In an effort to blog about something for the first time in ages, I thought I would rip this off from a friend and just see where it takes me. So here I go.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What Privileges Do You Have?
Based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University.(If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.)
Directions: Bold the statements that apply to you.
1. Father went to college.
2. Father finished college.
3. Mother went to college.
4. Mother finished college.
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor.
6. Were the same or higher social class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children’s books by a parent.
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18.
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18.
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively.
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18.
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs.
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs.
16. Went to a private high school.
17. Went to summer camp (yes, I went to band camp, and choir camp.)
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18.
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them.
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child.
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house.
24. Your parents owned their own house or apartment before you left home.
25. You had your own room as a child.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18.
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course.
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school.
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college.
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16.
31. Went on a cruise with your family.
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family.
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up.
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's kind of surprising to see the things that I did have and the things that I didn't. Part of the strange world of missionary kid childhoods.
Wednesday, March 25
Rockin' Out to Jesus
I have a relatively small collection of Christian pop music compared to my collection of secular rock and pop. However, every once in a while I get the urge to just let loose and listen to it over and over again. Tonight is one of those nights.
The Christian music I'm most into is actually older hymns. But I was introduced to Christian pop in high school through some friends and also through the Christian bookstore where I worked. I found several CD's and bands that really appealed to me and so I kept listening. Generally speaking I tend to think of Christian pop as annoyingly pedantic and preachy. However, for some reason the songs I liked really really touch me deeply. They may be simple and overly naive explanations of Christianity, but they reach deep inside of me.
Personally, I think this speaks to the basic quality of Christianity. Rather than simply an intellectual exercise (although it is that), and rather than just a motivation to do good in the world (although it is that as well), Christianity is most fundamentally about the relationship between Christ and his Church. In that way, it makes sense that each person and community experiences Christ differently. That is not to say that Christianity is inclusive in the bizarre way some people want it to be. Rather, Christianity is expansive and the way it reaches people can't be nailed down. For someone like myself, as a rather intellectual snob, when I listen to this pretty basic music and it makes me cry, that tells me something.
I like the fact that Christianity subverts "reality" at every turn. Where we think we know everything Christianity breaks down our arrogance. Where we believe we don't need to grow Christianity challenges us to not stay put. When we think we are lost in confusion Christianity reminds us of home and rest. I like the fact that I can listen to this music and it subverts everything I thought I understood about myself.
The Christian music I'm most into is actually older hymns. But I was introduced to Christian pop in high school through some friends and also through the Christian bookstore where I worked. I found several CD's and bands that really appealed to me and so I kept listening. Generally speaking I tend to think of Christian pop as annoyingly pedantic and preachy. However, for some reason the songs I liked really really touch me deeply. They may be simple and overly naive explanations of Christianity, but they reach deep inside of me.
Personally, I think this speaks to the basic quality of Christianity. Rather than simply an intellectual exercise (although it is that), and rather than just a motivation to do good in the world (although it is that as well), Christianity is most fundamentally about the relationship between Christ and his Church. In that way, it makes sense that each person and community experiences Christ differently. That is not to say that Christianity is inclusive in the bizarre way some people want it to be. Rather, Christianity is expansive and the way it reaches people can't be nailed down. For someone like myself, as a rather intellectual snob, when I listen to this pretty basic music and it makes me cry, that tells me something.
I like the fact that Christianity subverts "reality" at every turn. Where we think we know everything Christianity breaks down our arrogance. Where we believe we don't need to grow Christianity challenges us to not stay put. When we think we are lost in confusion Christianity reminds us of home and rest. I like the fact that I can listen to this music and it subverts everything I thought I understood about myself.
Late Night Musings
This is what happens when I can't sleep and get online at 1:30 in the morning.
As I stare down turning 30 later this year it occurs to me that I am aging and not aging at the same time. For instance when I look in the mirror I can see in my face that I am not as young as I used to be. However, at the same time I am currently in the best shape I have been probably since high school. I suppose the standard procedure is for people to both age and sort of let themselves go a bit more than they used to. However, since I had my "awakening" over a year ago I have been able to not only lose weight and keep it off, but also work very hard to keep myself healthy.
To be perfectly honest it is a little odd to see the somewhat opposing processes in action. I've never minded aging. I don't shy away from it like some people do. But to a certain extent the fact that I am in shape and healthy blunts the kind of aging that I used to expect would come sooner rather than later. And that makes me somewhat fall victim to the modern ages obsession with youth.
Now it is 1:37 and I will try and sleep again. No sense getting worked up about something this late at night. I want to make sure I get up in time for church.
As I stare down turning 30 later this year it occurs to me that I am aging and not aging at the same time. For instance when I look in the mirror I can see in my face that I am not as young as I used to be. However, at the same time I am currently in the best shape I have been probably since high school. I suppose the standard procedure is for people to both age and sort of let themselves go a bit more than they used to. However, since I had my "awakening" over a year ago I have been able to not only lose weight and keep it off, but also work very hard to keep myself healthy.
To be perfectly honest it is a little odd to see the somewhat opposing processes in action. I've never minded aging. I don't shy away from it like some people do. But to a certain extent the fact that I am in shape and healthy blunts the kind of aging that I used to expect would come sooner rather than later. And that makes me somewhat fall victim to the modern ages obsession with youth.
Now it is 1:37 and I will try and sleep again. No sense getting worked up about something this late at night. I want to make sure I get up in time for church.
Fun With iTunes
As a Mac person, I think iTunes is the greatest music player ever created. It has everything I could ever want and it looks good to boot. Plus, I can hold all my music in neatly created folders that allow me the flexibility to listen to exactly what I want when I want. That is necessary because my musical tastes are so bizarrely eclectic that I would fain randomize my whole music list out of fear of what might come next.
So of course that made me think of what odd thing I could do next. Thus, my list of the first twenty songs that came up in a totally random collection of 1149 songs. This should be interesting (to me):
1. Knocking on Heaven's Door by Guns 'n' Roses (Use Your Illusion II)
2. Pachabel's Canon by Canadian Brass (Variations on Pachabel's Canon)
3. The Longest Time by Billy Joel (Greatest Hits Volume I & II)
4. Higher Love by Steve Winwood (Back in the High Life)
5. The End of All Things by Howard Shore (Return of the King Soundtrack)
6. Enter Sandman by Metallica (Metallica)
7. The Safety Dance by Men Without Hats (My Hats Collection)
8. Karma Chameleon by Culture Club (Colour by Numbers)
9. Without Love by Annie Herring (All That I Am)
10. La Isla Bonita by Madonna (True Blue)
11. Agnus Dei by Third Day (Offerings - A Worship Album)
12. Rough Flight by John Ottman (Superman Returns Soundtrack)
13. "Hard to Starboard" by James Horner (Titanic Soundtrack)
14. The TV by Space Ghost (Space Ghost's Musical Bar-B-Que)
15. Die Allmacht by Schubert (Mysteries Beyond)
16. Massacre by Randy Edelman & Trevor Jones (Last of the Mohicans Soundtrack)
17. A New Hope and End Credits by John Williams (Revenge of the Sith Soundtrack)
18. Barbie Girl by Aqua (My Oh My)
19. Instanbul by They Might Be Giants (Flood)
20. The Search is Over by Survivor (Survivor: Greatest Hits)
So of course that made me think of what odd thing I could do next. Thus, my list of the first twenty songs that came up in a totally random collection of 1149 songs. This should be interesting (to me):
1. Knocking on Heaven's Door by Guns 'n' Roses (Use Your Illusion II)
2. Pachabel's Canon by Canadian Brass (Variations on Pachabel's Canon)
3. The Longest Time by Billy Joel (Greatest Hits Volume I & II)
4. Higher Love by Steve Winwood (Back in the High Life)
5. The End of All Things by Howard Shore (Return of the King Soundtrack)
6. Enter Sandman by Metallica (Metallica)
7. The Safety Dance by Men Without Hats (My Hats Collection)
8. Karma Chameleon by Culture Club (Colour by Numbers)
9. Without Love by Annie Herring (All That I Am)
10. La Isla Bonita by Madonna (True Blue)
11. Agnus Dei by Third Day (Offerings - A Worship Album)
12. Rough Flight by John Ottman (Superman Returns Soundtrack)
13. "Hard to Starboard" by James Horner (Titanic Soundtrack)
14. The TV by Space Ghost (Space Ghost's Musical Bar-B-Que)
15. Die Allmacht by Schubert (Mysteries Beyond)
16. Massacre by Randy Edelman & Trevor Jones (Last of the Mohicans Soundtrack)
17. A New Hope and End Credits by John Williams (Revenge of the Sith Soundtrack)
18. Barbie Girl by Aqua (My Oh My)
19. Instanbul by They Might Be Giants (Flood)
20. The Search is Over by Survivor (Survivor: Greatest Hits)
The Fruits of My Labor
I.e. Nothing at all.
It has been about a month since I last posted here. Strange, since I usually like to post more than that. But I have not been feeling very bloggity lately. The last time that happened I took a three to four month break so at least this time I'm back sooner.
Perhaps I have been Facebooking too much as of late. Perhaps work has been monopolizing my head and crowding out the otherwise non-stop mental calisthenics. Whatever the case may be, I have decided to become more proactive... starting with my next post.
It has been about a month since I last posted here. Strange, since I usually like to post more than that. But I have not been feeling very bloggity lately. The last time that happened I took a three to four month break so at least this time I'm back sooner.
Perhaps I have been Facebooking too much as of late. Perhaps work has been monopolizing my head and crowding out the otherwise non-stop mental calisthenics. Whatever the case may be, I have decided to become more proactive... starting with my next post.
The True Nature of Adults
Thank God for Fox News!
I really mean that too. I was raised to believe that adults somehow knew better. That somehow they were able to grow out of the mean pettiness that crops up so often in children and then with horrifying results in adults. But for the more part I was trained to believe that people could be better. They could know better; they could become the kind of objective talking heads I saw on CSPAN.
However, when you really sit down and talk with adults openly and freely it becomes painfully obvious how childish we really are. This has become abundantly clear to me since Fox News opened up the broadcast news to how people really feel. Listen, I can claim that I want my news to be more objective and fair-minded. But I don't just turn off Fox News. I turn around and read people who bloviate from the opposite spectrum. And my friends who do watch Fox News like it because the presenters are entirely open and honest about how they feel. Whether or not this comes off sounding like two fifth-graders fighting on the school grounds makes little difference.
It is fascinating to see reporters who used to work for other networks start opening up Fox News to how they really feel about the issues. You wonder why Fox has all these talking heads rather than investigative reporting? People want to hear what they are feeling, not be challenged over and over again. And as much as they don't like to admit it the other news networks are following this lead. Lou Dobbs at CNN is very much in this mold now. The Olbermann's, the Carlson's, even reporters on NPR of all stations.
What it shows me so clearly is that people retain this amazing ability to be petty, vile and ruthless despite they’re best attempts to cover it up. Adults are no different than children in their opinions, their feuds and their passions. Somehow we have institutionalized this pettiness into a ritual we call adulthood that is passed off as different from childhood. But when you really open up with adults it all comes crashing out again.
I was reading a depressing article somewhere where scientists were asked what they got wrong since they began their research. Many of them said that they were shocked that they were categorically unable to scientifically prove that speculation, faith, and fantasy were illogical to the masses, even if they retained their "objective" stance. I found this fascinating since the article bemoaned the seemingly universal human predicament of faith and myth. What an interesting perspective into the psyche of these scientists and the hundreds and thousands who have come before bemoaning the same predicament.
I'm utterly fascinated by all of this. Any thoughts?
I really mean that too. I was raised to believe that adults somehow knew better. That somehow they were able to grow out of the mean pettiness that crops up so often in children and then with horrifying results in adults. But for the more part I was trained to believe that people could be better. They could know better; they could become the kind of objective talking heads I saw on CSPAN.
However, when you really sit down and talk with adults openly and freely it becomes painfully obvious how childish we really are. This has become abundantly clear to me since Fox News opened up the broadcast news to how people really feel. Listen, I can claim that I want my news to be more objective and fair-minded. But I don't just turn off Fox News. I turn around and read people who bloviate from the opposite spectrum. And my friends who do watch Fox News like it because the presenters are entirely open and honest about how they feel. Whether or not this comes off sounding like two fifth-graders fighting on the school grounds makes little difference.
It is fascinating to see reporters who used to work for other networks start opening up Fox News to how they really feel about the issues. You wonder why Fox has all these talking heads rather than investigative reporting? People want to hear what they are feeling, not be challenged over and over again. And as much as they don't like to admit it the other news networks are following this lead. Lou Dobbs at CNN is very much in this mold now. The Olbermann's, the Carlson's, even reporters on NPR of all stations.
What it shows me so clearly is that people retain this amazing ability to be petty, vile and ruthless despite they’re best attempts to cover it up. Adults are no different than children in their opinions, their feuds and their passions. Somehow we have institutionalized this pettiness into a ritual we call adulthood that is passed off as different from childhood. But when you really open up with adults it all comes crashing out again.
I was reading a depressing article somewhere where scientists were asked what they got wrong since they began their research. Many of them said that they were shocked that they were categorically unable to scientifically prove that speculation, faith, and fantasy were illogical to the masses, even if they retained their "objective" stance. I found this fascinating since the article bemoaned the seemingly universal human predicament of faith and myth. What an interesting perspective into the psyche of these scientists and the hundreds and thousands who have come before bemoaning the same predicament.
I'm utterly fascinated by all of this. Any thoughts?
Pushing Past the Boundaries
There seems to be a curious balancing point in my current quest to get fit. I reached my goal weight of 160 pounds many months ago and have successfully kept my weight there for the past six months or so. That by itself is wonderful news. I still exercise every day (except for Tuesdays when I am busy from 7 AM to 10:30 PM).
Yet, it seems like I have this extra stuff that I can't get rid of. It may just be me looking at myself and not seeing how much thinner I am than I used to be. But I can't help but think that I could easily lose another 10 pounds and look much better. I don't know if that is an unwise assessment, kind of like a perfectionist's dream, which continually moves beyond reach. 160 pounds seems like a good equilibrium for me. I can eat well, not feel hungry, exercise hard (but not overdo it), and generally feel good about how I look.
I wonder if other people who lose weight also feel this way. I mean, I realize the hardest part of losing weight is not the actual losing, but keeping it off. I feel pretty good about that. But the hard part for me is wanting to do just a little more. Maybe if I sacrifice one more calorie here or there... I think that can be dangerous. But it certainly is hard to repress the urge.
Yet, it seems like I have this extra stuff that I can't get rid of. It may just be me looking at myself and not seeing how much thinner I am than I used to be. But I can't help but think that I could easily lose another 10 pounds and look much better. I don't know if that is an unwise assessment, kind of like a perfectionist's dream, which continually moves beyond reach. 160 pounds seems like a good equilibrium for me. I can eat well, not feel hungry, exercise hard (but not overdo it), and generally feel good about how I look.
I wonder if other people who lose weight also feel this way. I mean, I realize the hardest part of losing weight is not the actual losing, but keeping it off. I feel pretty good about that. But the hard part for me is wanting to do just a little more. Maybe if I sacrifice one more calorie here or there... I think that can be dangerous. But it certainly is hard to repress the urge.
I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
INTJ - The Scientist
Be willing to back up your statements with facts - or at least some pretty sound reasoning. Don't expect them to respect you or your viewpoints just because you say so. INTJ respect must be earned. Be willing to concede when you are wrong. The average INTJ respects the truth over being "right". Withdraw your erroneous comment and admit your mistake and they will see you as a very reasonable person. Stick to erroneous comments and they will think you are an irrational idiot and treat everything you say as being questionable. Try not to be repetitive. It annoys them. Do not feed them a line of bull. Expect debate. INTJs like to tear ideas apart and prove their worthiness. They will even argue a point they don't actually support for the sake of argument. Do not mistake the strength of your conviction with the strength of your argument. INTJs do not need to believe in a position to argue it or argue it well. Therefore, it will take more than fervor to sway them. Do not be surprised at sarcasm. Remember that INTJs believe in workable solutions. They are extremely open-minded to possibilities, but they will quickly discard any idea that is unfeasible. INTJ open-mindedness means that they are willing to have a go at an idea by trying to pull it apart. This horrifies people who expect oohs and ahhs and reverence. The ultimate INTJ insult to an idea is to ignore it, because that means it's not even interesting enough to deconstruct. This also means that they will not just accept any viewpoint that is presented to them. The bottom line is "Does it work?" - end discussion. Do not expect INTJs to actually care about how you view them. They already know that they are arrogant bastards with a morbid sense of humor. Telling them the obvious accomplishes nothing. You tell 'em Skippy.
The Rational is more comfortable thinking in the abstract, doing so in an analytical, objective way. As an iNtuitive, the NT is not particularly given to sports.
This temperament is the quintessential professor, living in academia and in his own deep thoughts about something or other.
The Rational tends to be roundabout in explanations and may not be very aware of how others around him feel.
This temperament often ignores rules of fashion, having more important things to concern themselves with, preferring function to all else.
Studying self-improvement, learning about new things or languages....
Gets energized when they are alone with themselves. Enjoys solitary activities such as reading, writing, and daydreaming. Take in information through a "sixth sense" and focus on what could be. Decide by their head. Prefer logics, analysis, and facts. They are well structured and organized.
Be willing to back up your statements with facts - or at least some pretty sound reasoning. Don't expect them to respect you or your viewpoints just because you say so. INTJ respect must be earned. Be willing to concede when you are wrong. The average INTJ respects the truth over being "right". Withdraw your erroneous comment and admit your mistake and they will see you as a very reasonable person. Stick to erroneous comments and they will think you are an irrational idiot and treat everything you say as being questionable. Try not to be repetitive. It annoys them. Do not feed them a line of bull. Expect debate. INTJs like to tear ideas apart and prove their worthiness. They will even argue a point they don't actually support for the sake of argument. Do not mistake the strength of your conviction with the strength of your argument. INTJs do not need to believe in a position to argue it or argue it well. Therefore, it will take more than fervor to sway them. Do not be surprised at sarcasm. Remember that INTJs believe in workable solutions. They are extremely open-minded to possibilities, but they will quickly discard any idea that is unfeasible. INTJ open-mindedness means that they are willing to have a go at an idea by trying to pull it apart. This horrifies people who expect oohs and ahhs and reverence. The ultimate INTJ insult to an idea is to ignore it, because that means it's not even interesting enough to deconstruct. This also means that they will not just accept any viewpoint that is presented to them. The bottom line is "Does it work?" - end discussion. Do not expect INTJs to actually care about how you view them. They already know that they are arrogant bastards with a morbid sense of humor. Telling them the obvious accomplishes nothing. You tell 'em Skippy.
The Rational is more comfortable thinking in the abstract, doing so in an analytical, objective way. As an iNtuitive, the NT is not particularly given to sports.
This temperament is the quintessential professor, living in academia and in his own deep thoughts about something or other.
The Rational tends to be roundabout in explanations and may not be very aware of how others around him feel.
This temperament often ignores rules of fashion, having more important things to concern themselves with, preferring function to all else.
Studying self-improvement, learning about new things or languages....
Gets energized when they are alone with themselves. Enjoys solitary activities such as reading, writing, and daydreaming. Take in information through a "sixth sense" and focus on what could be. Decide by their head. Prefer logics, analysis, and facts. They are well structured and organized.
