Wednesday, August 30, 2006

the pursuit of happiness

Do you ever read that Woman to Woman feature in the Voices section of the Tribune? I think it shows up once a week or so. Two women face off on some random contemporary issue. Diane Class describes herself as a freethinker and Shaunti Feldhahn describes herself as a conservative Christian. Both have degrees from Harvard.

Anyway, this week's face off was on the "pursuit of happiness."

Tribune doesn't post this type of thing online, but I found it elsewhere here. . . .

Is the "pursuit of happiness" just an American dream?

Mrs. Glass describes religious belief as a mass opiate along the lines of overeating and and anti depressants. She argues that our state of happiness is biologically predetermined and therefore happiness is a questionable pursuit altogether.

Mrs. Feldhahn references joy as a deeper, less circumstance-driven version of happiness. She argues that happiness is a choice and that the practice of religion can contribute to feelings of happiness. She quotes a 2006 Pew Research study that showed that 43% of people who regularly attend religious services are "very happy" compared to 26% of those who rarely do. But Feldhahn, in my opinion, oversimplifies Paul's Gospel-centered joy in Philippians as "choose to focus on the positive, and your feelings will follow."

Is the secret of Paul's contentment really only "thinking happy thoughts?"

What are your thoughts? How's your own pursuit of happiness going?

(At the link above, I found it very interesting and intriguing to also read the comments below the article. How sarcastic and cutting people can be!)

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Theule Family Photo of the Week: little men

These are my boys . . . Zeke and Haak. . . . washing off after spaghetti dinner.

Katrina: One Year Later

Robbin Mote returned from Guatemala. Brian Wong got back from China. Rona Lee left for Spain. In addition to all these comings and goings, the Grace New Orleans team went and returned to the Katrina impact zone to come along side Trinity Christian Community. It sounds like it was a great trip. Check out some of Pastor Steve's reflections at . . .

the source

Also, here's a World Mag cover story entitled Katrina: One Year Later which will add a complementary perspective.

The Christians are showing up. The Gospel is being lived. God is being glorified through tragedy.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Together for the Gospel

Recently came across these affirmations and denials that emerged out of this Spring's Together for the Gospel conference. I hope that we, too, are a church that affirms and denies these things . . .

mixed bag

Even as we anticipate the delightful onslaught of college students in just a couple of weeks, we continue to say good bye to others who are moving out and on to life beyond SLO.

Cameron Carter and Amy Schultz both took the time to stop me on campus yesterday and let me know that yesterday would be their last Sunday with us. They both were so appreciative of our ministry and shared how much they were going to miss Grace Church. It was, once again, a reminder to me that we need to keep doing what we're doing in the area of integrating college students into the life of the church. God is at work in and through these efforts!

Amy handed me a WF tab with this note on it:

Thank you for being my church family during my time at Cal Poly. Everyone has been encouraging and I will miss the leaders dearly. I pray that I'll find a church like Grace wherever my career takes me. Thank you & God bless!
Today, shoot up a "flare prayer" for Amy, Cameron and the many others who have gone out from us this year. Pray, also, that the Lord would prepare us for the "white and ripe fields of harvest" that He'll bring to us in just a couple of weeks. . . .that He would give us enlarge our hearts and capacity to welcome, serve and reach out.

It's going to be exciting. . . Tim

Little Pilgrim's Progress

Yesterday, we looked at three parables in Matthew 24/25 that Christ uses to urge us to "live alert" for his coming. (Listen Here!) In the message I mentioned that our famiy has been reading Little Pilgrim's Progress, an adaptation of John Bunyan's classic for younger readers by Helen Taylor. (I just read that the book is 55 years old, so it's an enduring classic in its own right!)

Here's a link for more info:

We are so committed to the concept of family reading. It doesn't happen every night and we try not to make it a stressful thing, but we're pulling it off several times a week. We've found that even the littler ones, for whom the reading material is over their heads, enjoy the time. Our kids bring us the current book after dinner and beg for more after every chapter. Also, we don't only read Christian material, but also other "classics" since we believe reading "classics" teach virtue and form character through the power of story. They are "classics" for a reason!

