order to get an inheritance for some lesser prince halfway around the world.  But on the issues, she’s better than Kenn Gardner and she realizes that more government isn’t the answer and most of the important work to improve communities is done by private institutions rather than public ones, especially the church.  As you may have noticed, my vote is not easily gained, but I’m giving it to Venita Peyton.  Vote: Venita Peyton

County Commissioner District 6: (choices are Betty Lou Ward (D) and Larry F. Tilley (R))

Pretty bleak here.  Tilley is another pro-public education Republican who wants to raise taxes but spend the tax dollars “efficiently”.  Vote: Nobody

Register of Deeds: (choice is Laura M. Riddick)

One option?  I feel like I’m in the Soviet Union.  I couldn’t find out Riddick’s positions on anything, so I’m not voting for her.  I’m sure she’ll still garner the one vote necessary to win from somebody.  Vote: Nobody

NC Supreme Court Associate Justice: (choices are Robert H. Edmunds, Jr. and Suzanne Reynolds)

A pro-police state Republican versus a Democrat endorsed by the usual suspects.  I don’t buy this “Non-Partisan offices” shtick for a minute.  Vote: Nobody

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Martin Seat): (choice is John C. Martin)

This NC voter guide is lame.  Nothing about the candidates judicial philosophy.  I wish they had debates or something I could find on the Internet.  Martin is running unopposed.  He’ll win without my vote.  Vote: Nobody

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Wynn Seat): (choices are Jewel Ann Farlow and James A. Wynn)

Judge Wynn is endorsed by all the hard-left special interests.  Farlow pledges to be a strict constructionist and follow the law as written.  (I hope she is more of a Thomas Jefferson strict constructionist than a George W. Bush “strict constructionist.”)  I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.  She isn’t as overtly Police State as Edmunds.  Vote: Jewel Ann Farlow

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Tyson Seat): (choices are Sam J. Ervin, IV and Kristin Ruth)

Well, things get more and more interesting.  Here we have 2 Democrats running against each other.  Kristin Ruth gets most of the really hard left endorsements, but Ervin gets the NC Trial Lawyers endorsement and the State Troopers association.  Never vote for a judge who has been endorsed by the State Police. Vote: Nobody

NC Court of Appeals Judge (McCullough Seat): (choices are Cheri Beasley and Doug McCullough)

Beasley is endorsed by all the usual suspects on the left.  McCullough is the only candidate in the voter guide who included the word “liberty” in his personal statement, and is also not ashamed of his decisions.  He provided hyperlinks to decisions he has written, so he must not be ashamed of them.  I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything, but he seems to have a high regard for juries and is reluctant to overturn jury decisions.  Vote: Doug McCullough

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Stephens seat): (choices are Dan Barrett and Linda Stephens)

Stephens is endorsed by the teachers’ union and the State Troopers.  Barrett is campaigning on a platform of a conservative judicial philosophy that won’t attempt to legislate from the bench.  Vote: Dan Barrett

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Arrowood seat): (choices are John S. Arrowood and Robert N. Hunter, Jr)

Arrowood has the endorsements of the lefties.  Bob Hunter boldly states on his front page: “It has been my experience that the golden rule is the moral basis of all law.”  Now, I don’t think he’s necessarily a theonomist or anything, but he isn’t ashamed to state that just law has its basis in the Bible.  That’s a move in the right direction, even if he gets some of the particulars wrong.  Vote: Robert N. Hunter, Jr.

NC Superior Court Judge District 10B: (choice is Howard E. Manning, Jr.)

Manning was the presiding judge over Leandro v. North Carolina.  While he ruled that the state public schools were doing a poor job, he only set the stage for a bigger government role in education.  Boo!  Vote: Nobody

District Court Judges:

There are several judges running unopposed.  The NC Democratic Party endorses Monica M. Bousman, Eric Chasse, Lori G. Christian, Jane P. Gray, Robert Rader, and Deborah Sasser.  I won’t vote for them.  I can’t find enough out about Jennifer Miller Green to know whether to vote for her.  I didn’t like anything I found about Jennifer Knox.  With Brewer and Miller, I favor Miller slightly, but it’s really six of one, half a dozen of the other.  I enjoyed reading Walter Rand’s questionnaire for the Independent Weekly.  He appears to be the closest thing to a libertarian judicial candidate.  I’m not really interested or impressed by Jacqueline Brewer or John J. Miller III.  Voting for: Walter Rand

Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor: (choices are Fred W. Burt, William Cole, Robin M. Hammond, and Marcia Lieber)

Last and probably least on my ballot is the position of Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor.  All of the candidates are big on government.  But (cha-ching) there is a write in option on this spot.  Because I wasn’t able to vote for BJ Lawson for Congress (grumble, grumble), I will write him in as Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor.  Lawson’s big on sustainability and small on government, so he’d be perfect for the job.  You may argue technicalities like Lawson not living in the district and thus being ineligible to serve for this position, but it’s my vote and you can cry about it.  It’s a symbolic vote.  Vote: B.J. Lawson (write-in)

And there you have it.  Hopefully I’ve voted for few enough people this time that I won’t regret whom I voted for.  Aside from the judges, Merritt is probably the only one with a likelihood of winning.