A Christmas Treat?!?
I received a happy letter in the mail today informing me that "General Ban Ki-Moon" and his compadres at the United Nations are threatening to devour America's national sovereignty. If I didn't pay $15 dollars before Christmas this organization, Freedom America, would not be able to continue fighting the good fight against the encroaching enemy.
Well, heavens to Betsy, I sure shootin' got out my checkbook and... Yeah, right!
I guess Christmas brings out the best, and the most bizarre, of all of us. Beware! Beware! The mighty UN is coming to get you!
Well, heavens to Betsy, I sure shootin' got out my checkbook and... Yeah, right!
I guess Christmas brings out the best, and the most bizarre, of all of us. Beware! Beware! The mighty UN is coming to get you!
O Joyous Day!
I'm sure all the Tolkien fans out there have heard the news already. New Line and Peter Jackson have resolved their differences and now "The Hobbit" has been greenlite for production. Needless to say, I'm a little overjoyed at this news.
I am a HUGE Tolkien fan, a very large Peter Jackson fan, and a big-time fan of the LOTR movie trilogy. Despite the news that Jackson will not be directing (he has two other movies on his plate right now) the fact that he and Fran Walsh have creative control is good enough for me. I am so looking forward to this. TheOneRing.net put it well when they said that the Tolkien community was in "hysterics" upon hearing the news.
This will hopefully mean more music from Howard Shore, more genius work from Weta Workshop and Weta Digital, more creative goodness from Alan Lee and John Howe, more of everything that I loved about LOTR. I just can't wait. Now I can go back to expecting spy reports, casting rumors, etc. As much as I don't like to admit it, I am a total geek when it comes to this stuff.
Now I will have to reread The Hobbit again to make sure I have my details correct. It wouldn't hurt to reread the ancillary material from LOTR either. Oh joy, what fun we shall have.
I am a HUGE Tolkien fan, a very large Peter Jackson fan, and a big-time fan of the LOTR movie trilogy. Despite the news that Jackson will not be directing (he has two other movies on his plate right now) the fact that he and Fran Walsh have creative control is good enough for me. I am so looking forward to this. TheOneRing.net put it well when they said that the Tolkien community was in "hysterics" upon hearing the news.
This will hopefully mean more music from Howard Shore, more genius work from Weta Workshop and Weta Digital, more creative goodness from Alan Lee and John Howe, more of everything that I loved about LOTR. I just can't wait. Now I can go back to expecting spy reports, casting rumors, etc. As much as I don't like to admit it, I am a total geek when it comes to this stuff.
Now I will have to reread The Hobbit again to make sure I have my details correct. It wouldn't hurt to reread the ancillary material from LOTR either. Oh joy, what fun we shall have.
On the Meaning of Life
To answer one of the great, burning questions in all of science you must go to the following web page.
Estimating the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow
"Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem" Thwack
Estimating the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow
"Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem" Thwack
Tricks to Living Longer
The BBC has news of the World's Oldest Man (unfortunately not submitted to the records books) dying in his sleep just a few days ago. As it turns out the Ukrainian farmer credits his exceptionally long life to a sparse, healthy diet, and NOT GETTING MARRIED. How funny is that?
It turns out he never got hitched because he was too short and he never had enough money. There's something to be said for a man who lives to be 116 years old who never married. However, the obvious trade-offs makes me think he might have been willing to shave 40 years off his life in exchange for just a taste of marriage. We will never know.
Good story though.
It turns out he never got hitched because he was too short and he never had enough money. There's something to be said for a man who lives to be 116 years old who never married. However, the obvious trade-offs makes me think he might have been willing to shave 40 years off his life in exchange for just a taste of marriage. We will never know.
Good story though.
A Gift Wrapped in Pink
A friend of mine let me borrow "Breakfast at Tiffany's" over the weekend, which was very kind of her to do. For some reason I have a hard time getting into older movies and so I am much less familiar with them than I am of other older things. But, here was my chance to watch what has been described as a classic of romantic comedy. It doesn't hurt in the least that Audrey Hepburn is stunningly beautiful (in a whispy, elfin way).
The plot itself is rather predictable, but that may be more because I am used to all the films after "Breakfast" that took a similar line. I really don't want to focus too much on the plot because I think that might obscure the feeling I came away from the movie with. Needless to say there are several things that are strikingly outdated including everyone and their mother smoking and a preposterously ill-conceived yellow-face performance by Mickey Rooney.
I was going out with a girl in college who didn't really have that much exposure to what I might call "guy movies." She had never seen "Star Wars" and I of course thought that was the closest thing to unbelievable ever. So I finally convinced her to sit down and watch the first of the "Star Wars" movies with some friends. I will never forget what she said to me after the movie. When I asked her what she thought of the movie she replied, "I can understand why my brother likes it." A very simple, roundabout way of saying she didn't like it.
I am almost tempted to say that about this movie, although that would be saying it too strongly. I didn't not like the movie. But I didn't really enjoy it either. Outside of several scenes (any scene with the nameless cat was excellent) the movie seemed to be too formulaic and overly dramatic. Of course, I am familiar with some other older movies and the kind of modern subtly definitely was not in vogue back then so I can't complain too much.
I am unfortunate in that I didn't see the movie earlier in life. That may have made a real difference. One of my all-time favorite romantic movies (and yes, I do like romantic movies) is "The Cutting Edge." I know what your thinking. Talk about formulaic and clichéd up the wazoo. But for some reason I saw it early enough that it made an emotional connection with me that I simply can't get rid of. I fall head over heels for that movie every time I see it. Although not technically a romantic film, "Hoosiers" is another one that I saw early enough that I fall for the hackneyed cliché of the sports underdog every single time.
Once again, I feel like this entry has drifted from a movie review to an examination of the inner Guam. But that is ok too. I'll give "Breakfast at Tiffany's" credit because it is a far better movie than "The Cutting Edge" in terms of quality of film and I love the latter and not so much the former. My bad. It may be a better movie for romantic couples to watch together and so that may have soured me too. Who knows?
A final comment. Much to my chagrin, I found out that the wonderfully silly song by Deep Blue Something called "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was actually inspired by another Audrey Hepburn movie "Roman Holiday" but the songwriters thought the title from the former film worked better in the song. Thanks Wikipedia.
The plot itself is rather predictable, but that may be more because I am used to all the films after "Breakfast" that took a similar line. I really don't want to focus too much on the plot because I think that might obscure the feeling I came away from the movie with. Needless to say there are several things that are strikingly outdated including everyone and their mother smoking and a preposterously ill-conceived yellow-face performance by Mickey Rooney.
I was going out with a girl in college who didn't really have that much exposure to what I might call "guy movies." She had never seen "Star Wars" and I of course thought that was the closest thing to unbelievable ever. So I finally convinced her to sit down and watch the first of the "Star Wars" movies with some friends. I will never forget what she said to me after the movie. When I asked her what she thought of the movie she replied, "I can understand why my brother likes it." A very simple, roundabout way of saying she didn't like it.
I am almost tempted to say that about this movie, although that would be saying it too strongly. I didn't not like the movie. But I didn't really enjoy it either. Outside of several scenes (any scene with the nameless cat was excellent) the movie seemed to be too formulaic and overly dramatic. Of course, I am familiar with some other older movies and the kind of modern subtly definitely was not in vogue back then so I can't complain too much.
I am unfortunate in that I didn't see the movie earlier in life. That may have made a real difference. One of my all-time favorite romantic movies (and yes, I do like romantic movies) is "The Cutting Edge." I know what your thinking. Talk about formulaic and clichéd up the wazoo. But for some reason I saw it early enough that it made an emotional connection with me that I simply can't get rid of. I fall head over heels for that movie every time I see it. Although not technically a romantic film, "Hoosiers" is another one that I saw early enough that I fall for the hackneyed cliché of the sports underdog every single time.
Once again, I feel like this entry has drifted from a movie review to an examination of the inner Guam. But that is ok too. I'll give "Breakfast at Tiffany's" credit because it is a far better movie than "The Cutting Edge" in terms of quality of film and I love the latter and not so much the former. My bad. It may be a better movie for romantic couples to watch together and so that may have soured me too. Who knows?
A final comment. Much to my chagrin, I found out that the wonderfully silly song by Deep Blue Something called "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was actually inspired by another Audrey Hepburn movie "Roman Holiday" but the songwriters thought the title from the former film worked better in the song. Thanks Wikipedia.
Market Independence Day
The New York Times has an article detailing the recent reversal of decades of foreign food aid to Malawi. In the past two years Malawi has been able to produce enough corn and produce to feed its own population without having to depend on foreign aid, focused through the World Bank.
Although I am the last person on earth you would want to have to comment on global economics, it seems entirely clear that the Malawian government's decision to subsidize their local farmers production assisted in turning around what had become an economy almost entirely dependent on foreign aid. I would very much appreciate someone helping me better understand the fundamentals of global economics, but I will try my best on my own.
Rather than focusing on that though, the whole article raised the interesting question of what has become a kind of modern day shibboleth - the worldwide free market. With trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA in the Americas and the with the European Common Market, the economic future of the world seems to be less dependent on old national boundaries and instead thrives on the inter-marketability of goods and services from anywhere. The New York Times article details how the World Bank, and the US and Great Britain argued that Malawi should not increase crop subsidies because such subsidies fundamentally undermine the global market's demand in favor of national interest.
This may make sense when it comes from a developed country that can afford to import and export resources. But in Malawi, where the export of goods brings in much less money than is needed to import the necessary foodstuffs that is required by not producing its own food, it is completely silly.
Personally it raises the question that I think many in the West are fearful of - why shouldn't all countries have the right to be self-sufficient? Actually it makes more sense when we think about our own countries demands for national security that is not dependent on other countries or treaties that might weigh down our national interests (this is a conservative talking point if there ever was one). But that argument can be taken both ways (or at least it should be) by suggesting that if we have the national right to self-determination, so does any other country in the world.
Actually there is a slight precedent with the Argentine national collapse in the late 1990s. It turned out that after the financial markets collapsed the new Kirchner government was able to pay off all its bills, including interest (much to the chagrin of the World Bank) within a matter of 3 or 4 years. This was almost unheard of when the economy collapsed. Yet, this it was fundamentally driven by the country's national self-interest being put ahead of a total free-market dependency.
Lots to think about.
Although I am the last person on earth you would want to have to comment on global economics, it seems entirely clear that the Malawian government's decision to subsidize their local farmers production assisted in turning around what had become an economy almost entirely dependent on foreign aid. I would very much appreciate someone helping me better understand the fundamentals of global economics, but I will try my best on my own.
Rather than focusing on that though, the whole article raised the interesting question of what has become a kind of modern day shibboleth - the worldwide free market. With trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA in the Americas and the with the European Common Market, the economic future of the world seems to be less dependent on old national boundaries and instead thrives on the inter-marketability of goods and services from anywhere. The New York Times article details how the World Bank, and the US and Great Britain argued that Malawi should not increase crop subsidies because such subsidies fundamentally undermine the global market's demand in favor of national interest.
This may make sense when it comes from a developed country that can afford to import and export resources. But in Malawi, where the export of goods brings in much less money than is needed to import the necessary foodstuffs that is required by not producing its own food, it is completely silly.
Personally it raises the question that I think many in the West are fearful of - why shouldn't all countries have the right to be self-sufficient? Actually it makes more sense when we think about our own countries demands for national security that is not dependent on other countries or treaties that might weigh down our national interests (this is a conservative talking point if there ever was one). But that argument can be taken both ways (or at least it should be) by suggesting that if we have the national right to self-determination, so does any other country in the world.
Actually there is a slight precedent with the Argentine national collapse in the late 1990s. It turned out that after the financial markets collapsed the new Kirchner government was able to pay off all its bills, including interest (much to the chagrin of the World Bank) within a matter of 3 or 4 years. This was almost unheard of when the economy collapsed. Yet, this it was fundamentally driven by the country's national self-interest being put ahead of a total free-market dependency.
Lots to think about.
The Science of Virginity
Here's an interesting twist on the age-old debate over sexual ethics. FoxNews has a brief article detailing a new study that suggests sexual dysfunction might be linked to people not having sex until later in life. And by later in life, they mean after the age of 25 (give or take).
Of course, like all studies, there are qualifiers and more studies that need to be done. But I think this raises some very interesting moral questions. I'll withhold a more in-depth rant until later, but in the meantime it is something to ponder.
Of course, like all studies, there are qualifiers and more studies that need to be done. But I think this raises some very interesting moral questions. I'll withhold a more in-depth rant until later, but in the meantime it is something to ponder.
The South African Dilemma?!
The BBC has a tremendously fascinating article quoting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the future of the Israeli state. In the article Olmert, who was appearing with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the Annapolis Conference, suggests that without a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict any long-term prognosis must admit to the eventual demise of the Jewish state.
Apparently this is rhetoric that has been used before, although I am unfamiliar with it. The truly shocking thing about Olmert's statement is that he admits a power-sharing agreement similar to what was introduced in South Africa after the 1994 dissolution of apartheid will fundamentally dissolve the intrinsic Jewishness of the current state of Israel. Actually it is rather similar to the debates in Japan and Korea recently concerning the rights of immigrants as opposed to keeping their societies relatively homogenous.
In a world that seems to pride itself on tolerance and getting past the archaic ideas of race and ethnicity, we still have states demanding to define themselves in those same outdated terms. This contradiction is less apparent than one might imagine considering how much it is debated (under the radar) in the European context, the American context, and even in the African context (the BBC has an interesting article on the thousands of Chinese laborers and farmers who have moved to Africa over the past several decades). I think it is not surprising in the least to hear that a country like Israel, with their recent history in mind, decides that if it would become a truly multi-cultural country it would fundamentally lose its identity (and, interestingly enough, its power).
But let's back to the fundamental question. What does it mean to share? Despite the somewhat obvious nature of Olmert's remarks, it fascinates me to see it said so upfront. If Israel has to share, it will no longer be Israel. The BBC has a series of articles on the declining birth rate in Japan and the very high concern that Japan might be forced to share its ethnic identity with foreigners who are not fully Japanese.
Perhaps this is my natural reaction considering in the US, sharing has been a necessity from almost the beginning. I don't know, does a heterogeneous society have the right to condemn or comment on a relatively homogenous society wishing to remain so?
We'd like to believe we have escaped the hurtful idea of "the other" but I think clearly we have not.
Apparently this is rhetoric that has been used before, although I am unfamiliar with it. The truly shocking thing about Olmert's statement is that he admits a power-sharing agreement similar to what was introduced in South Africa after the 1994 dissolution of apartheid will fundamentally dissolve the intrinsic Jewishness of the current state of Israel. Actually it is rather similar to the debates in Japan and Korea recently concerning the rights of immigrants as opposed to keeping their societies relatively homogenous.
In a world that seems to pride itself on tolerance and getting past the archaic ideas of race and ethnicity, we still have states demanding to define themselves in those same outdated terms. This contradiction is less apparent than one might imagine considering how much it is debated (under the radar) in the European context, the American context, and even in the African context (the BBC has an interesting article on the thousands of Chinese laborers and farmers who have moved to Africa over the past several decades). I think it is not surprising in the least to hear that a country like Israel, with their recent history in mind, decides that if it would become a truly multi-cultural country it would fundamentally lose its identity (and, interestingly enough, its power).
But let's back to the fundamental question. What does it mean to share? Despite the somewhat obvious nature of Olmert's remarks, it fascinates me to see it said so upfront. If Israel has to share, it will no longer be Israel. The BBC has a series of articles on the declining birth rate in Japan and the very high concern that Japan might be forced to share its ethnic identity with foreigners who are not fully Japanese.
Perhaps this is my natural reaction considering in the US, sharing has been a necessity from almost the beginning. I don't know, does a heterogeneous society have the right to condemn or comment on a relatively homogenous society wishing to remain so?
We'd like to believe we have escaped the hurtful idea of "the other" but I think clearly we have not.
Emotionally Unbalanced Postscript
I've been going to a Bible study for the past few months that I have commented on with this blog. It’s interesting to reflect on the criticisms I had about the group and then counter-criticize my criticisms. Well, it’s interesting to me at least.
However, there is something perhaps less than profound that came to me tonight. As much as I like the idea of intellectualism and curiosity, I simply can't ignore the fact that I am an out-and-out Christian. That may sound strange, but I think its a confession that is fundamental to who I am. I've said before that I take an immense amount of pleasure in being free enough to think and talk about anything and everything under the sun (and sometimes over the sun). Usually Evangelicals condemn that kind of curiosity as over-reaching. Likewise, Liberals condone it as escaping the mythical simplicities of religion.
However, I am enmeshed in "religion" as much as I have ever been, perhaps more so. I feel absolutely no shame in attending church every week. I tear up when I hear stories of grace. I sing hymns and repeat liturgies consciously aware that I really do believe the words I am singing or saying. I am unabashedly in support of morality and ethics. I don't believe that everyone is saved, or that all paths lead to God.
Yet, here I am more than willing to debate, hash out, spar, dialog, and share a drink with people who strongly disagree with me on any one of these issues. That is not to say religious people are categorically idiots. But rather, that the assumption is that if you are religious you can't be as intellectually free as the non-religious. I think this is a true assumption on both sides. If I would know better I might take sides between my religious convictions and my intellectual curiosity. But that is entirely missing the point.
I personally love it when people challenge me on my faith and religious convictions. I love it when people assume I can't be both/and rather than either/or. I also love it when religious friends challenge me on my intellectual curiosity. BSF reminds me of that side of the equation. I once had a good friend of mine give me a very high compliment. He said that when people he knew bitterly complained about Christians who were nothing but judgmental hypocrites, he would think of me and several other friends who were committed Christians and thoroughly hypocritical religious freaks that somehow managed to combine faith with intellect. "Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far..."
Personally the paradox is what makes this so interesting. I don't like it when Christians attempt to downplay the contradictions between a child-like faith and rigorous intellectualism. That usually ends up with child-like curiosity that is nothing but a moralizing scienticism devoid of any creativity. Likewise, I can't stand intellectualism that divorces itself from religion because that inevitably leads to a simple-minded characterization of religion that bears little resemblance to reality (and a surprising amount of similarity to Christians acting like simple-minded buffoons).
Someone noted that I am "a pious nerd." I like that. That pretty much sums it up for me. Bring me my Kierkegaard! and let us all repeat the Apostles Creed...
However, there is something perhaps less than profound that came to me tonight. As much as I like the idea of intellectualism and curiosity, I simply can't ignore the fact that I am an out-and-out Christian. That may sound strange, but I think its a confession that is fundamental to who I am. I've said before that I take an immense amount of pleasure in being free enough to think and talk about anything and everything under the sun (and sometimes over the sun). Usually Evangelicals condemn that kind of curiosity as over-reaching. Likewise, Liberals condone it as escaping the mythical simplicities of religion.
However, I am enmeshed in "religion" as much as I have ever been, perhaps more so. I feel absolutely no shame in attending church every week. I tear up when I hear stories of grace. I sing hymns and repeat liturgies consciously aware that I really do believe the words I am singing or saying. I am unabashedly in support of morality and ethics. I don't believe that everyone is saved, or that all paths lead to God.