Make family reading a habit in your home! We all love it.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Thoughts on the Return of Christ, Part IV

Here are those charts I promised in the last post which I also showed on Sunday, August 13. The slides show three (NOT ALL) commonly held views on the unfolding of the end times.

(The charts are from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, which I referenced in part 2.)

The first is a representative of the Pretribulation Rapture view.

My understanding is that the Pretribulation Rapture view is a relatively new perspective originally put forth by John Darby in the mid-19th Century and then popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible and more recently by Tim Lahaye's Left Behind series. I think its safe to say that this view is the most popular view TODAY among modern mainstream Evangelicals.

Here is a chart representing Classic or Historic Premillenialism.
And finally here's a chart representing Amillenialism . . .

Amillenialists do not believe there will be a literal, physical rule and reign of Christ upon the earth for a thousand years. Rather they take the first part of Revelaation 20 as figuritive and describing the Church age where Christ is ruling and reigning now.

Both Historic Premillenialism and Amillenialism date back to the early church Fathers and have been popular views throughout the 20 Centuries of church history. Adherents to both views argue which view has been the MOST POPULAR throughout church history.

All three views are held by Biblical Christians today. And there are other views including Postmillenialism, Mid-Tribulaton Rapture Premellenialism, full blown Preterism and everything in between. (I'll let you figure those views out for yourselves!)

Therefore, we ought to humble and charitable with one another when it comes to end times matters.

Thoughts on the Return of Christ, Part III

By way of recap . . .

In the message last Sunday on August 13th, we looked in detail at the return of Christ described in Matthew 24:23-31.

We saw the Reality of the Coming of Christ. . .

  • His Coming will be SURPRISING (24:38-41)
  • His Coming will be UNMISTAKEABLE (24:23-27)
  • His Coming will be VISIBLE (24:27, 30)
  • His Coming will be COSMIC (24:29)
  • His Coming will be GLORIOUS (24:30)
  • His Coming will be REVOLUTIONARY (24:30-31)

And then we looked at Our Reaction to the Coming of Christ . . . for the Christian, the Coming of Christ is intended to elicit . . .

  • Hope (Titus 2:11-13, 1 Thes. 4:13, 1 John 3:1-3)
  • Rejoicing (I Peter 1:3-9)
  • Comfort (John 14:1-3, 1 Thes. 4:17)
  • Patience (James 5:7-8)
  • Eager Expectation & Readiness (Mt. 24:42-44, 1 Cor. 1:7, 16:22, Phil. 3:20, 1 Thes.5:4-10, Heb. 9:28, 2 Pet. 3:12, Rev. 22:20
Seems pretty straighforward, doesn't it? But there's a major "pinch."

Those who subscribe to a Pretribulation Rapture doen't think these verses in Matthew 24 referr to the Rapture, but to the second, second coming of Christ after the Tribulation. For Pretrib folks, the church is removed by rapture somewhere between vv. 15 and 21. even though Jesus does not mention a rapture. So Matthew 24:23-31 are pretty irrelevant to those who subscribe to a Pre-Trib rapture and only really apply to those who will saved during the Tribulation.

Here’s why I find a pretribulation rapture does not jive with a natural straightforward reading of Matthew 24 . . .
  1. First, I go back to the disciples original questions in v. 3. “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” The disciples are asking, "When are you coming?" Jesus tells them about a bunch of stuff that will happen, but He doesn’t them tell them about the rapture! That doesn’t make sense to me. If they’re confused in their understanding, you’d think He’d say, "You’ve got it all wrong. I’m coming for you first, I’m going to get you outa here, then I’m going to come in judgment." The rapture is a pretty big deal, but Jesus doesn’t mention it. Why?

  2. Second, verse 31 mentions the angels who “WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds.” This term “elect” is a term that Jesus has used in reference to the disciples. They would naturally think that he is talking about them. I think he speaks this verse as words of comfort to the disciples. But a pretribulation rapture position requires that these elect be Jews and others saved during the Tribulation. Why? Because the church has already been raptured before the Tribulation. But, again, there’s no indication of a rapture in v. 31.