Yet, here I am more than willing to debate, hash out, spar, dialog, and share a drink with people who strongly disagree with me on any one of these issues. That is not to say religious people are categorically idiots. But rather, that the assumption is that if you are religious you can't be as intellectually free as the non-religious. I think this is a true assumption on both sides. If I would know better I might take sides between my religious convictions and my intellectual curiosity. But that is entirely missing the point.
I personally love it when people challenge me on my faith and religious convictions. I love it when people assume I can't be both/and rather than either/or. I also love it when religious friends challenge me on my intellectual curiosity. BSF reminds me of that side of the equation. I once had a good friend of mine give me a very high compliment. He said that when people he knew bitterly complained about Christians who were nothing but judgmental hypocrites, he would think of me and several other friends who were committed Christians and thoroughly hypocritical religious freaks that somehow managed to combine faith with intellect. "Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far..."
Personally the paradox is what makes this so interesting. I don't like it when Christians attempt to downplay the contradictions between a child-like faith and rigorous intellectualism. That usually ends up with child-like curiosity that is nothing but a moralizing scienticism devoid of any creativity. Likewise, I can't stand intellectualism that divorces itself from religion because that inevitably leads to a simple-minded characterization of religion that bears little resemblance to reality (and a surprising amount of similarity to Christians acting like simple-minded buffoons).
Someone noted that I am "a pious nerd." I like that. That pretty much sums it up for me. Bring me my Kierkegaard! and let us all repeat the Apostles Creed...
Dies Natalis
Tis the day of my birth. Exactly 29 years and 1 hour ago I entered this world. That's a little weird to think about. But in any case I am one step closer to the big 3-0. I may have to fall under the category of adult at that point. Until then perhaps I can get by with just being a fairly good impersonator.
The New York Times has a really interesting article about last names in America. The article details the incredible rise in Hispanic last names across the States, as well as ethnic minority names in general. But as interesting as the article is, the box at the top lets you search for your name, or the name of people you know. As it turns out, "DeVries" is the 2567 ranked name in America, occurring in 5 out of every 100,000 people. It was also interesting to see how much "DeVries" has climbed since the last census in 1990. At that time "DeVries" was ranked 3502, so in the years between the numbers of DeVries' has grown by 935 places.
The New York Times has a really interesting article about last names in America. The article details the incredible rise in Hispanic last names across the States, as well as ethnic minority names in general. But as interesting as the article is, the box at the top lets you search for your name, or the name of people you know. As it turns out, "DeVries" is the 2567 ranked name in America, occurring in 5 out of every 100,000 people. It was also interesting to see how much "DeVries" has climbed since the last census in 1990. At that time "DeVries" was ranked 3502, so in the years between the numbers of DeVries' has grown by 935 places.
World Leader Smack Down
Some of you may have read about the interesting political smack down between King Juan Carlos of Spain and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Chavez was making some derogatory remarks about the former right-wing Prime Minister of Spain and the King leaned over and basically told him to "shut up."
This situation is fascinating because it makes me more aware of a common scenario in politics that often drives me crazy. Most Conservatives in the US will say Chavez is a lunatic with a fringe agenda and a motor mouth who doesn't know when to quit. A great number of Liberals, or Leftists will say that Chavez has some redeeming qualities especially when compared to President Bush. Either way, both parties try to play the game in such a way that they minimize the risk of embarrassment by their favored, and try to exploit the other side to maximize the embarrassment or failure.
In either case, the leaders from both sides are given free passes by their supporters because they stand for what these people believe in. This is precisely the problem. Why is it that when Hugo Chavez makes an ass of himself and is rightly put in his place, that some people will defend him simply because they agree with his politics? Why is it that Pat Robertson can support Rudy Giuliani (a decidedly not right-wing Conservative) because he is a Republican? This is fascinating to me.
Here we have a political reality that condemns truth in favor of what wins. This is the absolute epitome of the lust for power and it is an equal reality whatever person you support. All you have to do is look at someone like Tom Delay to see how the demand for power supercedes his supposed moral credentials or the ethical truths he supposedly stands for. In exactly the same way, all you have to do is look at the damnable excuses thrown out to justify revolutionary leftist movements soaked in the blood of the masses. The slavenly lust for power is just so amazing to watch from every corner.
I sometimes wonder why I am an independent when it comes to politics. Even more than an independent though, why I am fiercely opposed to standing in one platform against another. And then I look at the excuses, the rationalizations, the corruptible, wanton, slovenly lust for power...
In the apocryphal words of Martin Luther "Here I stand, I can do no other."
This situation is fascinating because it makes me more aware of a common scenario in politics that often drives me crazy. Most Conservatives in the US will say Chavez is a lunatic with a fringe agenda and a motor mouth who doesn't know when to quit. A great number of Liberals, or Leftists will say that Chavez has some redeeming qualities especially when compared to President Bush. Either way, both parties try to play the game in such a way that they minimize the risk of embarrassment by their favored, and try to exploit the other side to maximize the embarrassment or failure.
In either case, the leaders from both sides are given free passes by their supporters because they stand for what these people believe in. This is precisely the problem. Why is it that when Hugo Chavez makes an ass of himself and is rightly put in his place, that some people will defend him simply because they agree with his politics? Why is it that Pat Robertson can support Rudy Giuliani (a decidedly not right-wing Conservative) because he is a Republican? This is fascinating to me.
Here we have a political reality that condemns truth in favor of what wins. This is the absolute epitome of the lust for power and it is an equal reality whatever person you support. All you have to do is look at someone like Tom Delay to see how the demand for power supercedes his supposed moral credentials or the ethical truths he supposedly stands for. In exactly the same way, all you have to do is look at the damnable excuses thrown out to justify revolutionary leftist movements soaked in the blood of the masses. The slavenly lust for power is just so amazing to watch from every corner.
I sometimes wonder why I am an independent when it comes to politics. Even more than an independent though, why I am fiercely opposed to standing in one platform against another. And then I look at the excuses, the rationalizations, the corruptible, wanton, slovenly lust for power...
In the apocryphal words of Martin Luther "Here I stand, I can do no other."
Break Fast
I haven't been in the blogging mood as of late. I'm not sure why. There are plenty of stories to comment on, but for one reason or another I have been fixated on other things, perhaps other ways of focusing my energy. Being in Chicago for most of last weekend didn't help either.
There is something about being a professional that takes away from how I used to think. When I was working in the warehouse, there was time to develop ideas, to bang them out in my head and constantly think about their implications. Now, I have very little time to think about the grand things for extended periods of time. I find myself thinking in short bursts and in little snippets. It’s a kind of thinking that takes some getting used to.
In any case, I will try to keep up again. Maybe not quite as much as I used to, but there are still many things to comment on in this world. Many things that I am have yet to wrap my head around.
There is something about being a professional that takes away from how I used to think. When I was working in the warehouse, there was time to develop ideas, to bang them out in my head and constantly think about their implications. Now, I have very little time to think about the grand things for extended periods of time. I find myself thinking in short bursts and in little snippets. It’s a kind of thinking that takes some getting used to.
In any case, I will try to keep up again. Maybe not quite as much as I used to, but there are still many things to comment on in this world. Many things that I am have yet to wrap my head around.
Sage Advice For Any PhD Student in Theology
"Someone once asked me why it took so long to become a doctor, I said, "because if they (medical doctors) screw up someone dies, but if I screw up someone goes to hell..." Yudha Thianto
Logical Circles in Government - Whoda Thunk That?
There's a really interesting bill that just passed the house recently. It is legislation that allows for a kind of autonomy for native Hawai'ins in a similar, if not as extensive, framework that Native Americans have. This legislation is broadly supported by people in Hawai'i including all the Legislators and Senators and the Republican governor (not a native-born Hawai'in).
This bill has been stuck in committee after committee for a number of years because of veto threats, but now it seems that there is a veto-proof majority. The White House is threatening that veto because it suggests that the law basically subdivides Americans on the basis of race, which is directly unconstitutional. I basically agree.
However, and this is a huge however, the White House does not acknowledge that the coup organized in 1897 to overthrow the Hawai'in queen was also directly unconstitutional. The fact that native-born Hawai'ins are considered Americans which in turn means that they can't organize on the basis of race, is entirely based on a house of cards. If the initial action of annexing a territory through the obviously fraudulent methods employed in 1897 are deemed irrelevant than it seems plausible that the government can argue post fact that any action employed cannot be judged later on because that judgment is in turn unconstitutional. This seems like a bizarre circle of unreasonable madness.
As much as that makes me uncomfortable it also raises another question. I find it severely unlikely that any government on Earth has ever done any land grab by the book. It would be questionable if any government could legally defend themselves against the accusations of thievery and greed that are historically fundamental to the extension and protection of national and international borders.
This whole thing is quite an interesting sticky wicket. I'm not sure where to come down, although I must admit that emotionally I am quite strongly attached to the native-born Hawai'in position.
This bill has been stuck in committee after committee for a number of years because of veto threats, but now it seems that there is a veto-proof majority. The White House is threatening that veto because it suggests that the law basically subdivides Americans on the basis of race, which is directly unconstitutional. I basically agree.
However, and this is a huge however, the White House does not acknowledge that the coup organized in 1897 to overthrow the Hawai'in queen was also directly unconstitutional. The fact that native-born Hawai'ins are considered Americans which in turn means that they can't organize on the basis of race, is entirely based on a house of cards. If the initial action of annexing a territory through the obviously fraudulent methods employed in 1897 are deemed irrelevant than it seems plausible that the government can argue post fact that any action employed cannot be judged later on because that judgment is in turn unconstitutional. This seems like a bizarre circle of unreasonable madness.
As much as that makes me uncomfortable it also raises another question. I find it severely unlikely that any government on Earth has ever done any land grab by the book. It would be questionable if any government could legally defend themselves against the accusations of thievery and greed that are historically fundamental to the extension and protection of national and international borders.
This whole thing is quite an interesting sticky wicket. I'm not sure where to come down, although I must admit that emotionally I am quite strongly attached to the native-born Hawai'in position.
In Case You Live This Long
The BBC has an interesting article about what humanity may look like in a couple thousand years. Far be it from me to assume whether the predictions are correct. But I think it may be just a wee bit far-fetched.
BIG NEWS - Some People Are Gay
There has been quite an Internet uproar over the recent outing of a certain well-known fictional character. Of course I am speaking of J.K. Rowling's interview where she came out clearly saying that the character of Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series is gay. The story was featured on the BBC front page and it is still on CNN.
I'm sure this news will only clarify the disdain that many Christians feel toward Harry Potter in the first place. Now, not only does the series promote witchcraft, but it also features a homosexual main character. How much worse can you get? At the same time I'm sure many other people will laud Rowling for crafting such a sympathetic gay figure that is heroic in all the literary motifs. It’s interesting though that Rowling only outed Dumbledore after the series was over, and made it clear that his fancied partner was a love unrequited.
I am not very up on modern literature, but it seems like an interesting Rorschach test when a major character is written gay. This is especially true of children's literature. There was a huge flap a few years ago about a Dutch children's book entitled, "The Two Princes" which was about a prince discovering that he was gay and finding another prince rather than a princess. Then of course was the children's program on PBS that featured a lesbian couple raising kids. The ensuing backlash there had more to do with the kids' program bringing "normal" kids into contact with these abnormal families.
To be perfectly honest I don't really know what to think about Dumbledore's outing. I think, if Rowling had this in mind from the beginning, it doesn't make a lot of sense to out him after the series is over. It almost seems like a cheap shot on her account. I'm sure it can be taken in any number of ways.
What interests me though is something that may be lost in the shuffle of the current uproar. That is, there are gay people in this world. Sorry, there are. When a book, movie or TV show features a gay character you have to wonder whether the backlash is not so much driven by the fact that the character is gay, as it is that the gay character is talked about. It seems that much of the evangelical consensus about gay lifestyle is driven by the mischaracterization of said lifestyle as fringe or debased. This mischaracterization is then challenged when fictional characters don't necessarily correspond to the perceived reality of what constitutes a gay lifestyle. And the subsequent backlash has more to do with a perceived attack on an imagined reality.
Does Dumbledore being gay change anything about Harry Potter? Probably not. But is quite interesting to see how the conversation develops from this point on.
I'm sure this news will only clarify the disdain that many Christians feel toward Harry Potter in the first place. Now, not only does the series promote witchcraft, but it also features a homosexual main character. How much worse can you get? At the same time I'm sure many other people will laud Rowling for crafting such a sympathetic gay figure that is heroic in all the literary motifs. It’s interesting though that Rowling only outed Dumbledore after the series was over, and made it clear that his fancied partner was a love unrequited.
I am not very up on modern literature, but it seems like an interesting Rorschach test when a major character is written gay. This is especially true of children's literature. There was a huge flap a few years ago about a Dutch children's book entitled, "The Two Princes" which was about a prince discovering that he was gay and finding another prince rather than a princess. Then of course was the children's program on PBS that featured a lesbian couple raising kids. The ensuing backlash there had more to do with the kids' program bringing "normal" kids into contact with these abnormal families.
To be perfectly honest I don't really know what to think about Dumbledore's outing. I think, if Rowling had this in mind from the beginning, it doesn't make a lot of sense to out him after the series is over. It almost seems like a cheap shot on her account. I'm sure it can be taken in any number of ways.
What interests me though is something that may be lost in the shuffle of the current uproar. That is, there are gay people in this world. Sorry, there are. When a book, movie or TV show features a gay character you have to wonder whether the backlash is not so much driven by the fact that the character is gay, as it is that the gay character is talked about. It seems that much of the evangelical consensus about gay lifestyle is driven by the mischaracterization of said lifestyle as fringe or debased. This mischaracterization is then challenged when fictional characters don't necessarily correspond to the perceived reality of what constitutes a gay lifestyle. And the subsequent backlash has more to do with a perceived attack on an imagined reality.
Does Dumbledore being gay change anything about Harry Potter? Probably not. But is quite interesting to see how the conversation develops from this point on.
Unscripted Drama
Do you ever get the sensation that you are basically pretending to be an adult and hoping no one notices?
Characters in Search of a Story
I went to see the new movie "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" yesterday. When I first saw the original movie by Shekhar Kapur I loved the pageantry and beauty, the interesting characters, and the enveloping plot. My enjoyment dimmed somewhat after I found out how historically inaccurate the movie was. Considering how much of a history nerd I am it only makes sense that I would have preferred something more genuinely historical to a kind of "interpretive story" that demands historical markers for its authenticity but fails to attach those markers to the correct context, inevitably leading to a weird blend of history and fantasy.
This time around the movie was completely different. This time the history was considerably more bearable (although still with some MAJOR flaws), but the story was strangely absent. It was actually a very bizarre movie to watch. I am so used to historical movies that take extreme license with the historical record to make a story that fits into the modern conscience (read: Braveheart). But this movie seemed to be history in search of a story. It wasn't the same as other movies that are strung-together episodes. Rather, this seemed like a textbook in search of a narrator.
I suppose I have always underestimated the idea of narrative in history. My studies have always been dictated by a passion for detail and context in a way that usually shields the events from the progression of time these events are always in the middle of. Of course when I see movies like "Braveheart" that are so historically inaccurate it makes me all the more sure of my historical bias toward what I presume is how stories like that should be told. It was painfully obvious after this movie I have severely misunderstood what is going on.
I've been trying to figure out what I should say in this post (this partially explains why I haven't been posting as much lately - since I've been lost in my head a lot lately) without much luck. Something about narrative in history. Or perhaps better yet, narrative as history and vice-versa. Its always curious to me that the present is as much an attempt to define the past as it is to live in the moment. And when the present becomes the past, the future becomes the same attempt to judge, discern, and reveal the narrative on what happened. I keep trying to think about what it means to "live historically in the present." Something like trying to determine what others will say in the future about the narrative of the present. What narrative am I participating in right now?
I would be very interested to hear what other people who have seen the movie think about it. It was quite a unique experience.
This time around the movie was completely different. This time the history was considerably more bearable (although still with some MAJOR flaws), but the story was strangely absent. It was actually a very bizarre movie to watch. I am so used to historical movies that take extreme license with the historical record to make a story that fits into the modern conscience (read: Braveheart). But this movie seemed to be history in search of a story. It wasn't the same as other movies that are strung-together episodes. Rather, this seemed like a textbook in search of a narrator.
I suppose I have always underestimated the idea of narrative in history. My studies have always been dictated by a passion for detail and context in a way that usually shields the events from the progression of time these events are always in the middle of. Of course when I see movies like "Braveheart" that are so historically inaccurate it makes me all the more sure of my historical bias toward what I presume is how stories like that should be told. It was painfully obvious after this movie I have severely misunderstood what is going on.
I've been trying to figure out what I should say in this post (this partially explains why I haven't been posting as much lately - since I've been lost in my head a lot lately) without much luck. Something about narrative in history. Or perhaps better yet, narrative as history and vice-versa. Its always curious to me that the present is as much an attempt to define the past as it is to live in the moment. And when the present becomes the past, the future becomes the same attempt to judge, discern, and reveal the narrative on what happened. I keep trying to think about what it means to "live historically in the present." Something like trying to determine what others will say in the future about the narrative of the present. What narrative am I participating in right now?
I would be very interested to hear what other people who have seen the movie think about it. It was quite a unique experience.
Da Town!
Hey, Hey! I'm heading to Chicago in November for an ECPA Convention. ECPA stands for Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. They are having a convention in Chicago with some seminars on lots of different areas including rights. So I'm heading down there for two and a half days of speakers, eating, speakers, eating, speakers, sleeping... repeat.
I am looking forward to the convention much to my surprise. It'll be a good chance to meet people (some who I have already been talking with) and make some connections in the rights world that I would otherwise not make. Add to that the added benefit of going to Chicago, well, how could I say no? Actually my boss said yes, so that made the decision easier.
You know, I really am getting into the swing of things with my new job. Here toward the tail end of my third week I am finding my way through problems and discovering ways of doing things. It seems to be making sense. And that is a good thing. Equally exciting is the fact that I totally enjoy myself. I don't dread waking up in the morning. I drive to work with a skip in my step (figuratively). I feel more confident, more sure of myself. I can't even begin to describe how nice that feeling is for me.
At some point I will have to start decorating my office more than I have. One decorative candle just doesn't cut it. Not having a wife makes it a little more difficult determining who I should have pictures of on the walls. But I think nephews and nieces fit the bill nicely. Perhaps a plant or two would make it more comfy as well. A little more comfy would be nice with winter bearing down on us.
But, Chicago, Chicago! I can't wait.
I am looking forward to the convention much to my surprise. It'll be a good chance to meet people (some who I have already been talking with) and make some connections in the rights world that I would otherwise not make. Add to that the added benefit of going to Chicago, well, how could I say no? Actually my boss said yes, so that made the decision easier.
You know, I really am getting into the swing of things with my new job. Here toward the tail end of my third week I am finding my way through problems and discovering ways of doing things. It seems to be making sense. And that is a good thing. Equally exciting is the fact that I totally enjoy myself. I don't dread waking up in the morning. I drive to work with a skip in my step (figuratively). I feel more confident, more sure of myself. I can't even begin to describe how nice that feeling is for me.
At some point I will have to start decorating my office more than I have. One decorative candle just doesn't cut it. Not having a wife makes it a little more difficult determining who I should have pictures of on the walls. But I think nephews and nieces fit the bill nicely. Perhaps a plant or two would make it more comfy as well. A little more comfy would be nice with winter bearing down on us.