  3. Third, Jesus’ encouragement to alertness and readiness in 42 – 44 follows this description of his coming in v. 29-31. In fact He uses the exact same phrase to refer to it. . . “the coming of the son of man” in v. 37 and 42. Are Jesus words intended as encouragement only for those who will be saved during the tribulation? No, they’re meant to be encouragement for the original hearers and for disciples of all generations who read them. A rapture that Jesus does not mention, but that’s inserted somewhere between verse 15 and 20, renders the rest of the chapter irrelevant to the original hearers and to us. We might as well skip ahead to chapter 25.
So where does that leave us? Are there other ways to understand Matthew 24? Are Matthew 24:23-31 relevant for us?

(Stay tuned for Part IV, where I'll show you those charts from Sunday.)

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Thoughts on the Return of Christ, Part II

(I changed the title of yesterday's post "out" to "Thoughts on the Return of Christ, part I" since I've got a little blog series going right now. We'll see how far it goes. . . )

No one's commenting on this End Times stuff. That's all right. There is no turning back now. . . so I'll press on.

Here are a few more thoughts on View 3 (all of things in Matthew 24 have happened and are continuing to happen). So get out your Bibles and follow along.

First, from D.A. Carson, Expositor Bible Commentary, Matthew . . . .

In my understanding of the Olivet Discourse, the disciples think of Jerusalem's destruction and the eschatological end as a single complex web of events. This accounts for the form of their questions. Jesus warns that there will be a delay before the End--a delay characterized by persecution and tribulation for his followers, but with one particularly violent display of judgment in the Fall of Jerusalem. Immediately after the days of that sustained persecution characterizing the interadvent period comes the Second Advent. The warning of vv. 32-35 describes the whole tribulation period, from the Ascension to the Second Advent. The tribulation period will certainly come, and the generation to which Jesus is speaking will experience all its features that point to the Lord's return. But the exact time of that return no one but the Father knows (vv. 36-44). This structure words out in all three Synoptics (though with significant difference in emphasis), and the main themes developed have important ties with other NT books. The disciples' questions are answered, and the reader is exhorted to look forward to the Lord's return and meanwhile to live responsively, faithfully, compassionately and courageously while the master is away (24:45-25:46). . . .

Although many commentators hold that Matthew (but probably not Mark and certainly not Luke) here portrays not just the Fall of Jerusalem but also the Great Tribulation before Antichrist comes, the details of vv. 16-21 are too limited geographically and culturally to justify that view. . .

That Jesus in v. 21 promises that such "great distress" is never to be equaled implies that it cannot refer to the Tribulation at the end of the age; for if what happens next is the Millenium or the new heaven and new earth, it seems inane to say that such "great distress" will not take place again. At the same time, by these remarks, Jesus finishes his description of Jerusalem in Matthew and Mark. . .

"This generation" (in 24:34) can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke. Even if "generation" by itself can have a slightly larger semantic range, to make "THIS generation" refer to all believers in every age, or the generation of believers alive when eschatological events start to happen, is highly artificial. Yet it does not follow that Jesus mistakenly thought the Parousia would occur within his hearer's lifetime. If our interpretation of this chapter is right, all that v. 34 demands is that the distress of vv. 4-28, including Jerusalem's fall, happen within the lifetime of the generation then living. This does NOT mean that the distress must END within that time but only that "all these things" must happen within it. Therefore v. 34 sets a terminus a quo for the Parousia: it cannot happen till the events of vv 4-28 take place, all within a generation of A.D. 30. But there is no terminus ad quem to this distress other than the Parousia itself, and "only the Father" knows when it will happen (v. 36).
Second, from Craig Blomberg, The New American Commentary, Matthew . . .
If these two verses (Mt. 24:21-22) simply depict horrors surrounding the war or A.D. 70, it is hard to see how v. 21 could be true. If they point to some end-time sacrilege, just before the Parousia, then it is hard to see how Matthew allows for a gap of at least 2000 years between vv. 20-21. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this period of great distress or "the great tribulation," as it is more commonly known, as the entire period beginning with the devastation of A.D. 70 and continuing on until Christ's return. . . .

Jesus envisages this time as short, but 2 Peter 3:8, quoting Psalm 90:4, reminds us that God's perspective on what is a short period of time is not necessarily the same as ours ("a thousand years are like a day"). As with the "abomination that causes desolation" in v. 15, seeing Jesus' reference to the great tribulation as beginning in A.D. 70 does not exclude a later application of this expresssion to the period of time described in Rev. 7-19--the final stages of the interadvent period. Revelation 7:14 seems to suggest precisely such an intensification of horrors immediately preceding the end of the age. God's intervention in history plays out in repeated patterns of activity on ever grander or more awful scales. At least in Matthew, however, it would seem that the tribulation Jesus has in mind must refer to the entire church age from A.D. 70 on. . . .

"The elect" (eklectoi) are the same group as the "chosen" of 22:14 and therefore must refer to Christians of any race, rather than to literal Israel. . . .

Walvoord correctly observes that nothing in any of these verses in Matthew describes the rapture. . . .

It is crucial to observe the fulfillment of all these preliminary events prior to A.D. 70. This fulfillment will explain how 24:34 can be true. It demonstrates that everything necessary for Christ's return was accomplished within the first generation of Christianity, so that every subsequent generation has been able to believe that Jesus could come back in their times. It should lead us to reject all views that claim to know for sure that Christ is returning in a given year, decade or century on the basis of some unique event that has never previously occurred in Christian history (as, e.g., with the reestablishment of the state of Israel or with some future, hypothetical rebuilding of the temple." . . . .

Neither the unrelenting pessimism of traditional dispensationalism nor the unbridled optimism of certain forms of postmillenialism is justified. Instead the time prior to Christ's return will be characterized by a growing polarization between good and evil . . .

The upshot of this chapter is to let the disciples know some more details about the temple's destruction, without specifying when it will occur, and to make it plain that from that moment on, the end of the age, signaled by the return of Christ's return, can come at any moment.
All of this resonates with me and makes more sense than other views I've read.

(If you've thoughtfully read this far, I'll let you in on a little secret. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is giving me fits. (I'll let you look it up!) I'm not sure how this fits. V. 8 makes is pretty hard to say that the man of lawlessness showed himself by 70 AD. (though there were Roman Emperors claiming to be God.) This could be a sign which has not taken place, but could it take place very quickly? Does this compromise my perspective that Christ could return at any moment? I don't think it compromises the interpretation of Matthew 24:34 that I've proposed, because all the things that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24:34 took place before the generation of the disciples passed away. It just so happens that Jesus doesn't mention the man of lawlessness---Paul does at a later date. Conclustion: I'm not sure how to reconcile 2 Thessalonians 2:12 with what I believe the rest of the NT teaches about at soon, at any moment return of Christ (imminent!).)

Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology offers this solution by saying "it's unlikely, but possible that the signs have already been fulfilled." Christ could return at any time, since we cannot be certain that the signs have not been fulfilled, and so we must be ready, even though it is unlikely that Christ will return at once, because it seems that there are several signs yet to be fulfilled. This position agrees that we cannot know when Christ will return, and that he is coming at an hour we do not expect.

The botom line: Everyone picks their poison. There is no air tight eschatology. All have their weakness, all have their chinks, all have their problems. You pick the one that you believe eliminates the most problems and creates the least.

Therefore, we must be charitable and humble with one another with regards to end times matters.

I don't think so . . .

Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal sent by David Leece about how T.D. Jakes is getting ready to sell subsriptions to his podcasts.

Pastor's Sermons To Test Viability Of Paid Podcasts

Doesn't quite sit right with me. . . .the whole charging for the Gospel thing.

Monday, August 14, 2006

I'm not the only one. . .

John Piper is a Post-Trib guy, which means he's a classic premillenialist (or amillenialist), though he does not believe that Jesus could return at any moment. I'm all right with that. . .

Check out this article. . . .

Definitions and Observations Concerning the Second Coming of Christ

Here's his post-trib comment on Matthew 24. . .

5. When you read Matthew 24 or Mark 13 or Luke 21, which are Jesus' descriptions of the end times, there is no mention of a rapture removing believers from the events of the end. A normal reading gives no impression of a departure. On the contrary, he talks as if the believing listeners and then the readers would or could experience the things he mentions. See Mt. 24:4, 9, 15, 23, 25f, 33, etc.