But, Chicago, Chicago! I can't wait.
In From the Cold, Into the Cold
I knew this would happen, but the front office here is so bloody cold I can barely stand it. I actually feel more comfortable outside when it is this cold. I will have to get a sweater or something to wear when I am sitting in my office doing emails and the like.
Maybe when it gets really cold outside the heat will be turned on higher. But for now, I am sitting here with my teeth on the verge of quivering, and my hands turning slightly numb. I have to go home tonight and get on my bike and just ride until I sweat myself warm. Considering I don't do exercise on Tuesdays (long day) perhaps today I am feeling the effects of not moving as much as I usually do.
Or I can just buy a small space heater. Hmmm... good idea?
Maybe when it gets really cold outside the heat will be turned on higher. But for now, I am sitting here with my teeth on the verge of quivering, and my hands turning slightly numb. I have to go home tonight and get on my bike and just ride until I sweat myself warm. Considering I don't do exercise on Tuesdays (long day) perhaps today I am feeling the effects of not moving as much as I usually do.
Or I can just buy a small space heater. Hmmm... good idea?
Why Are We the Next Step?
I just finished a book called "The World Without Us" which basically tries to scientifically extrapolate what would happen if humans up and disappeared off the earth tomorrow. Everything else is left exactly how it is, just that humans vanish into thin air. Its really an interesting book because its not just about what would happen, but more primarily its about what kind of impact we have on the earth simply by being here.
There are all kinds of interesting questions it raises, including many about the nature of evolution. Now, I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. And usually when I wax on about scientific questions I leave myself more high and dry than I was before. But there was one question that kept coming up in my head that I couldn't find a reasonable answer for, nor could I push it away. These are the kind of questions that keep me up at night.
It seems abundantly clear that over the course of evolution animals adapt to their environment in ways that allow them to succeed in the very basicness of life. There may be events that trigger mass extinctions, or the rapid change in environments, which force an adaptation or death event. But it seems like nature has the ability to "correct itself" for lack of a better word. Anybody who has ever taken even basic biology knows that the animal and plant kingdoms are interconnected to a remarkable degree.
And to some degree humans participate in that same interconnectedness. But what is so striking is humanity's ability to supercede the restrictions of a strictly give and take environment. Humans seem to have the ability to comprehend the natural process from above and beyond it (the brain acting as independent agent). But furthermore, human's ability to create, destroy, adept and realign nature to fit its whims, which do not necessarily have to fit with a natural cause and effect.
I think the clearest example of this is actually the great concern about the destruction of the natural world by humans. Why is it that humans, of all creatures, are the ones who can destroy the natural process and still live in relative security? We create chemical compounds not found in nature to form plastics that simplify our lives, but in no way are part of the natural evolutionary process. We are able to create new and effective ways of containing and killing germs that would otherwise "naturally" keep certain actions of creatures in check. We create artificial landforms that do not conform to the natural way nature intends water and earth to move. Take the New Orleans barrier islands for example. By damning the Mississippi River we created silt flows that, in turn keep the New Orleans port open, but allow unnatural stress on what would otherwise be an effective drainage system.
Yet, when people argue about going back to what nature intended, it seems brutally ironic that such words come from a species single-handedly able to transform nature to its whim. We would not have even a tiny portion of the food we enjoy if we did not apply farming techniques to certain plants and animals. The book describes how the common cow would quickly be eliminated from the food chain after we are gone because it is entirely dependent on us for its existence. When people talk about going au natural they talk out of one side of their mouth, because no one is willing to do what that literally means.
This brings me back to my initial question. Why does evolution allow for the eventuality of humans, a species alone in its ability to transcend what might be described as natural? But even that is not the clearest question. The next question is, why do we not assume that evolution includes the ability to supercede the constraints of our past? Therefore, why is it not plausible for humans who can create artificial natural worlds to be the next evolutionary model? Indeed, is the marriage of technology and flesh only the next evolutionary step in this whole process? I think these are some really interesting questions that I can only wonder about since I am such a rank amateur.
Part of the reason I bring this up also is because I am tired of people's complaints about how "unnatural" the world is nowadays. While I agree that we are substantially different in our ability to transcend the natural world, it seems hopelessly anachronistic to bemoan something we all take for granted in one way or another.
Interesting stuff... I think.
There are all kinds of interesting questions it raises, including many about the nature of evolution. Now, I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. And usually when I wax on about scientific questions I leave myself more high and dry than I was before. But there was one question that kept coming up in my head that I couldn't find a reasonable answer for, nor could I push it away. These are the kind of questions that keep me up at night.
It seems abundantly clear that over the course of evolution animals adapt to their environment in ways that allow them to succeed in the very basicness of life. There may be events that trigger mass extinctions, or the rapid change in environments, which force an adaptation or death event. But it seems like nature has the ability to "correct itself" for lack of a better word. Anybody who has ever taken even basic biology knows that the animal and plant kingdoms are interconnected to a remarkable degree.
And to some degree humans participate in that same interconnectedness. But what is so striking is humanity's ability to supercede the restrictions of a strictly give and take environment. Humans seem to have the ability to comprehend the natural process from above and beyond it (the brain acting as independent agent). But furthermore, human's ability to create, destroy, adept and realign nature to fit its whims, which do not necessarily have to fit with a natural cause and effect.
I think the clearest example of this is actually the great concern about the destruction of the natural world by humans. Why is it that humans, of all creatures, are the ones who can destroy the natural process and still live in relative security? We create chemical compounds not found in nature to form plastics that simplify our lives, but in no way are part of the natural evolutionary process. We are able to create new and effective ways of containing and killing germs that would otherwise "naturally" keep certain actions of creatures in check. We create artificial landforms that do not conform to the natural way nature intends water and earth to move. Take the New Orleans barrier islands for example. By damning the Mississippi River we created silt flows that, in turn keep the New Orleans port open, but allow unnatural stress on what would otherwise be an effective drainage system.
Yet, when people argue about going back to what nature intended, it seems brutally ironic that such words come from a species single-handedly able to transform nature to its whim. We would not have even a tiny portion of the food we enjoy if we did not apply farming techniques to certain plants and animals. The book describes how the common cow would quickly be eliminated from the food chain after we are gone because it is entirely dependent on us for its existence. When people talk about going au natural they talk out of one side of their mouth, because no one is willing to do what that literally means.
This brings me back to my initial question. Why does evolution allow for the eventuality of humans, a species alone in its ability to transcend what might be described as natural? But even that is not the clearest question. The next question is, why do we not assume that evolution includes the ability to supercede the constraints of our past? Therefore, why is it not plausible for humans who can create artificial natural worlds to be the next evolutionary model? Indeed, is the marriage of technology and flesh only the next evolutionary step in this whole process? I think these are some really interesting questions that I can only wonder about since I am such a rank amateur.
Part of the reason I bring this up also is because I am tired of people's complaints about how "unnatural" the world is nowadays. While I agree that we are substantially different in our ability to transcend the natural world, it seems hopelessly anachronistic to bemoan something we all take for granted in one way or another.
Interesting stuff... I think.
Bicycling While Sick as a Dog = Stupid Me
Yesterday at work I was feeling a little under the weather, you know a slight headache and a minor cough. Nothing too serious especially considering I am usually pretty good at staying healthy. When I got home I got on my bike to do my evening ritual of riding for a while. Well, the first session was OK, but when I got back on to ride again I was surprised how hard it became to keep up my normal pace. It might take me a minute or so to get up to steam, but then it just kept becoming harder and harder. I couldn't figure it out.
About half an hour after I finished my evening exercise I was sitting in front of my computer searching for something and I just felt these tremendous cramps. With visions of spending the next few hours perched over the porcelain throne dancing in my head, I waddled over to my bed to lie down and try and wait it out. Umm... three hours later I finally got up and was able to at least move around.
Today I stayed home from work, which sucked, big time. But I had a very bad cough that just would not go away and my head was swimming for most of the day. Even now I'm still a little woozy. On top of missing work, I also missed my Bible study. I know that I would have been sick anyway; I could feel it coming on yesterday. But working out yesterday was probably not the smartest thing I have ever done. It was fascinating though to feel how much of a difference there is between when I am healthy and when I am sick. Hopefully I'll be better prepared next time.
About half an hour after I finished my evening exercise I was sitting in front of my computer searching for something and I just felt these tremendous cramps. With visions of spending the next few hours perched over the porcelain throne dancing in my head, I waddled over to my bed to lie down and try and wait it out. Umm... three hours later I finally got up and was able to at least move around.
Today I stayed home from work, which sucked, big time. But I had a very bad cough that just would not go away and my head was swimming for most of the day. Even now I'm still a little woozy. On top of missing work, I also missed my Bible study. I know that I would have been sick anyway; I could feel it coming on yesterday. But working out yesterday was probably not the smartest thing I have ever done. It was fascinating though to feel how much of a difference there is between when I am healthy and when I am sick. Hopefully I'll be better prepared next time.
Advances in Nerd Dating
What a fantastic idea. Some computer nerds are setting up a program to trade computer advice and statistics tutoring for sorority girls to get the chance to "make them over." All in the name of getting more women interested in the computer science field. Whatever it takes fellas.
Foreign Policy "Common Sense"
"He [British Foreign Secretary David Miliband] admitted that British
foreign policy had alienated millions of Muslims. Speaking of a recent visit to
Pakistan, he said: 'I met young, educated, articulate people in their 20s and
30s who told me millions of Muslims around the world think we're not seeking to
empower them, but to dominate them. So we have to stop and think. The lesson is
that it is not good enough to have good intentions. To assert shared values is
not enough, we must embody them in shared institutions.' He gave the example of
Turkish membership of the EU, saying Europe must not be seen as a closed
Christian club.”
The Bible Study Blues
Here is just one thing I wanted to briefly comment on before I head off to my weekly Bible Study. I was speaking on the phone with my leader and he made a comment about how our meetings are supposed to be about what the Spirit is telling us about each passage we read for that week. OK, I have no problem with that... in general.
But what bugs me is that we tend to get "emotional" about it. By that I mean we tend to talk about how we feel, what has struck us about what we read, what do we connect with. There is almost no room for reflections on the history of the Church (i.e. precedence), what other Christians have thought about this text, some quandaries we might have about particularly hard passages. And that makes me think there is a gap being drawn between two strains of Christianity. One, the more emotional strain where faith is largely felt, and the other, the intellectual strain, where faith is explored and prodded. I don't like it when people create false dichotomies, and here is a prime example of that tendency.
This is all not to say that I'm not being blessed by going to the Bible Study Fellowship. I am. But in my prodding nature I want to explore where we might go to expand our horizons. Just call me the theological gadfly on whatever horse I manage to land on.
But what bugs me is that we tend to get "emotional" about it. By that I mean we tend to talk about how we feel, what has struck us about what we read, what do we connect with. There is almost no room for reflections on the history of the Church (i.e. precedence), what other Christians have thought about this text, some quandaries we might have about particularly hard passages. And that makes me think there is a gap being drawn between two strains of Christianity. One, the more emotional strain where faith is largely felt, and the other, the intellectual strain, where faith is explored and prodded. I don't like it when people create false dichotomies, and here is a prime example of that tendency.
This is all not to say that I'm not being blessed by going to the Bible Study Fellowship. I am. But in my prodding nature I want to explore where we might go to expand our horizons. Just call me the theological gadfly on whatever horse I manage to land on.
I Yam Who I Yam, and That's Who I Yam
I was at a party at my sister's house a few weekends ago and got to talking with my brother-in-law about cars. Now my car presently is a '94 Olds with over 140,000 miles on it. It has some rust spots, the engine doesn't appreciate cold weather, there is one part held on by a wire hanger (no joke), etc. It still looks pretty good, but you get the idea. Anyway, we were talking because I am probably going to buy a newer car at some point this fall. My brother-in-law's brother works at a car dealership so I am working with him, which is very nice.
We ended up discussing what cars I might be interested in and I made it abundantly clear that I wanted something as simple as I could find. He was trying to convince me to buy an Audi or something a little more high class. But there is no way I would ever buy something like that, even if I did have the money for it. The whole idea of cars that nice just makes me uncomfortable. I much prefer simplicity. Call it my Dutch-Calvinist guilt if you must. But that might be too easy a label because I actually do enjoy simpler things. It is not like I'm missing out on purpose, I would much rather have a basic car than one with all the works.
The reason I bring this up is because my brother-in-law kept hammering me (somewhat humorously) that I wouldn't be very attractive to women with such a simple ride. Notwithstanding the fact that I am not physically attractive in the first place, I suppose my simple tastes really turn the tide against me. I don't want to push this farther than I should, but it really got me thinking about who I would be attracted to... Lord willing. In all fairness to precedent I can't assume that my perfect woman will be as infatuated with simplicity as I am. So I won't presume to contradict that possibility. If it happens that I end up with a woman who likes fancy things I guess there will be a reason we will be together, but boy that would be a hard one for me. When my brother-in-law said that I wouldn't be as attractive in a simpler, more boring car, my first reaction was to say, "so what." If I'm less attractive to a woman who wants that then that is for the best because she will end up with someone who can provide what she wants.
It's becoming fairly obvious that I'm making mountains out of molehills with this whole line of reasoning. Yet, it is interesting to think about the things that make up who we are and especially those things that are so deeply important to us that assign real value to. For me that is simplicity and modesty. Do I care whether that is attractive or not? I don't. Should I?
... Well, I am still single. =)
We ended up discussing what cars I might be interested in and I made it abundantly clear that I wanted something as simple as I could find. He was trying to convince me to buy an Audi or something a little more high class. But there is no way I would ever buy something like that, even if I did have the money for it. The whole idea of cars that nice just makes me uncomfortable. I much prefer simplicity. Call it my Dutch-Calvinist guilt if you must. But that might be too easy a label because I actually do enjoy simpler things. It is not like I'm missing out on purpose, I would much rather have a basic car than one with all the works.
The reason I bring this up is because my brother-in-law kept hammering me (somewhat humorously) that I wouldn't be very attractive to women with such a simple ride. Notwithstanding the fact that I am not physically attractive in the first place, I suppose my simple tastes really turn the tide against me. I don't want to push this farther than I should, but it really got me thinking about who I would be attracted to... Lord willing. In all fairness to precedent I can't assume that my perfect woman will be as infatuated with simplicity as I am. So I won't presume to contradict that possibility. If it happens that I end up with a woman who likes fancy things I guess there will be a reason we will be together, but boy that would be a hard one for me. When my brother-in-law said that I wouldn't be as attractive in a simpler, more boring car, my first reaction was to say, "so what." If I'm less attractive to a woman who wants that then that is for the best because she will end up with someone who can provide what she wants.
It's becoming fairly obvious that I'm making mountains out of molehills with this whole line of reasoning. Yet, it is interesting to think about the things that make up who we are and especially those things that are so deeply important to us that assign real value to. For me that is simplicity and modesty. Do I care whether that is attractive or not? I don't. Should I?
... Well, I am still single. =)
First Post From My Office
Just thought it would be cool to write a quick post from my new office here at Eerdmans. Boy am I in for one intensive learning session on Monday. Lots of e-mails already asking questions that I don't know how to answer. Hmmm... We’ll see how fast I really do learn. The old Rights and Permissions Manager is coming in to train me so that is very nice. I hope to get most of it down in one day so that I can start managing my job and be efficient with my time. That is the hope at least.
On another note, I had a very nice "Exit Interview" lunch with my old boss today. That is the kind of open and honest feedback I like hearing and giving. I will miss some things about old job, but I am so looking forward to this new job that I can't think about that right now. Maybe later when I'm totally swamped in this job I'll look back with fondness at simpler times. But I'll be making more money, so who am I to complain?
On another note, I had a very nice "Exit Interview" lunch with my old boss today. That is the kind of open and honest feedback I like hearing and giving. I will miss some things about old job, but I am so looking forward to this new job that I can't think about that right now. Maybe later when I'm totally swamped in this job I'll look back with fondness at simpler times. But I'll be making more money, so who am I to complain?
Ethics at the Speed of Relativity
Upon further reflection on my new job I came across an unhappy contradiction that I still need to work out. I have nearly always been either afraid of, or ticked off at the "higher-ups" in this life. Whether that means those people who wear business suits to work, or those who are bosses of some kind or another. Since I have really never been in a position of authority myself it is relatively easy to see why I would justify my position through the degradation of those who have more or are in charge of more around me. In fact this kind of self-gratification is fairly common to many people. It is far easier to justify my down-and-out position in this world than work hard to gain an advantage and power. It’s the classic case of digging a hole for yourself and then using said hole to explain why the "man" is wrong for hurting you all the time.
Of course nothing is really that simple so I would be wrong to assume that all down-and-out people in this world have simply dug their own holes. That would be silly and naive of me. But nevertheless I do think that there is a temptation to degrade the powerbrokers in this world by those who are not powerbrokers.
This is not at all to say that my new job puts me in position of power... it doesn't. But what it does do is puts me in roughly the same category of people that for most of my life I had always assumed I would never be. And that essentially calls much of my inner justification and ethical framework into question. Which is why I used the term relativity in the title of this blog post. I keep trying to place myself in the context of the underdog, or the person who is getting the raw deal so that I can try and place this new position within the same ethical framework that I have been living under for so long. But it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is a mission bound to fail. I am changing and its not at all clear what that means.
I suppose the new questions I have to deal with relate mostly to the exercise of authority. This is particularly scary ground for me because I have a long-standing apathy toward power and authority especially because of my theological training. But once I am in a position to make decisions rather than simply respond to someone else's decisions I am on much more slippery footing.
It really is frustrating for me because I don't have very much experience in these matters and so my questions are largely ephemeral and amorphous. Its kind of like I'm reaching into the dark for something to hold on to, but I can't tell you what I'm looking for or even why I need to look for it. I guess its just another learning process that everyone has to go through. Oh well, I love learning so maybe it'll all turn out well in the end.
Of course nothing is really that simple so I would be wrong to assume that all down-and-out people in this world have simply dug their own holes. That would be silly and naive of me. But nevertheless I do think that there is a temptation to degrade the powerbrokers in this world by those who are not powerbrokers.
This is not at all to say that my new job puts me in position of power... it doesn't. But what it does do is puts me in roughly the same category of people that for most of my life I had always assumed I would never be. And that essentially calls much of my inner justification and ethical framework into question. Which is why I used the term relativity in the title of this blog post. I keep trying to place myself in the context of the underdog, or the person who is getting the raw deal so that I can try and place this new position within the same ethical framework that I have been living under for so long. But it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is a mission bound to fail. I am changing and its not at all clear what that means.
I suppose the new questions I have to deal with relate mostly to the exercise of authority. This is particularly scary ground for me because I have a long-standing apathy toward power and authority especially because of my theological training. But once I am in a position to make decisions rather than simply respond to someone else's decisions I am on much more slippery footing.
It really is frustrating for me because I don't have very much experience in these matters and so my questions are largely ephemeral and amorphous. Its kind of like I'm reaching into the dark for something to hold on to, but I can't tell you what I'm looking for or even why I need to look for it. I guess its just another learning process that everyone has to go through. Oh well, I love learning so maybe it'll all turn out well in the end.
Genuflecting Before the Altar of Providence
I got a new job. Yep, starting on September 24 I will be the new Subsidiary Rights Manager for Eerdmans Publishing. This job opened up so quickly that I'm still kind of wondering what happened. Last week Friday I got an e-mail from a friend of mine in the front office at Eerdmans who said that this position opened up and I should apply. So I turned in my resume on Monday, had an interview on Tuesday, turned in my writing sample on Wednesday, and was offered the job on yesterday morning.
The big title basically entails working on licensing and foreign trade rights for Eerdmans material, so I will be doing a lot of paperwork, e-mailing and calling to sell more rights to other companies. I am soooooo excited to get started I can't even explain it. It came out of the blue so quickly that I almost didn't have a chance to over think the situation, which I am prone to do. So I accepted the job offer yesterday and will have one week to get ready, buy some new business casual clothes and finish my old job.
After that I'll be ready to move into my office and get started. Just crazy. And tremendously exciting!
The big title basically entails working on licensing and foreign trade rights for Eerdmans material, so I will be doing a lot of paperwork, e-mailing and calling to sell more rights to other companies. I am soooooo excited to get started I can't even explain it. It came out of the blue so quickly that I almost didn't have a chance to over think the situation, which I am prone to do. So I accepted the job offer yesterday and will have one week to get ready, buy some new business casual clothes and finish my old job.
After that I'll be ready to move into my office and get started. Just crazy. And tremendously exciting!
Bizarre Moments of My Life (The Continuing Saga)
I went to Kohl's today to buy some jeans and a shirt. I know my pant size so that was not too hard (try finding an adult pair of jeans with 28 length - they don't exist). But my shirt sizes always seem to change depending on the shirt and the store. My brother-in-law got me a golf shirt a few weeks ago that was labeled a medium, but the darn thing just hangs off me like a sail. I feel bad about that. In any case at Kohl's I tried on some medium shirts since medium is usually what I fit. However, the shirt that I bought ended up being too large for me in medium so I had to buy it in small. That may not sound like much but for me to fit into any shirt, size small is something to write home about. I still can't believe it. I'm sitting here writing this post about trying on shirts when I should be writing about something a little more profound, but I just can't get past wearing a small.
Someone at church mentioned that I looked like I was wasting away. =) I sincerely think that is primarily because of how big I was before and not because I am actually that small. I'm not. But still, there is something to be said for fitting into a smaller size shirt that does work wonders for the old self-esteem. I just hope that higher self-esteem doesn't build on an already large ego. That might make me even more unbearable than I already am. I guess I'll just have to chance that (read: sarcasm).
Someone at church mentioned that I looked like I was wasting away. =) I sincerely think that is primarily because of how big I was before and not because I am actually that small. I'm not. But still, there is something to be said for fitting into a smaller size shirt that does work wonders for the old self-esteem. I just hope that higher self-esteem doesn't build on an already large ego. That might make me even more unbearable than I already am. I guess I'll just have to chance that (read: sarcasm).
Insert Answer Here
I attended the first week of the Bible Study Fellowship meeting last night. I spoke about this earlier when I was talking about the Bible study for single adults and my fears about it being a Christian dating service. As much as I do worry about that, I don't think that is my chief concern.
I love Bible studies. I love to discuss, debate, discern, determine, dig and devour anything and everything about the Bible and theology in general. I am a nutcase when it comes to this stuff. I read commentaries for the fun of it. So naturally I feel pretty good about my knowledge, or perhaps better put, about my ability to engage the material with honesty and passion. That is kind of a double-edged sword however as I came to see last night.
The last Bible study I was in was called "Heretics 'R Us" and was largely dedicated to exploring theological questions with complete freedom and total honesty. No question was too off topic and no query was not worth exploring. Obviously this can be rather chaotic, and it was, but it also was so incredibly engaging that I have yet to discover anything that is its equal.
The feeling I got from the Bible study last night was much more traditional and rigid, which I suppose can be a good thing. But the one thing that really made me uncomfortable was the sort of generic question and answer set-up that didn't really allow for creativity and honest doubt. What I mean by that is that we had a lecture that was meant to be an introduction to the Bible, the Gospels and Jesus. It largely followed the line of many of these kinds of presentations where the Bible is explained, certain questions raised and then answers given to those questions. That's all fine and good. But my biggest problem is that the questions were all "crafted" to make them appear less honest than they actually are in real life. This happens in politics all the time. Where one party will paraphrase the opposition in such a way as to create the illusion that the question is incorrect from the beginning, or is suspect in its motivation.
While I have no doubt that many people who have questions about Christianity have ulterior motives, or just don't like religious people, I think it is a grave mistake to teach Christians about their faith with the assumption that non-believers are idiots. Unfortunately I think that is what many Christians think when they are spoon-fed these answers to questions no one really asks. Or perhaps people do ask these simple questions, but when Christians learn the answers like some sort of fill in the blank the back and forth becomes much less an honest dialogue and much more a talking points debate. Yech! Who needs that?
I have known and continue to know a great number of non-Christians, atheists or agnostics and all of them have questions (even Christians have questions, who'd have thunk that). I am convinced that questions are not only a good thing; they are the best way to learn and grow in faith. The Psalms are nothing if not humans struggling with both the majesty and mystery of God. The reason why the Psalms are so well loved is because they carry emotional weight; they are not just some dry insights that people picked up off the cuff. There is immense struggle in the Psalms and elsewhere in prophetic writings in the Old Testament. Is this a bad thing? I think not.
Perhaps this exposes my bias by showcasing that I prefer things chaotic rather than logical. Things that are too logical make me nervous because they tend to be artificial and rigid. I am a theological naturalist, which is someone who believes strongly that Christianity speaks to us as we are, messed up, messy and chaotic. I don't believe we need to have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed to be correct. I prefer it when people are honestly mistaken or truthfully doubtful. Do you disagree with me about my faith? Fine, lets talk... honestly and openly about your questions. Give me both barrels and I'll give you mine.
In closing I just hope that this Bible study experience doesn't turn sour for me. I really am going to try and push myself to do better than I have before. Can I contain my inner gadfly? We shall see.
I love Bible studies. I love to discuss, debate, discern, determine, dig and devour anything and everything about the Bible and theology in general. I am a nutcase when it comes to this stuff. I read commentaries for the fun of it. So naturally I feel pretty good about my knowledge, or perhaps better put, about my ability to engage the material with honesty and passion. That is kind of a double-edged sword however as I came to see last night.
The last Bible study I was in was called "Heretics 'R Us" and was largely dedicated to exploring theological questions with complete freedom and total honesty. No question was too off topic and no query was not worth exploring. Obviously this can be rather chaotic, and it was, but it also was so incredibly engaging that I have yet to discover anything that is its equal.
The feeling I got from the Bible study last night was much more traditional and rigid, which I suppose can be a good thing. But the one thing that really made me uncomfortable was the sort of generic question and answer set-up that didn't really allow for creativity and honest doubt. What I mean by that is that we had a lecture that was meant to be an introduction to the Bible, the Gospels and Jesus. It largely followed the line of many of these kinds of presentations where the Bible is explained, certain questions raised and then answers given to those questions. That's all fine and good. But my biggest problem is that the questions were all "crafted" to make them appear less honest than they actually are in real life. This happens in politics all the time. Where one party will paraphrase the opposition in such a way as to create the illusion that the question is incorrect from the beginning, or is suspect in its motivation.
While I have no doubt that many people who have questions about Christianity have ulterior motives, or just don't like religious people, I think it is a grave mistake to teach Christians about their faith with the assumption that non-believers are idiots. Unfortunately I think that is what many Christians think when they are spoon-fed these answers to questions no one really asks. Or perhaps people do ask these simple questions, but when Christians learn the answers like some sort of fill in the blank the back and forth becomes much less an honest dialogue and much more a talking points debate. Yech! Who needs that?
I have known and continue to know a great number of non-Christians, atheists or agnostics and all of them have questions (even Christians have questions, who'd have thunk that). I am convinced that questions are not only a good thing; they are the best way to learn and grow in faith. The Psalms are nothing if not humans struggling with both the majesty and mystery of God. The reason why the Psalms are so well loved is because they carry emotional weight; they are not just some dry insights that people picked up off the cuff. There is immense struggle in the Psalms and elsewhere in prophetic writings in the Old Testament. Is this a bad thing? I think not.
Perhaps this exposes my bias by showcasing that I prefer things chaotic rather than logical. Things that are too logical make me nervous because they tend to be artificial and rigid. I am a theological naturalist, which is someone who believes strongly that Christianity speaks to us as we are, messed up, messy and chaotic. I don't believe we need to have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed to be correct. I prefer it when people are honestly mistaken or truthfully doubtful. Do you disagree with me about my faith? Fine, lets talk... honestly and openly about your questions. Give me both barrels and I'll give you mine.
In closing I just hope that this Bible study experience doesn't turn sour for me. I really am going to try and push myself to do better than I have before. Can I contain my inner gadfly? We shall see.
Babies Are Beautiful
I was at dinner last night with Chris and Rebecca Mangimeli, Dean and Jess Dozeman, and Dan and Angel Miller. Interesting being the 7th wheel (although I should say that hanging out with such good friends makes it much less of an issue). But actually I was the 8th wheel since Dean and Jess have a new addition to their family. Little Callista Marie Dozeman was also there and just did not want to sleep... almost the entire evening. Thankfully I had my camera with me so I got a couple of shots of her.
Being around three married couples, one with a newborn I had to tell them the story of my nephew a few Christmas's ago. He was looking at the stockings over my parents' fireplace and counting to make sure there was one for everyone. He finished and looked confused and then finally asked my mom, "where is Aunt Tom?" So I suppose I need to find an "Aunt Tom" to complete the family. From the lips of children...
Being around three married couples, one with a newborn I had to tell them the story of my nephew a few Christmas's ago. He was looking at the stockings over my parents' fireplace and counting to make sure there was one for everyone. He finished and looked confused and then finally asked my mom, "where is Aunt Tom?" So I suppose I need to find an "Aunt Tom" to complete the family. From the lips of children...
Sleep May Not Be a Necessity, But It Sure Is Nice
Scientists say that on average a person my age needs about 8 or more hours of sleep a night in order to function well. The past couple of months I have been having the hardest time sleeping a full night through. I just can't seem to do it... ever. And yet it doesn't seem like I suffer as much as I should during the day. I like to take my lunch break to read, but I usually read for about 10 minutes and then fall asleep for the rest of my break, which gets me right back into the thick of things again.
However, at night it seems I can only sleep restlessly and without the kind of long periods of sleep that I used to get. I will wake up many times (sometimes 8 or 9 times during the night) and then also wake up probably a half hour before my alarm (set for 6AM). When I do fall asleep it is hard and fast, but not long. I don't know if this is common for some people while others sleep hard the full night through. I'm not falling asleep on my feet at work. I just can't figure it out. But that doesn't bother me half as much as being so restless just invigorates my already overwrought brain all the more. Sleep is the one time that I have always been able to escape my incessant thinking about everything and anything. I used to take naps in college not because I was sleepy, but because I needed to shut off for a little while or I might break down. It sometimes feels like my brain won't let me sleep. I guess if I can function physically it must mean that I'm doing OK, but it sure would be nice to switch off for even one night.
However, at night it seems I can only sleep restlessly and without the kind of long periods of sleep that I used to get. I will wake up many times (sometimes 8 or 9 times during the night) and then also wake up probably a half hour before my alarm (set for 6AM). When I do fall asleep it is hard and fast, but not long. I don't know if this is common for some people while others sleep hard the full night through. I'm not falling asleep on my feet at work. I just can't figure it out. But that doesn't bother me half as much as being so restless just invigorates my already overwrought brain all the more. Sleep is the one time that I have always been able to escape my incessant thinking about everything and anything. I used to take naps in college not because I was sleepy, but because I needed to shut off for a little while or I might break down. It sometimes feels like my brain won't let me sleep. I guess if I can function physically it must mean that I'm doing OK, but it sure would be nice to switch off for even one night.
Something To Shoot For in the Future
Oh the glory of it all. If only I could be so lucky to have facial hair like these guys. http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1658835,00.html
Absent Without Cause
Sorry for the long delay in updating here. I've been rather busy over the Labor Day weekend (exactly the opposite of what I was hoping). It turns out painting the interior of a garage is a little harder than I initially thought. But once I got up on the shelves on my stomach painting above my head it quickly fell into routine. No worries.
Over the weekend I found out that my aunt's mother has pancreatic cancer and will not likely live past two months. Mrs. Fuji is 95 years old and just tiny. But she is the most wonderful, passionate, humble Christian lady I know. Just a sweetheart. It was hard for my mom when she found out that her brother's mother-in-law was now terminal. She has lived with my uncle and aunt for almost twenty years now and she has become as much a part of our extended family as anyone else. It makes the emotions more deeply felt when we talked about her life and the hardships she experienced. She lost two young sons during the war (even my mom doesn't know the whole story) and her husband died probably over twenty years ago. She has not had it easy, but she remains such a light to those around her. Just a wonderful woman.
It makes me pause...
Over the weekend I found out that my aunt's mother has pancreatic cancer and will not likely live past two months. Mrs. Fuji is 95 years old and just tiny. But she is the most wonderful, passionate, humble Christian lady I know. Just a sweetheart. It was hard for my mom when she found out that her brother's mother-in-law was now terminal. She has lived with my uncle and aunt for almost twenty years now and she has become as much a part of our extended family as anyone else. It makes the emotions more deeply felt when we talked about her life and the hardships she experienced. She lost two young sons during the war (even my mom doesn't know the whole story) and her husband died probably over twenty years ago. She has not had it easy, but she remains such a light to those around her. Just a wonderful woman.
It makes me pause...
Sentimentality, History, Geekiness and Me
The recent spate of intense wildfires in Greece got me thinking about something completely unrelated. Of course. On Saturday and Sunday the ancient site of Olympia, birthplace of the ancient Olympic Games was severely threatened by fire and almost overran. Some hard firefighting saved the site both from the professionals and from volunteers from the area. Some of the pictures were astonishing, with the flames mere yards away from the original stadium.
There were some commentators, NPR's Steve Inskeep for one, who mentioned that it was ironic that a historic site, 2800 hundred years old, would have a higher priority for defense than the villages surrounding it there are inhabited and vivacious. As a noted history geek my first reaction was one of disdain and disbelief about the possibility of sacrificing such a monument. But the more I thought about it the more I began to question the underlying notions of past and present and how they converge.
I strongly believe that the study of history is, at its very root, the study of who we are today. People are defined by memory and tradition, which in turn is mediated through the constant recitation of a shared history. And not only a recitation, but also the living being embraced by the physical remains of the dead. We have always been drawn to buildings, monuments, tombs, and more that remain long after the people who built or used them have become dust and ash. Perhaps the most obvious sign of people defining themselves is the creation and remembrance of physical monuments to people, places and events of the past. This seems to be a cultural constant, regardless of politics or ideology.
Its fascinating to think that 2800 years ago there were people, like you and me, who raced around the stadium at Olympia. But it is more prescient to think about how the physical remains of Olympia, the stone ruins, the freestanding statuary, and more continue to define our present perception of sport, physicality, body image, deity, and worship. The standing stones at Olympia preserve some form of connection to a past that if lost would loosen our hold on what meaning we give ourselves today.
I'm not suggesting that ancient ruins be given precedence over human life. That would be silly. But I did want to wax poetic for a few moments on the power of the physicality of history that surrounds us every day of our lives. Not only the power, but the inherent meaning that we imbibe from it. In any case, I'm glad Ancient Olympia was saved.
There were some commentators, NPR's Steve Inskeep for one, who mentioned that it was ironic that a historic site, 2800 hundred years old, would have a higher priority for defense than the villages surrounding it there are inhabited and vivacious. As a noted history geek my first reaction was one of disdain and disbelief about the possibility of sacrificing such a monument. But the more I thought about it the more I began to question the underlying notions of past and present and how they converge.
I strongly believe that the study of history is, at its very root, the study of who we are today. People are defined by memory and tradition, which in turn is mediated through the constant recitation of a shared history. And not only a recitation, but also the living being embraced by the physical remains of the dead. We have always been drawn to buildings, monuments, tombs, and more that remain long after the people who built or used them have become dust and ash. Perhaps the most obvious sign of people defining themselves is the creation and remembrance of physical monuments to people, places and events of the past. This seems to be a cultural constant, regardless of politics or ideology.
Its fascinating to think that 2800 years ago there were people, like you and me, who raced around the stadium at Olympia. But it is more prescient to think about how the physical remains of Olympia, the stone ruins, the freestanding statuary, and more continue to define our present perception of sport, physicality, body image, deity, and worship. The standing stones at Olympia preserve some form of connection to a past that if lost would loosen our hold on what meaning we give ourselves today.
I'm not suggesting that ancient ruins be given precedence over human life. That would be silly. But I did want to wax poetic for a few moments on the power of the physicality of history that surrounds us every day of our lives. Not only the power, but the inherent meaning that we imbibe from it. In any case, I'm glad Ancient Olympia was saved.
For Those Who Are About to Cry...
The history of the Iraq War has been particularly harsh, between the insurgent attacks and massive civilian casualties, to the much larger than expected American losses, to the bitter political battles. With that in mind, I wanted to offer a little bit of a relief.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=984971
I found this story on NPR's website when I was looking up stuff on Dr. Seuss. There are times that even the most depressing story needs a release valve. This is one such valve for me. Listen to the story of Saddam (I Am) and his weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=984971
I found this story on NPR's website when I was looking up stuff on Dr. Seuss. There are times that even the most depressing story needs a release valve. This is one such valve for me. Listen to the story of Saddam (I Am) and his weapons of mass destruction.
This Is How Much I Use My Phone
My last phone bill was $3.59.
That is a little misleading considering I overpaid before. But still, I was rather impressed with myself.
That is a little misleading considering I overpaid before. But still, I was rather impressed with myself.
Disregarding Competence for a Moment
Alberto Gonzales turned in his resignation earlier today. He will officially step down as the Attorney General of the United States effective September 17th, three weeks from now.
I suppose this has been brewing for months now, ever since the attorney firings were first reported. Perhaps people have noticed that I have noticeably more reluctant to post on political issues as of late on this blog. The reason is that I have become much more reluctant to position myself pro or con on most issues unless I am very well informed and don't pretend to be objective while couching my language in partisan bickering. Good luck, eh? In this case though I wanted to make a brief comment on Gonzales and his term in office.
There are a hundred stories out there right now all trying to establish the "facts" of Alberto Gonzales and his time in the Attorney General's office. Regardless of what they all conclude, most suggest (some more up front than others) that Gonzales was not the most qualified, or most effective leader the Department of Justice has ever had. The reasons are plentiful and well known. He rose very quickly up the government ranks following close by the rise of George W. Bush. This alone is suggestive of a constituency of one, although many other political figures have the same story to tell. His tenure as counsel to Governor Bush included memos sent to the Governor about death penalty cases that were far from complete and often strikingly poor in fairness. As Chief White House Counsel he advised and helped to initiate many of the terror related laws and regulations that would be highly questioned not only by liberals but by some conservatives as well. He never adequately explained these actions. Furthermore, in his time in the Attorney General's office he never once explored cases against the government for corruption or fraud, even when auditors advised that there were cases to be made. The list goes on and on.
Someone on a political commentary website I was reading earlier today mentioned that President Bush is loyal to a fault. This loyalty manifests itself most bizarrely when government officials who are clearly not doing their job are kept on long after they should have left and then suddenly leave "at their discretion" which is usually code for, when the distractions become too great. This happened with Mike Brown at FEMA, Donald Rumsfeld at the DOD, and now with Gonzales at DOJ.