Here's a comment that reveals his view that Christ could not come at any moment.

7. The commands to "watch" do not lose their meaning if the second coming is not an any-moment one. See Matt. 25:1-13 where all ten maidens are asleep when the Lord returns. Yet the lesson at the end of the parable is, "Watch!" The point is that watching is not gazing up for an any-moment-return of the Lord; it is the moral vigilance that keeps you ready at all times doing your duty—the wise maidens had full lanterns! They were watchful!

Once more, we're reminded that there are varying views on this stuff. . . let's be charitable and humble with one another. Or as Piper says . . .

Let me stress that the disagreement over pre- and post-tribulationism is not one that I think should threaten our fellowship. It should not be divisive. The things on which we agree are so stupendous as to overwhelm our hearts in common love for the Lord and his appearing. Let us not make the second coming a center of controversy, but a cause for worship and earnest hope and liberating confidence for the ministry before us!

Thoughts on the Return of Christ, Part I

Not because I wanted to get into this stuff, but because I'm committed to preaching them as they come, we've been looking at Matthew 24 these last two weeks.

By way of review. . .

The first week, we asked the question, "Could Christ come at any moment?"

Matthew 24 mentions three things that must happen before the return of Jesus:

  1. Birth Pangs (3-14)
  2. The Abomination of Desolation (15-20)
  3. A Great Tribulation (21-22)
The question is which, if any, of these things have happened and does it matter?

It matters . . . because of the difficulty raised by Matthew 24:34:

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Jesus is emphatic here with this "Truly, I say to you. . . " He's making a point, but what is it?

I layed out three views held by Biblical Christians today:
  1. None of these things have taken place.
  2. Some of these things have taken place.
  3. All of these things have taken place and are continuing to take place. (yes, even "a great tribulation!")
In views 1 and 2, "generation" in 24:34 is understood to mean "race of Jews" or "last generation living when these things start to happen."

The upshot of views 1 and 2 is that the coming of Christ described in Matthew 24 could not come at any moment because these things must happen first, which kind of pulls the punch on Jesus' instructions to be alert and ready in v. 36 and following.

Those who subscribe to view #1, believe that a rapture of the church, which is not mentioned in Matthew 24, makes Jesus instructions to alertness and readiness still relevant. But it seems crazy that since the disciples are asking about the unfolding of the end times in v. 3 that Jesus wouldn't tell them about the rapture. Isn't this a bit misleading?

But according to view #3, all these things really did take place in the generation of the disciples around the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 66-70 AND they are continuing to take place throughout the church age. Jesus, then, is describing the general characteristics of the church age between His comings. The upshot of view #3 is is that 24:34 is straightforwardly fulfilled and Jesus might return at any moment. We are living in the last days.

Do you see the rub? Do you sense the tension? Do you see the implications? Which view do you hold?

I've held all three views at one time or another in my Chrsitian walk and study of the Scriptures. Shockingly. . . at present, I lean toward and loosely hold to view #3 for the following reasons:
  1. It’s the most natural reading of the text in its original historical and cultural context. Jesus means what He says. We take Jesus' words as his disciples would have heard them. We don’t have to reengineer or explain away the word “generation” to fit our interpretation.

  2. View #3 supports the NT teaching that Christ could indeed come again at any moment. This seems to fit with the text that immediately follows where the exhortation is “be on the alert for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.” We really should be alert. (I believe that views #1 and #2 undermine our need for alertness.)

  3. View #3 explains the Apostolic expectation that preserves the reliability of Scripture. The Apostles, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, expressed their belief that it was "the end of all things was near" (I Peter 4:7). . . that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18). . . and that the coming of the Lord was near (James 5:7 & 8). It was. . . then and now because all that needed to happen before Jesus comes again has happened. They were near then. We are nearer now.
So, this is a brief summary of August 6. If you missed it, you can listen online.

I've received a bunch of emails and I'll share some of the questions and responses in future posts, but first I'll summaraze August 13 in the next post.