The accusations are flying right now about who was playing politics with this whole affair. I think if we are to be honest with ourselves we have to admit that both parties were playing politics. Uh, duh! The spin is meant to explain which party was more justified in their political manipulation. I find such distinctions petty and disingenuous. I think the bottom line on Alberto Gonzales was that he was, and continues to be totally incompetent for the positions he held in government. That makes him a failure in my eyes, not that he presided over a Republican DOJ that was far too partisan. Because I guarantee that at some point in the future, as in the past, the Democrats will do exactly the same thing.
Give me competent officers in government and then we can talk politics.
I suppose this has been brewing for months now, ever since the attorney firings were first reported. Perhaps people have noticed that I have noticeably more reluctant to post on political issues as of late on this blog. The reason is that I have become much more reluctant to position myself pro or con on most issues unless I am very well informed and don't pretend to be objective while couching my language in partisan bickering. Good luck, eh? In this case though I wanted to make a brief comment on Gonzales and his term in office.
There are a hundred stories out there right now all trying to establish the "facts" of Alberto Gonzales and his time in the Attorney General's office. Regardless of what they all conclude, most suggest (some more up front than others) that Gonzales was not the most qualified, or most effective leader the Department of Justice has ever had. The reasons are plentiful and well known. He rose very quickly up the government ranks following close by the rise of George W. Bush. This alone is suggestive of a constituency of one, although many other political figures have the same story to tell. His tenure as counsel to Governor Bush included memos sent to the Governor about death penalty cases that were far from complete and often strikingly poor in fairness. As Chief White House Counsel he advised and helped to initiate many of the terror related laws and regulations that would be highly questioned not only by liberals but by some conservatives as well. He never adequately explained these actions. Furthermore, in his time in the Attorney General's office he never once explored cases against the government for corruption or fraud, even when auditors advised that there were cases to be made. The list goes on and on.
Someone on a political commentary website I was reading earlier today mentioned that President Bush is loyal to a fault. This loyalty manifests itself most bizarrely when government officials who are clearly not doing their job are kept on long after they should have left and then suddenly leave "at their discretion" which is usually code for, when the distractions become too great. This happened with Mike Brown at FEMA, Donald Rumsfeld at the DOD, and now with Gonzales at DOJ.
The accusations are flying right now about who was playing politics with this whole affair. I think if we are to be honest with ourselves we have to admit that both parties were playing politics. Uh, duh! The spin is meant to explain which party was more justified in their political manipulation. I find such distinctions petty and disingenuous. I think the bottom line on Alberto Gonzales was that he was, and continues to be totally incompetent for the positions he held in government. That makes him a failure in my eyes, not that he presided over a Republican DOJ that was far too partisan. Because I guarantee that at some point in the future, as in the past, the Democrats will do exactly the same thing.
Give me competent officers in government and then we can talk politics.
The Illusions of Brilliance Predicated on the Assumption of Skill
I usually try and watch something while I exercise in the evenings. Otherwise all I do is look at the clock to see how much more time I have. I don't even own a TV, so my computer has to make do with its DVD capability. This evening I put in the film Serenity, a movie that continues the story of Joss Whedon's space western TV show Firefly. I don't want to get into the movie itself (which I love), besides stating that I think it may be the most original science fiction show in decades. Hoort got me hooked on it and I haven't gotten off.
One reason I love Serenity so much is because I love science fiction generally. I've always enjoyed science fiction, much more so than fantasy literature or films. Lord of the Rings is practically my one and only exception to that rule. But generally speaking I much, much prefer science fiction to fantasy. I've tried to come up with deep and brilliant explanations why, but I can't quite figure it out.
Part of the fun I have with science fiction is dreaming up the future. An anonymous quote once said that all historians are "prophets in reverse" which may be an attempt to justify how historians can presume to understand anything by exploring the past. Yet, as a historian by training I also find myself absolutely mesmerized by the "lessons of the past" and how, if at all, they may play a role in the future. What does the future hold? What will historians a thousand years from now see when they look back on the world that was? In that same vein I have often thought of trying to write a history of the future. I think that would be absolutely fascinating. Now, I am not much of a writer, but there are times I feel like such a project would be something I could do. It would be science fiction, but as much about the nature of human introspection and identity as anything fanciful.
I have this book on how ancient Egyptian's viewed themselves in light of their own history. A very interesting read because it sheds light on the inherent human tendency to find meaning in the past no matter what culture you come from. What an interesting concept to take that very human tendency and read it into the future. Thus writing a history of the future. Perhaps my life-long magnum opus. Wouldn't that be fun?
One reason I love Serenity so much is because I love science fiction generally. I've always enjoyed science fiction, much more so than fantasy literature or films. Lord of the Rings is practically my one and only exception to that rule. But generally speaking I much, much prefer science fiction to fantasy. I've tried to come up with deep and brilliant explanations why, but I can't quite figure it out.
Part of the fun I have with science fiction is dreaming up the future. An anonymous quote once said that all historians are "prophets in reverse" which may be an attempt to justify how historians can presume to understand anything by exploring the past. Yet, as a historian by training I also find myself absolutely mesmerized by the "lessons of the past" and how, if at all, they may play a role in the future. What does the future hold? What will historians a thousand years from now see when they look back on the world that was? In that same vein I have often thought of trying to write a history of the future. I think that would be absolutely fascinating. Now, I am not much of a writer, but there are times I feel like such a project would be something I could do. It would be science fiction, but as much about the nature of human introspection and identity as anything fanciful.
I have this book on how ancient Egyptian's viewed themselves in light of their own history. A very interesting read because it sheds light on the inherent human tendency to find meaning in the past no matter what culture you come from. What an interesting concept to take that very human tendency and read it into the future. Thus writing a history of the future. Perhaps my life-long magnum opus. Wouldn't that be fun?
Heaven Forbid!
CNN had a startling report on the rapid decline of book readership in the United States. Statistics suggest that 1 in 4 people in the US did not read a single book last year - not a single one. How is that even remotely possible?
Bring a Bible, Score a Wife
I really don't mean to be callous about my faith with that title. I just wanted to address something that still concerns me. Especially since I will be joining a group very soon where the temptation to take advantage of the situation may be overwhelming.
Yesterday was my nephew's baptism. It went very well and he was abundantly cute and quiet during the whole ordeal. Afterward we went over to my sister and brother-in-law's house for lunch. There were family and friends there and TONS of kids tearing all around the house. So much fun. The poor dog was probably all tuckered out at the end of the day. In any case I got talking with a couple that are good friends with my brother-in-law's parents (who also go to my home church as well). It turns out there is a Bible Study group that meets in town for singles between the ages of 18 and 35 (cough, cough... me). The invited me to join the group especially since they always seem to be short guys relative to the number of girls who want to join. Go figure.
Now, I love Bible Studies. I absolutely can't get enough of them. My freshman year of college I attended three Bible Studies in a row on Monday nights. I tried to hit Late Nite every night. My sophomore year I lead the CrossBearers group for half the year. We tried to organize Bible Studies with friends that didn't work out quite as well as I would have liked, but it was fun nonetheless. After college a couple of friends and I created a group that we liked to call "Heretics 'R Us" which specialized in the absolute free expression of theological questions. The name of the group was built around our weekly ritual of trying to come up with a brand new heresy each week. Needless to say, I LOVE Bible Studies.
For a while now I haven't been part of one, mainly because I haven't found a group that I've felt comfortable with. I lead my Church's Movie Club, but that is not quite the same (although fun on its own). I miss being able to really explore the Bible. I miss our group discussions of James and Ecclesiastes. But now, this new group is basically an interdenominational fellowship that meets regularly to do fairly rigorous Bible Study. This year is focused on the Gospel of Matthew. I may be a little worried about the rigorous nature of it since most of my experience with Bible Study is with groups that are more than willing to be hard and humorous at the same time. We shall see.
The part that really makes me nervous though is the fact that this group is for singles 18 to 35. Whenever I hear about Christian singles groups the first thing that pops into my head is "Christian dating service." You know, here's a nice Christian over the age of 24 that is not married... what's the deal? There is a lot of good literature out there on Christian singles (I personally recommend Laura Smit) but I will wholeheartedly agree with those who claim that there is an unspoken bias (perhaps too strong a word) concerning especially young Christian singles. Furthermore, the groups that are usually formed to minister to Christian singles have a very bad reputation for being hook-up groups at their base. That reputation may not be warranted, but it seems to hang over every singles group I've ever been a part of.
Perhaps I'm just being overly cautious before I begin this latest Bible Study. Perhaps my fears have more to do with going there and actually meeting someone and thus actualizing my own misgivings. Which would thoroughly undermine any good that relationship might bring because I would be constantly judging it against how the relationship began. In any case, I'm REALLY looking forward to beginning another Bible Study group. I guess I'll just have to play it by ear from here on in.
The key probably has more to do with my not mouthing off answers to every question raised, or speaking up at every point imaginable (something I am terribly gifted at doing).
Yesterday was my nephew's baptism. It went very well and he was abundantly cute and quiet during the whole ordeal. Afterward we went over to my sister and brother-in-law's house for lunch. There were family and friends there and TONS of kids tearing all around the house. So much fun. The poor dog was probably all tuckered out at the end of the day. In any case I got talking with a couple that are good friends with my brother-in-law's parents (who also go to my home church as well). It turns out there is a Bible Study group that meets in town for singles between the ages of 18 and 35 (cough, cough... me). The invited me to join the group especially since they always seem to be short guys relative to the number of girls who want to join. Go figure.
Now, I love Bible Studies. I absolutely can't get enough of them. My freshman year of college I attended three Bible Studies in a row on Monday nights. I tried to hit Late Nite every night. My sophomore year I lead the CrossBearers group for half the year. We tried to organize Bible Studies with friends that didn't work out quite as well as I would have liked, but it was fun nonetheless. After college a couple of friends and I created a group that we liked to call "Heretics 'R Us" which specialized in the absolute free expression of theological questions. The name of the group was built around our weekly ritual of trying to come up with a brand new heresy each week. Needless to say, I LOVE Bible Studies.
For a while now I haven't been part of one, mainly because I haven't found a group that I've felt comfortable with. I lead my Church's Movie Club, but that is not quite the same (although fun on its own). I miss being able to really explore the Bible. I miss our group discussions of James and Ecclesiastes. But now, this new group is basically an interdenominational fellowship that meets regularly to do fairly rigorous Bible Study. This year is focused on the Gospel of Matthew. I may be a little worried about the rigorous nature of it since most of my experience with Bible Study is with groups that are more than willing to be hard and humorous at the same time. We shall see.
The part that really makes me nervous though is the fact that this group is for singles 18 to 35. Whenever I hear about Christian singles groups the first thing that pops into my head is "Christian dating service." You know, here's a nice Christian over the age of 24 that is not married... what's the deal? There is a lot of good literature out there on Christian singles (I personally recommend Laura Smit) but I will wholeheartedly agree with those who claim that there is an unspoken bias (perhaps too strong a word) concerning especially young Christian singles. Furthermore, the groups that are usually formed to minister to Christian singles have a very bad reputation for being hook-up groups at their base. That reputation may not be warranted, but it seems to hang over every singles group I've ever been a part of.
Perhaps I'm just being overly cautious before I begin this latest Bible Study. Perhaps my fears have more to do with going there and actually meeting someone and thus actualizing my own misgivings. Which would thoroughly undermine any good that relationship might bring because I would be constantly judging it against how the relationship began. In any case, I'm REALLY looking forward to beginning another Bible Study group. I guess I'll just have to play it by ear from here on in.
The key probably has more to do with my not mouthing off answers to every question raised, or speaking up at every point imaginable (something I am terribly gifted at doing).
Globalization Gives Birth
For all the breathless criticism globalization raises around the world no one seems aware of the historical precedents that create the real problems with a global economy. As much as I agree with globalization critics who argue that the global economy mashes local, small-scale based economies and depresses the real wages of workers who must compete with massive competition from regions who can afford to pay their employees much less, I think that much of this argument misses the more pressing question.
I was watching a New York Times video about the Russian nationalist youth party, Nashi (Ours). Its a fascinating group to study particularly because of Russia's newfound sense of national identity that President Putin and the Kremlin have been stressing. Ever since the chaotic Yeltsin years of post-Soviet Russia there has been an amazing rebound of Russian patriotism that only seems to be growing. What do we make of this movement? Perhaps more importantly, what does this movement suggest about larger historical trends in the post-ideological world we presently live in?
If you read historians regarding the period right before World War I, you will find alarming precedent about the unintended consequences of economic globalization. Right before the Great War, the world economy was booming, driven by the supposed vitality of imports and exports within the framework of world empires. However, the global economy quickly became undone with the advent of the First World War since countries not directly involved in the political fallout of the Balkans were invariably drawn into the conflict based on the shared economic and political ramifications implicit in a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. But I don't really want to recount the causes of the First World War in detail here. Rather I want to point to something that happened about this time that would speak to future events directly. Namely the rise of nationalism.
One of the bizarre consequences of a global economy is actually that countries most directly benefited by an increase in profitability and economic might through global trade will consequently stir for more and more. Its like a taste of the Promised Land leads to a tantalizing effort for more. From this you can naturally assume that countries will attempt to use the global economy to best fit their national self-interest. Or, if the government does not willingly act to best serve the national self-interest there will be groups who will agitate for a government who will act that way. The most natural expression of this need is found in a kind of ephemeral nationalism (something that is decidedly difficult to pin down and therefore most effective at being shaped to fit a particular need). Reading the history of the First World War and then subsequently the rise of the powers in the Second World War, it is essentially the story of countries and peoples demanding a "fair-shake" from the extremely profitable global economy. The people who are most effective at managing these demands often use the cover of righteous nationalism for their ends.
Now, today in another global economy we have an equally interesting develop of extreme nationalism all around the world. Its not just Russia where you find these groups. The Leftist revolutions in South America have much less to do with an actual Leftist agenda and much more to do with a perceived threat of economic imperialism from the United States. You find that the Leftist leaders like Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuala struggle to stay on message when their economic plans do not pan out in the same way that other Leftist leaders such as President Lula in Brazil and Kirchner in Argentina have panned out. Chavez and Morales begin to cloak their message in nationalistic terminology mainly because it allows them to cover their own economic failures to offset the global hegemony that the United States has built.
Where does this lead? I want to be very clear that I don't believe history repeats itself. History has trends and patterns, but it is never replicated and therefore any vision of the future entails as much speculation as discernment. One of my problems with those who argue against globalization is that they are too shortsighted. While I accept many of their complaints, they often fail to effectively speak their message in anything other than protest language. Protest by itself is unable to effect change in anything other than anarchic means since protest is not a system of belief, but merely a rejection of someone else's beliefs. Thusly protest is easily hijacked by extreme forms of rebellion including the present day rise of powerful nationalisms that cloak themselves in the righteous language of protest, while simply seeking the same power that they fundamentally argue has corrupted the current global state.
There are more threads I think I could write about here, but in the interest of space and time I will save them. I do want to think more about how this affects the current War on Terrorism, specifically how terrorism is defined by both the global powers that perceive its threat, and those countries who seem to piggyback on it for their own ends. Lots to think about.
I was watching a New York Times video about the Russian nationalist youth party, Nashi (Ours). Its a fascinating group to study particularly because of Russia's newfound sense of national identity that President Putin and the Kremlin have been stressing. Ever since the chaotic Yeltsin years of post-Soviet Russia there has been an amazing rebound of Russian patriotism that only seems to be growing. What do we make of this movement? Perhaps more importantly, what does this movement suggest about larger historical trends in the post-ideological world we presently live in?
If you read historians regarding the period right before World War I, you will find alarming precedent about the unintended consequences of economic globalization. Right before the Great War, the world economy was booming, driven by the supposed vitality of imports and exports within the framework of world empires. However, the global economy quickly became undone with the advent of the First World War since countries not directly involved in the political fallout of the Balkans were invariably drawn into the conflict based on the shared economic and political ramifications implicit in a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. But I don't really want to recount the causes of the First World War in detail here. Rather I want to point to something that happened about this time that would speak to future events directly. Namely the rise of nationalism.
One of the bizarre consequences of a global economy is actually that countries most directly benefited by an increase in profitability and economic might through global trade will consequently stir for more and more. Its like a taste of the Promised Land leads to a tantalizing effort for more. From this you can naturally assume that countries will attempt to use the global economy to best fit their national self-interest. Or, if the government does not willingly act to best serve the national self-interest there will be groups who will agitate for a government who will act that way. The most natural expression of this need is found in a kind of ephemeral nationalism (something that is decidedly difficult to pin down and therefore most effective at being shaped to fit a particular need). Reading the history of the First World War and then subsequently the rise of the powers in the Second World War, it is essentially the story of countries and peoples demanding a "fair-shake" from the extremely profitable global economy. The people who are most effective at managing these demands often use the cover of righteous nationalism for their ends.
Now, today in another global economy we have an equally interesting develop of extreme nationalism all around the world. Its not just Russia where you find these groups. The Leftist revolutions in South America have much less to do with an actual Leftist agenda and much more to do with a perceived threat of economic imperialism from the United States. You find that the Leftist leaders like Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuala struggle to stay on message when their economic plans do not pan out in the same way that other Leftist leaders such as President Lula in Brazil and Kirchner in Argentina have panned out. Chavez and Morales begin to cloak their message in nationalistic terminology mainly because it allows them to cover their own economic failures to offset the global hegemony that the United States has built.
Where does this lead? I want to be very clear that I don't believe history repeats itself. History has trends and patterns, but it is never replicated and therefore any vision of the future entails as much speculation as discernment. One of my problems with those who argue against globalization is that they are too shortsighted. While I accept many of their complaints, they often fail to effectively speak their message in anything other than protest language. Protest by itself is unable to effect change in anything other than anarchic means since protest is not a system of belief, but merely a rejection of someone else's beliefs. Thusly protest is easily hijacked by extreme forms of rebellion including the present day rise of powerful nationalisms that cloak themselves in the righteous language of protest, while simply seeking the same power that they fundamentally argue has corrupted the current global state.
There are more threads I think I could write about here, but in the interest of space and time I will save them. I do want to think more about how this affects the current War on Terrorism, specifically how terrorism is defined by both the global powers that perceive its threat, and those countries who seem to piggyback on it for their own ends. Lots to think about.
The Life and Times of a Deeply Flawed Genius
I finally finished reading Ron Chernow's epic biography of Alexander Hamilton. What a fantastic book, and a wonderful way to really enter history. I've gotten much more into biographies over the last couple of years, mainly because the good ones are conduits into history in a way that few other resources can be. Chernow's magisterial work is one of the best I have ever read and that is saying something.
Rather than doing a strict book review (really you should just read the book yourself), I want to focus on one thing in particular that stuck out after reading the book. At the beginning Chernow quotes from a letter Hamilton sent in 1802, just two years before his famous death at the dueling grounds. The quote goes as follows, "Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion." This really got me thinking because I have often fallen victim to the Modernist myth that there is a clear demarcation between rationality and emotion. Reading Hamilton's life shows the natural truth of his statement since perhaps at no point in American history do you find more individuals who have the seeds of genius all congregating around the establishment of "something" after the Revolutionary War. Here we find men (and fundamentally it is basically a boys club) who are universally regarded as brilliant (Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Jay, Morris, Monroe, Franklin, etc...) engaging in political histrionics that would make modern politicians blush in shame.
I'm just starting to explore the vast depths of Hamilton's quote as a means to understand people in general. But what a "reasonable" way of expressing the inherent "irrationality" of human nature. This also has a theological consideration I haven't quite put my finger on yet. Chernow helpfully points out that if the American Revolution painted people in heroic colors, the establishment of the American nation and its government allows people to see the truest, most human considerations of people we sometimes cast in bronze. And what an interesting avenue it is.
Rather than doing a strict book review (really you should just read the book yourself), I want to focus on one thing in particular that stuck out after reading the book. At the beginning Chernow quotes from a letter Hamilton sent in 1802, just two years before his famous death at the dueling grounds. The quote goes as follows, "Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion." This really got me thinking because I have often fallen victim to the Modernist myth that there is a clear demarcation between rationality and emotion. Reading Hamilton's life shows the natural truth of his statement since perhaps at no point in American history do you find more individuals who have the seeds of genius all congregating around the establishment of "something" after the Revolutionary War. Here we find men (and fundamentally it is basically a boys club) who are universally regarded as brilliant (Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Jay, Morris, Monroe, Franklin, etc...) engaging in political histrionics that would make modern politicians blush in shame.
I'm just starting to explore the vast depths of Hamilton's quote as a means to understand people in general. But what a "reasonable" way of expressing the inherent "irrationality" of human nature. This also has a theological consideration I haven't quite put my finger on yet. Chernow helpfully points out that if the American Revolution painted people in heroic colors, the establishment of the American nation and its government allows people to see the truest, most human considerations of people we sometimes cast in bronze. And what an interesting avenue it is.
Dean, Jess and Callista
Dean Dozeman has been having some trouble with his e-mail at home, so he hasn't been able to send out an announcement yet. But on August 4, Jess gave birth to a healthy baby girl, Callista Marie Dozeman. Dean has many, many pictures, but probably won't be able to send any for a little while. I went over to their house this afternoon and got to see their new daughter (who is incredibly cute) and even got to hold her for a while. Yay! Father, Mother and Daughter are all doing well and each adjusting to a new reality. It’s so cool to see friends from college with babies now. People are really growing up.
By the by, Callista is Greek for "the most beautiful one."
By the by, Callista is Greek for "the most beautiful one."
Things to Think About Today
FoxNews has an interesting report on a recent study about marital chore habits compared to chore habits of people who choose to cohabitate. What do you think these conclusions suggest?
Perchance to Dialogue?
Swagman states,
I don't want to disagree with Swagman as much as I want to address some of my concerns with this paragraph in particular. Now, I should be very upfront by saying that I consider myself a traditional Christian and therefore necessarily part of the Church historic that is being discussed here. If that biases my argument, so be it.
While I grant the overarching suggestion that sex is largely portrayed in a negative light within the broader Christian community (perhaps best understood as a generalization itself), I think that such an assumption needs to be clarified. First, by separating the two aspects of Christian sexuality. I think I can argue that sexuality outside of the traditional boundaries of Christian ethics has nearly always been portrayed as not being part of the goodness of God's design. That is true from Scripture to the present (with some notable exceptions - but they remain notable because they are so few and far between). The fact that Christian apologists and leaders have stressed this point plays directly into Swagman's larger issue with the Church's negative impression of sexuality. So that is one aspect. However, there are clear, vibrant and outstanding Christian expressions of sexuality all throughout the Church's 2000-year history. The fact that this sexuality is primarily expressed within the bounds of marriage possibly annoys some people who do not want that "constriction" but it certainly does not deny that Christians from the very beginning take joy in sexuality.
Of course my argument fundamentally rests on the assumption that my "facts" outweigh the "facts" that Swagman presents. We could go in circles for days about who has more facts to support their case, but in the end we will simply be arguing about castles in the clouds. I grant that the Church has a less than stellar history of promoting sexuality as a positive thing. But I strongly disagree that when the Church expresses the positives of sexuality within the bounds of marriage it is constricting what some might want to be a libertine definition of sexuality.
Moving on to the Church and war. Here again I have to be careful because I can list off a litany of examples to prove why the Church has not been either at the forefront of saber rattling or passively accepting of military actions throughout history. However, my arguments can be attacked with a parallel list so that by itself does not do the trick. Perhaps the best way to argue this point effectively from my point of view is to suggest that if the Church is guilty of saber rattling, so are populist movements designed to uplift the destitute. Let's be perfectly fair here. If we are arguing from fact rather than from idealism we must contend that the mass movements so closely associated with populist rhetoric ranging from the Peasant's Crusade to the French Revolution to Leninist Russia all substituted mass panic and murder for the assumed ideals of its beginning. You can argue that each of these began as a positive step and gradually lost its way, but that ignores the reality of what happened. In the same way I can argue that the Church may have been wrong in so many cases about war, but in theory the Church is right. Who cares? That doesn't match the reality on the ground.
So we are left with vague generalities such as "the Church views sexuality negatively" or "the Church is at the forefront of warfare." What does that mean though? If it is nothing but a generalization what point is there to argue either for it or from it? In the same way I can argue that Communism is bad based on historical precedent, but that fundamentally misses the crux since my argument is based on a subjective analysis. In the end, I would argue that if we are going to use these kind of subjective generalizations the least we can do is admit their flaws and fallacies.
P.S. And I would take serious issue with the assertion that the Church has never condemned any war in history.
P.P.S. I also want to know exactly what is meant by the term "the unified Church."
"Anyone who grows up in America, and especially in the Christian schools or
church, knows that sex is demonized and vilified in a way violence and war never
is, from the pulpit all the way down to the parent. When it comes to war, at
worst the church has been at the front of the charge leading the saber rattling.
At it's best, the unified church has never outright condemned any war in history
at the time it was occurring. But they've never been slow to condemn
masturbation or fornication."
I don't want to disagree with Swagman as much as I want to address some of my concerns with this paragraph in particular. Now, I should be very upfront by saying that I consider myself a traditional Christian and therefore necessarily part of the Church historic that is being discussed here. If that biases my argument, so be it.
While I grant the overarching suggestion that sex is largely portrayed in a negative light within the broader Christian community (perhaps best understood as a generalization itself), I think that such an assumption needs to be clarified. First, by separating the two aspects of Christian sexuality. I think I can argue that sexuality outside of the traditional boundaries of Christian ethics has nearly always been portrayed as not being part of the goodness of God's design. That is true from Scripture to the present (with some notable exceptions - but they remain notable because they are so few and far between). The fact that Christian apologists and leaders have stressed this point plays directly into Swagman's larger issue with the Church's negative impression of sexuality. So that is one aspect. However, there are clear, vibrant and outstanding Christian expressions of sexuality all throughout the Church's 2000-year history. The fact that this sexuality is primarily expressed within the bounds of marriage possibly annoys some people who do not want that "constriction" but it certainly does not deny that Christians from the very beginning take joy in sexuality.
Of course my argument fundamentally rests on the assumption that my "facts" outweigh the "facts" that Swagman presents. We could go in circles for days about who has more facts to support their case, but in the end we will simply be arguing about castles in the clouds. I grant that the Church has a less than stellar history of promoting sexuality as a positive thing. But I strongly disagree that when the Church expresses the positives of sexuality within the bounds of marriage it is constricting what some might want to be a libertine definition of sexuality.
Moving on to the Church and war. Here again I have to be careful because I can list off a litany of examples to prove why the Church has not been either at the forefront of saber rattling or passively accepting of military actions throughout history. However, my arguments can be attacked with a parallel list so that by itself does not do the trick. Perhaps the best way to argue this point effectively from my point of view is to suggest that if the Church is guilty of saber rattling, so are populist movements designed to uplift the destitute. Let's be perfectly fair here. If we are arguing from fact rather than from idealism we must contend that the mass movements so closely associated with populist rhetoric ranging from the Peasant's Crusade to the French Revolution to Leninist Russia all substituted mass panic and murder for the assumed ideals of its beginning. You can argue that each of these began as a positive step and gradually lost its way, but that ignores the reality of what happened. In the same way I can argue that the Church may have been wrong in so many cases about war, but in theory the Church is right. Who cares? That doesn't match the reality on the ground.
So we are left with vague generalities such as "the Church views sexuality negatively" or "the Church is at the forefront of warfare." What does that mean though? If it is nothing but a generalization what point is there to argue either for it or from it? In the same way I can argue that Communism is bad based on historical precedent, but that fundamentally misses the crux since my argument is based on a subjective analysis. In the end, I would argue that if we are going to use these kind of subjective generalizations the least we can do is admit their flaws and fallacies.
P.S. And I would take serious issue with the assertion that the Church has never condemned any war in history.
P.P.S. I also want to know exactly what is meant by the term "the unified Church."
Putting the D'uh! in Donut
Swagman wanted me to write a review of the Simpsons movie so I thought I would jot down some brief thoughts. He was rather critical of the movie himself, seeing it primarily as just an extended TV episode. Granted that the movie WAS basically three or four TV episodes long and the plot was just a more developed story that we've all seen before... I loved the movie. I thought it was hilarious.
Perhaps my understanding of what makes TV different from movies is not very clear, but I thought the movie succeeded where it needed to succeed, namely make me laugh. I think there is an expectation sometimes to want something like the Simpsons to be as culturally aware and politically astute as we think it was back in the golden years. We create a reality of the Simpsons as this groundbreaking TV show that knew how to make young and old laugh and make cracks at the world around us almost without us knowing. And it is groundbreaking. But that assumption often hides the fact that the part of the staying power of the Simpsons is its fundamental simplicity.
I own season three through nine of the Simpsons on DVD. These are usually considered the golden years when the show really hit its creative peak. But the more I watch it the more I am convinced that the people overestimate how deep the Simpsons ever was. The family dynamics always work around the idea that Marge is the rock, Homer is the good-natured dofus, Bart is the wild child, and Lisa is the misunderstood genius (Maggie is there for added fodder). That never changes from any story no matter when you watch The Simpsons. And so I don't understand how we could expect anything different in the movie. And that's basically the bottom line story in the movie. Is it a simple story, sure? So what?
Part of the reason I was disappointed in the third Pirates installment earlier this summer is that the second movie created this unfathomable complexity that the third movie needed to explain. And it just couldn't. The story was bulky and stiff. For the Simpsons Movie I went in expecting to see the Simpsons. And that's exactly what I got. It may have been three or four episodes tied together. I may not rival the golden years episodes. But I laughed through the whole thing. And in the end, that makes it a good experience for me.
Perhaps my understanding of what makes TV different from movies is not very clear, but I thought the movie succeeded where it needed to succeed, namely make me laugh. I think there is an expectation sometimes to want something like the Simpsons to be as culturally aware and politically astute as we think it was back in the golden years. We create a reality of the Simpsons as this groundbreaking TV show that knew how to make young and old laugh and make cracks at the world around us almost without us knowing. And it is groundbreaking. But that assumption often hides the fact that the part of the staying power of the Simpsons is its fundamental simplicity.
I own season three through nine of the Simpsons on DVD. These are usually considered the golden years when the show really hit its creative peak. But the more I watch it the more I am convinced that the people overestimate how deep the Simpsons ever was. The family dynamics always work around the idea that Marge is the rock, Homer is the good-natured dofus, Bart is the wild child, and Lisa is the misunderstood genius (Maggie is there for added fodder). That never changes from any story no matter when you watch The Simpsons. And so I don't understand how we could expect anything different in the movie. And that's basically the bottom line story in the movie. Is it a simple story, sure? So what?
Part of the reason I was disappointed in the third Pirates installment earlier this summer is that the second movie created this unfathomable complexity that the third movie needed to explain. And it just couldn't. The story was bulky and stiff. For the Simpsons Movie I went in expecting to see the Simpsons. And that's exactly what I got. It may have been three or four episodes tied together. I may not rival the golden years episodes. But I laughed through the whole thing. And in the end, that makes it a good experience for me.
A Cure for Insomnia
Not that I have a cure, but rather that I need one. The last couple of nights I haven't slept well at all. Here I sit nearing midnight and I can't fall asleep to save my life. I'm not tired at all. I hate it since tomorrow I have to be up at 6 to get ready for work. By then I will be tired and so I'll be cranky at work, which is not good for anyone.
Someone just knock me out (well, not literally).
Someone just knock me out (well, not literally).
Had Me On the Floor Laughing
One of the groups I joined on Facebook is all for Dutch Calvinists. God bless us! =)
---------------------------------------------------------------
You might be a Dutch Calvinist if...
- You finish the food on your plate in a restaurant even though it is burnt or otherwise unsuitable for human consumption.
- You reused plastic margarine containers long before anyone heard of the environmental movement.
- You have a two-volume address book. Volume I: A-U Volume II: V-Z.
- You have never skipped church to watch the Superbowl.
- Your main contribution in increased gender equality was to switch from KING to Wilhelmina brand peppermints.
- Your range of restaurant choice is restricted to the contents of a "Buy One Meal, Get One Free" coupon book that you bought to support missionaries in Sierra Leone.
- You wipe the last of the butter out of the container with your roll.
- Your mother's hairdo is the same at your wedding as it was at hers.
- Your closet is divided into work clothes and Sunday clothes.
- If you have several coupons that are good for "one customer only", you will send all 10 members of your family through different aisles at the grocery store so you can get 10X the bargains.
- Your church attendance record is not interrupted by childbirth.
- Your Sunday routine resembles this: Church, coffee, roast beef, green beans, a nap, and Church.
- You have a front room but never sit in it.
- You make the bed in a hotel room.
- The last tip you left in a restaurant was "Don't wear so much makeup" and "A little quicker with the coffee."
- You have always been to church on New Years Eve.
- You can sing "eere zij God" even though you can't speak Dutch.
- You think that being progressive means discarding the Psalter Hymnal in favor of the Steve Green songs on the overhead.
- Seeing hands in the air during worship causes you to look around for a stickup man.
- You are still trying to justify owning a dishwasher.
- On summer vacation you couldn't swim, only wading up to your knees was allowed.
- At your wedding, everyone was swaying, but no one was dancing.
- You have attended worship services at a campground amphitheater.
- You know what an afghan is.
- You have lace on your windows, but not on your underwear.
- Your two permanent Saturday jobs are to wash the car and make sure you have enough single bills for the offering plate.
- All of your recipes are adapted to fit into a 9X13 pan.
- You can't imagine a funeral reception without ham on buns.
- The Usher never has to ask you where you want to sit.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You might be a Dutch Calvinist if...
- You finish the food on your plate in a restaurant even though it is burnt or otherwise unsuitable for human consumption.
- You reused plastic margarine containers long before anyone heard of the environmental movement.
- You have a two-volume address book. Volume I: A-U Volume II: V-Z.
- You have never skipped church to watch the Superbowl.
- Your main contribution in increased gender equality was to switch from KING to Wilhelmina brand peppermints.
- Your range of restaurant choice is restricted to the contents of a "Buy One Meal, Get One Free" coupon book that you bought to support missionaries in Sierra Leone.
- You wipe the last of the butter out of the container with your roll.
- Your mother's hairdo is the same at your wedding as it was at hers.
- Your closet is divided into work clothes and Sunday clothes.
- If you have several coupons that are good for "one customer only", you will send all 10 members of your family through different aisles at the grocery store so you can get 10X the bargains.
- Your church attendance record is not interrupted by childbirth.
- Your Sunday routine resembles this: Church, coffee, roast beef, green beans, a nap, and Church.
- You have a front room but never sit in it.
- You make the bed in a hotel room.
- The last tip you left in a restaurant was "Don't wear so much makeup" and "A little quicker with the coffee."
- You have always been to church on New Years Eve.
- You can sing "eere zij God" even though you can't speak Dutch.
- You think that being progressive means discarding the Psalter Hymnal in favor of the Steve Green songs on the overhead.
- Seeing hands in the air during worship causes you to look around for a stickup man.
- You are still trying to justify owning a dishwasher.
- On summer vacation you couldn't swim, only wading up to your knees was allowed.
- At your wedding, everyone was swaying, but no one was dancing.
- You have attended worship services at a campground amphitheater.
- You know what an afghan is.
- You have lace on your windows, but not on your underwear.
- Your two permanent Saturday jobs are to wash the car and make sure you have enough single bills for the offering plate.
- All of your recipes are adapted to fit into a 9X13 pan.
- You can't imagine a funeral reception without ham on buns.
- The Usher never has to ask you where you want to sit.
Lord, When Will It All Stop?
I have become so enmeshed with the modern world that I even have a Facebook page now. Thanks largely to Abi I discovered it’s a pretty easy way to keep in touch with friends who may not have blog sites. And I can also be reminded of birthdays and the like as well. Very nice. As long as this doesn't become another obsession I should be all right. We shall see...
Render Unto Caesar?
**Update** Time Online has an article about the Korean missionaries and the blowback from their trip.
The recent news about the South Korean missionary team being held captive by Taliban militants in Afghanistan has raised some particularly hard questions about the nature of missionary work and Christian-State relations. But before I comment on anything I just want to make it very clear that all of this is totally subservient to the need for these innocents to be released immediately.
One of the classic paradoxes of Christian missionary work is, "who's the boss?" When missionary agencies were set up in Great Britain in the 19th Century they sent many British subjects overseas to spread the Gospel. Depending on your point of view they also were sent as emissaries of the British crown and worked to further British interests around the world (knowingly or not). The same happened with American missionary agencies, although this process was more isolated from a direct relationship with the American government than the British missionary movement.
The blowback from these missionary movements has been playing out around the world since their inception. By blowback I mean the missionary endeavors being viewed in terms of nationalist interest rather than purely spiritual concerns. A natural consequence is that many people see Christian missionaries as agents of national powers rather than agents of a Church that is functionally independent on national interests. Its only natural that an Iraqi Muslim would be incredibly put-off by American missionaries working in their country at this moment in Iraq's history.
That being said, the missionaries cannot simply renounce their national allegiance either. As the South Korean missionary story suggests, whether they want to admit it or not, the captured missionaries are creating an untenable situation for their national government. They may be Christians first and foremost, but the mere fact that they are South Korean means that their capture puts intense pressure on the South Korean government to negotiate with terrorists using terror tactics for their own ends. So who is in charge of these missionaries and their work in Afghanistan?
This raises the classic dilemma for Christians who are to live "in the world, but not of the world." There is a famous story from ancient Alexandria in Egypt when the plague hit the city and thousands of citizens were dying. Those who could, fled the city, but incredibly many of the large Christian population stayed despite the risk and assisted the victims often at the cost of their own lives. There is an easy way to look at this story and see the bravery and heroic sacrifice of those Christians. But there is another side to it. What about the Christians responsibility to the state they were living under. It would be reasonable to argue that such sacrifice undermined the civic responsibility of Alexandrian citizens to protect the long-term interests of the city. Who's the boss here?
What responsibilities do Christian missionaries carry with them as they travel to dangerous or unstable places? Do we owe it to the governments we live under to take those risks under consideration as we undertake our vocation? There are a lot more avenues to take from these questions, but I guess here is a good starting point.