In the meantime, you can tee off in the comments section. . . . let's be charitable and humble with one another since these are non-essentials.

attention windows users (UPDATED)

Update: Never mind, my cousin Matt was kind enough to fix my messy html. Should be all fixed.

I've been informed that you windows users can't see the four sweet icons along the right side of this page (grace logo, ipod, headphones and rolodex) . . . is that right?

What's up with that? I can't figure this one out.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

time for some bloggin'

Are you ready to roll?

I've preaching on Matthew 24 the last two weeks and dying to post, but I've been super busy catching up after vacation and just trying to get my head around the text. I have just a bit of a break in the madness with baptism next week, so I thought I'd go for it this week.

First order of business. . . I'm looking for some feedback on my use of PowerPoint the last two weeks. You early "life together" readers might recall that I came out pretty anti=PowerPoint several months ago. But I was pretty challenged by Family Conference Speaker Greg Sidder's use of PowerPoint and such. Quite frankly, it was the best use of technology that I've ever seen by a Pastor. I didn't think it compromised his excellent Biblical teaching, but actually enhanced. All that to say, it got me rethinking some of my convictions in this area. The last couple of weeks, I've been experimenting with the stuff a bit.

It's a fair amount of extra work, so if it's not helpful or if it's distracting in anyway, then I'd rather not mess with it, but if it's one more level of communication that helps a person track, follow along and get the point, then I'm all over it.

My goal the last couple of weeks has been try and use the technology in the least obtrusive way possible, not as the main thing, but as a compliment and additional layer to a full orbed exposition of the Scirptures. I've tried not to talk about it, but just do it. Rather than change the slides myself, I've given a manuscript with slides to the tech guys so they can follow along and change the slides on cue. I've tried to make it seamless and "matter of fact." I'm so committed to seeing people use their bibles on Sunday morning, so I've been very careful to drive people into the main text in Matthew 24 and use the PowerPoint for additional sideline texts, main points and supporting points, quotes and what I think might be helpful charts, diagrams or images.

Most of the folks, I've directly asked have been positive. . . . all except one.

What are your thoughts? I'm less interested in what you think about the matter in general and more interested in your experience of the message the last couple of weeks.

  • Has the use of PowerPoint distracted you or helped you?
  • Has the use of PowerPoint compromised my preaching or enhanced it?
  • Any suggestions for if or how the technology might be used more effectively?
(Let's hear from some of you "closet readers" that never comment. I know you're out there because you tell me you're reading along. Let's take broaden the dialogue!)

Here's the bottom line I'm struggling with . . . we are living in such a visual culture. I, at the same time, want to challenge that image basis AND take full advantage of it. Everybody draws their own line in the sand in terms of their use of technology. When is it time to move the line?

I sure don't have it all figured out. I want to be Biblical and faithful to my call. I want to preach. At the same time, I want to connect and be the best communicator I can be for His Name's Sake. I want to avoid worldliness. I think going to church should look and feel different than going to the movies or the boardroom. The Bible doesn't talk about PowerPoint (at least I can't find it), but that doesn't mean we should run headlong into these things. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Less still is more.

Do you feel my angst?

(Don't worry we'll throw all the end times stuff into the mix on Monday!)

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Too Much Time on Their Hands

The Youth Ministry team is at it again. Check out these hilarious video shorts intended to promote the upcoming Fall Forward getaway.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

2006 Family Conference Audio Now Posted

I didn't post about the Family Conference that happened a couple of weeks ago, but that wasn't because it wasn't good. It was great! If you missed it, you missed out. Every session was Biblical, insightful and so practical. The audio for all 4 sessions is now available on website HERE.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Happy 70th Birthday, Werner

My father-in-law, Werner, turned 70 back in July. For his birthday, we planned a trip to Shaver Lake with the whole Jacobsen clan. All 18 have been staying in one BIG cabin. It's been a great week. The cousins are having a blast. We've been taco-ing (new word) behind the boat, shooting bb guns, eating smores and playing games.

Our verse of the week has been 1 Peter 4:8-10:

Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint. As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

I brought the mt. bike and have been logging some good miles. (I couldn't let the SLO crew pass me by!)

We're here till Friday. Back in the saddle on Sunday. See you then.

Happy Birthday, Werner.