The recent news about the South Korean missionary team being held captive by Taliban militants in Afghanistan has raised some particularly hard questions about the nature of missionary work and Christian-State relations. But before I comment on anything I just want to make it very clear that all of this is totally subservient to the need for these innocents to be released immediately.
One of the classic paradoxes of Christian missionary work is, "who's the boss?" When missionary agencies were set up in Great Britain in the 19th Century they sent many British subjects overseas to spread the Gospel. Depending on your point of view they also were sent as emissaries of the British crown and worked to further British interests around the world (knowingly or not). The same happened with American missionary agencies, although this process was more isolated from a direct relationship with the American government than the British missionary movement.
The blowback from these missionary movements has been playing out around the world since their inception. By blowback I mean the missionary endeavors being viewed in terms of nationalist interest rather than purely spiritual concerns. A natural consequence is that many people see Christian missionaries as agents of national powers rather than agents of a Church that is functionally independent on national interests. Its only natural that an Iraqi Muslim would be incredibly put-off by American missionaries working in their country at this moment in Iraq's history.
That being said, the missionaries cannot simply renounce their national allegiance either. As the South Korean missionary story suggests, whether they want to admit it or not, the captured missionaries are creating an untenable situation for their national government. They may be Christians first and foremost, but the mere fact that they are South Korean means that their capture puts intense pressure on the South Korean government to negotiate with terrorists using terror tactics for their own ends. So who is in charge of these missionaries and their work in Afghanistan?
This raises the classic dilemma for Christians who are to live "in the world, but not of the world." There is a famous story from ancient Alexandria in Egypt when the plague hit the city and thousands of citizens were dying. Those who could, fled the city, but incredibly many of the large Christian population stayed despite the risk and assisted the victims often at the cost of their own lives. There is an easy way to look at this story and see the bravery and heroic sacrifice of those Christians. But there is another side to it. What about the Christians responsibility to the state they were living under. It would be reasonable to argue that such sacrifice undermined the civic responsibility of Alexandrian citizens to protect the long-term interests of the city. Who's the boss here?
What responsibilities do Christian missionaries carry with them as they travel to dangerous or unstable places? Do we owe it to the governments we live under to take those risks under consideration as we undertake our vocation? There are a lot more avenues to take from these questions, but I guess here is a good starting point.
Actually Relevant Political Commentary
I don't know how many of my readers follow international news, but there has been some of the worst flooding in recent memory in Great Britain over the last few days. The pictures are astonishing. The new PM, Gordon Brown has been attacked by some in the media and his opponents in Parliament concerning the government's reaction to the crisis.
Martin Kettle from the Guardian has a spectacular analysis of the current political situation PM Brown finds himself in. This is the kind of wide-eyed, clear-sighted analysis that I love to read. Absolutely brilliant. Must read stuff.
Martin Kettle from the Guardian has a spectacular analysis of the current political situation PM Brown finds himself in. This is the kind of wide-eyed, clear-sighted analysis that I love to read. Absolutely brilliant. Must read stuff.
Gimme That Ol' Time Religion
I go to a fairly conservative church for the most part. The service is extremely well structured, both in terms of logic and theology. The sermons are extremely literate and Biblically based. The music is old-fashioned and almost always led by the organ. I couldn't ask for a better service if I tried.
Several friends invited me to a Mars Hill service so I tagged along. I had wanted to go for a while and I thought it would be a good chance to expand my worship horizons. I've been to a lot of services around the world that are roughly similar to Mars Hill, if not quite as well attended. And I still can't get comfortable with that type of worship. For one thing I don't think I had ever heard the songs they played (my fault more than anything). And the service was basically in two parts - 1) songs, and 2) sermon. There was nothing else in the service. Coming from my church, which has all kinds of parts from the introduction, to reading the Law, etc. it was quite a shock. That is certainly not to say that my service has any better or worse quality than Mars Hill.
But what it does bring up is the inevitable question about why we choose the Church's we choose? I have this theory that my parents moved to Guam right at the time that I was about to experiment and move away from the things I had known all my life. So in a bizarre twist I spent my teenage years rebelling against my parents' openness to new worship styles. I was a conservative rebel. And that meant that for all the open styles of worship I attended whether at school or at youth group or among friends I always had it in the back of my mind that I preferred my old, traditional worship. My school was Pentecostal to the core. My youth group was hardcore Revivalist. My friends were mostly Baptists. And I was longing for the comfort of my rather conservative CRC heritage.
So when I came back to the States for college I went through a weird culture shock about Church. I had this vision of what the CRC was from my years being away. But when it didn't turn out that way I became somewhat disillusioned. Not terribly so, but enough to look around again and again. Here again, everywhere I looked I couldn't find a place I could call home. So I decided to give the CRC a chance and its been that way ever since. And not just any CRC, but Woodlawn CRC, which is really a standard bearer for beautiful organ music, well-ordered services, very strong preaching, etc.
I'm not sure what would have happened if I hadn't moved to Guam when I did. But my brother, who is a year and a half younger than me, moved to the Orthodox Church with his wife. My two older sisters both attend fairly traditional CRC churches and my dad still preaches at one. Its really does make me think what might have been. But it doesn't bother me how things turned out. I have a world of experience in Church styles under my belt and I have found a home that allows me to serve effectively. Maybe that means I'm not challenging myself enough, but I'm not sure part of finding a Church home is also finding a place that I fit in as much as I am also challenged.
Several friends invited me to a Mars Hill service so I tagged along. I had wanted to go for a while and I thought it would be a good chance to expand my worship horizons. I've been to a lot of services around the world that are roughly similar to Mars Hill, if not quite as well attended. And I still can't get comfortable with that type of worship. For one thing I don't think I had ever heard the songs they played (my fault more than anything). And the service was basically in two parts - 1) songs, and 2) sermon. There was nothing else in the service. Coming from my church, which has all kinds of parts from the introduction, to reading the Law, etc. it was quite a shock. That is certainly not to say that my service has any better or worse quality than Mars Hill.
But what it does bring up is the inevitable question about why we choose the Church's we choose? I have this theory that my parents moved to Guam right at the time that I was about to experiment and move away from the things I had known all my life. So in a bizarre twist I spent my teenage years rebelling against my parents' openness to new worship styles. I was a conservative rebel. And that meant that for all the open styles of worship I attended whether at school or at youth group or among friends I always had it in the back of my mind that I preferred my old, traditional worship. My school was Pentecostal to the core. My youth group was hardcore Revivalist. My friends were mostly Baptists. And I was longing for the comfort of my rather conservative CRC heritage.
So when I came back to the States for college I went through a weird culture shock about Church. I had this vision of what the CRC was from my years being away. But when it didn't turn out that way I became somewhat disillusioned. Not terribly so, but enough to look around again and again. Here again, everywhere I looked I couldn't find a place I could call home. So I decided to give the CRC a chance and its been that way ever since. And not just any CRC, but Woodlawn CRC, which is really a standard bearer for beautiful organ music, well-ordered services, very strong preaching, etc.
I'm not sure what would have happened if I hadn't moved to Guam when I did. But my brother, who is a year and a half younger than me, moved to the Orthodox Church with his wife. My two older sisters both attend fairly traditional CRC churches and my dad still preaches at one. Its really does make me think what might have been. But it doesn't bother me how things turned out. I have a world of experience in Church styles under my belt and I have found a home that allows me to serve effectively. Maybe that means I'm not challenging myself enough, but I'm not sure part of finding a Church home is also finding a place that I fit in as much as I am also challenged.
Liturgical Planning Faux Pas
Thanks to Hoort for this one.
A minister was completing a Temperance sermon. With great emphasis he said, "If I Had all the beer in the world, I'd take it and pour it into the river." With even greater emphasis he said, "And if I had all the wine in the world, I'd take it and pour it into the river." And then finally, shaking his fist in the air, he said, "And if I had all the whiskey in the world, I'd take it and pour it into the river."
Sermon complete, he sat down.
The song leader stood very cautiously and announced with a smile, nearly laughing, "For our closing song, let us sing Hymn #365, "Shall We Gather at the River."
A minister was completing a Temperance sermon. With great emphasis he said, "If I Had all the beer in the world, I'd take it and pour it into the river." With even greater emphasis he said, "And if I had all the wine in the world, I'd take it and pour it into the river." And then finally, shaking his fist in the air, he said, "And if I had all the whiskey in the world, I'd take it and pour it into the river."
Sermon complete, he sat down.
The song leader stood very cautiously and announced with a smile, nearly laughing, "For our closing song, let us sing Hymn #365, "Shall We Gather at the River."
Closing the Door on the 16th Century
George Weigel, a respected Catholic theologian and writer has commented on Pope Benedict XVI's recent publication concerning the role of the Catholic Church as opposed to either Orthodox or Protestant. He makes some very good points that Evangelicals should take to heart before condemning Benedict.
The one that I wanted to comment on was Weigel's assertion that it is logically consistent for Benedict to understand the Catholic Church as the truest expression of Christ's Church. What sense would there be if Benedict, the supreme head of the Catholic Church, would point out the deficiencies in Catholic theology? Or even if he believed there were deficiencies to begin with? It only makes sense that Catholics around the world are Catholics because they believe the Catholic Church does constitute the truest expression of the Church. That being said, it follows that it is only logical that I, as a Reformed Christian believe that my creedal statements constitute the closest thing to the true nature of Christ's Church. And there lies the rub. How can two Christians from different "denominations" (I use that word only because I can't think of a better one) both claim to support the true Church through their very different theologies?
Obviously this creates a subjectivist tension.
I've been going over this again and again in my head for a long time already. Mostly because of comments I tend to get when I post about Christianity or theology in general. Specifically questions about the nature of dogma and belief in Christianity. How can I "believe" that I am right and others are wrong? Doesn't that either smack of incredible egotism, or a bizarre attempt at self-justification? I think that Christians make a fundamental mistake when they describe their belief in terms of a series of statements or creeds. Although I don't deny the facts of faith, I think that they come second in order of Christian expression. What I'm getting at is basically that Christianity, at its core, is about a relationship between me, a member of a broader community of faith extending both back in the past as well as across the globe, and Jesus Christ - a personal savior. The illusion of dogma is that it is a series of statements individuals accept or deny thus making them Christians or not. Rather dogma is the expression of the relationship between myself (always within the broader community) and Jesus. In the same way ethics flows naturally from the relationship, not from a series of naturalistic OR divine laws. There is no clear-cut answer to ethical questions precisely because ethics is not based on the assumption that right and wrong are fixed in the universe.
But I need to make a clarifying point here that is almost always missed when Christians talk about "relationship." (Relationship is yet another heinous buzzword that always needs clarifying, but rarely gets it.) You would assume that when I talk about relationships I might also mean that the dogma and ethics that flow from it are then necessarily malleable. This is only true to a certain extent. Since the relationship is fundamentally one between God and humanity I need to take into account the nature of God and his covenantal promises to His people as shown in the Bible. Here we find that even if humanity changes and adapts to whatever situation exists the covenantal relationship remains steadfast and entirely solid. This suggests that Christianity is both totally adaptable and thoroughly solid at its core. Both the history of the Church as well as the very nature of Scripture speaks to this truth. The Bible is often criticized for just being a bunch of different people's opinions about God. But to understand Scripture covenantally you understand not only the adaptability of the author of Ecclesiastes, a noted sourpuss, to the author of Philippians, joyful in chains, to speak to the fullest expression of God's covenantal relationship with His people. There is both malleability and truth without sacrificing either.
All this leads back to the question raised by Weigel and Benedict. I personally think the Catholic Church is deluding itself by believing it ever was the only expression of the Christian Church. And that is the stem of the problem. Since the Church has always been asked to change and adapt its form it only makes sense that an institution couched in 2000 years of history would find such change alarming. Benedict is arguing a point that is based on the assumption that there is a fullest expression of Christ's Church possible here and now. And I don't buy that. There is clear Scriptural indication that the fullest measure of the Church is only found at the throne of God at the Eschaton. Until then, we are pilgrims in a foreign land.
The one that I wanted to comment on was Weigel's assertion that it is logically consistent for Benedict to understand the Catholic Church as the truest expression of Christ's Church. What sense would there be if Benedict, the supreme head of the Catholic Church, would point out the deficiencies in Catholic theology? Or even if he believed there were deficiencies to begin with? It only makes sense that Catholics around the world are Catholics because they believe the Catholic Church does constitute the truest expression of the Church. That being said, it follows that it is only logical that I, as a Reformed Christian believe that my creedal statements constitute the closest thing to the true nature of Christ's Church. And there lies the rub. How can two Christians from different "denominations" (I use that word only because I can't think of a better one) both claim to support the true Church through their very different theologies?
Obviously this creates a subjectivist tension.
I've been going over this again and again in my head for a long time already. Mostly because of comments I tend to get when I post about Christianity or theology in general. Specifically questions about the nature of dogma and belief in Christianity. How can I "believe" that I am right and others are wrong? Doesn't that either smack of incredible egotism, or a bizarre attempt at self-justification? I think that Christians make a fundamental mistake when they describe their belief in terms of a series of statements or creeds. Although I don't deny the facts of faith, I think that they come second in order of Christian expression. What I'm getting at is basically that Christianity, at its core, is about a relationship between me, a member of a broader community of faith extending both back in the past as well as across the globe, and Jesus Christ - a personal savior. The illusion of dogma is that it is a series of statements individuals accept or deny thus making them Christians or not. Rather dogma is the expression of the relationship between myself (always within the broader community) and Jesus. In the same way ethics flows naturally from the relationship, not from a series of naturalistic OR divine laws. There is no clear-cut answer to ethical questions precisely because ethics is not based on the assumption that right and wrong are fixed in the universe.
But I need to make a clarifying point here that is almost always missed when Christians talk about "relationship." (Relationship is yet another heinous buzzword that always needs clarifying, but rarely gets it.) You would assume that when I talk about relationships I might also mean that the dogma and ethics that flow from it are then necessarily malleable. This is only true to a certain extent. Since the relationship is fundamentally one between God and humanity I need to take into account the nature of God and his covenantal promises to His people as shown in the Bible. Here we find that even if humanity changes and adapts to whatever situation exists the covenantal relationship remains steadfast and entirely solid. This suggests that Christianity is both totally adaptable and thoroughly solid at its core. Both the history of the Church as well as the very nature of Scripture speaks to this truth. The Bible is often criticized for just being a bunch of different people's opinions about God. But to understand Scripture covenantally you understand not only the adaptability of the author of Ecclesiastes, a noted sourpuss, to the author of Philippians, joyful in chains, to speak to the fullest expression of God's covenantal relationship with His people. There is both malleability and truth without sacrificing either.
All this leads back to the question raised by Weigel and Benedict. I personally think the Catholic Church is deluding itself by believing it ever was the only expression of the Christian Church. And that is the stem of the problem. Since the Church has always been asked to change and adapt its form it only makes sense that an institution couched in 2000 years of history would find such change alarming. Benedict is arguing a point that is based on the assumption that there is a fullest expression of Christ's Church possible here and now. And I don't buy that. There is clear Scriptural indication that the fullest measure of the Church is only found at the throne of God at the Eschaton. Until then, we are pilgrims in a foreign land.
Revenge of the Librarian Nerds - Shush!
The NY Times has a great article on the new hipsters sprouting up as librarians around the country. Who knew that librarians didn't have to be blue-haired old ladies, or frumpy, grumpy geezers?
I have thought about going into library science at some point. Maybe now it won't seem so uncool to be a librarian, eh? Yet I have to admit that I am not all that sold on hipster librarians. I am particularly fond of the frumpy look (with a tweed jacket including elbow patches). Maybe, in the end, being geek chic isn't all that bad. It may even be the one thing on earth that gets me interested in what is "current." But thankfully once geek chic goes away I will gladly be sitting behind a desk with my frumpy coat not caring at all what anyone thinks.
I have thought about going into library science at some point. Maybe now it won't seem so uncool to be a librarian, eh? Yet I have to admit that I am not all that sold on hipster librarians. I am particularly fond of the frumpy look (with a tweed jacket including elbow patches). Maybe, in the end, being geek chic isn't all that bad. It may even be the one thing on earth that gets me interested in what is "current." But thankfully once geek chic goes away I will gladly be sitting behind a desk with my frumpy coat not caring at all what anyone thinks.
Bald Eagles and Other Less Majestic Creatures
I got my hair cut recently since it was becoming wildly unmanageable. And by that I mean it was getting just long enough so that I had to spend more than 30 seconds on it in in the morning. The place I went had mirrors on the walls and ceilings so I had no choice but to look at the back of my head. Unfortunately that only made me see how much I am balding back there. Of course it kind of coordinates with my balding front as well, but regardless I don't see the back so it usually doesn't bother me as much.
I began balding seriously in college and it hasn't stopped. Its strange considering my dad's hair isn't nearly as bad as mine. I think my Opa's hair was, but he died in 1991 and I have a hard time remembering details. But I've pretty much come to grips with the fact that I am not blessed with an overabundance of hair on my head. Facial hair is another matter. At the same time I'm only 28 and I wonder how long it will take before I face the mirror and decide to just shave it all off.
For someone who has self-esteem issues like I do having bald spots certainly isn't helpful. But it does make me face the fact that my self-esteem can't become too closely aligned with how I look. I don't want to be one of those guys who hide who he is by using some hair growth stuff. I guess I'm ok with being somewhat balding. It’s not something I can change, nor would I really want to. But as much as I want to believe that...
I still get really self-conscious around other guys with lots of hair and especially around girls I potentially like. Heh, maybe that's just part of being human after all.
I began balding seriously in college and it hasn't stopped. Its strange considering my dad's hair isn't nearly as bad as mine. I think my Opa's hair was, but he died in 1991 and I have a hard time remembering details. But I've pretty much come to grips with the fact that I am not blessed with an overabundance of hair on my head. Facial hair is another matter. At the same time I'm only 28 and I wonder how long it will take before I face the mirror and decide to just shave it all off.
For someone who has self-esteem issues like I do having bald spots certainly isn't helpful. But it does make me face the fact that my self-esteem can't become too closely aligned with how I look. I don't want to be one of those guys who hide who he is by using some hair growth stuff. I guess I'm ok with being somewhat balding. It’s not something I can change, nor would I really want to. But as much as I want to believe that...
I still get really self-conscious around other guys with lots of hair and especially around girls I potentially like. Heh, maybe that's just part of being human after all.
The Rottweiler Bares His Teeth
Very interesting news from the Vatican today. CNN is reporting that in a new 16 page document that updates a prior communication from the office of the former Cardinarl Ratzinger is suggesting that non-Catholics (specifically Protestants - or those originating from the Reformation) do not possess the "whole church of Christ." It is only those Christians who acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome who have the totality of Christ's Church on this earth.
Forgive me for sounding much less forgiving than I usually am about inter-denominational dialogue, but that is just crap. Benedict's words show a papacy reaching for stability in 2000 years of history while conveniently forgetting that the Catholic Church has never been a monolithic entity. Nor that arguments about the papal primacy, while admittedly old, began from a political motive as Irenaeus points out.
I will be the first to acknowledge that many Protestant denominations condemn the Catholic Church or even just consider it backward and wayward. I will also admit that many Protestant denominations see themselves as the true heirs of Jesus and the Apostles. However, this entirely misses the point of the Christian faith. In fact, you can see the origination of cultic behavior in sects that develop superiority complexes about the nature of faith. Don't take my point too far. But the Pope, by reaffirming the primacy of his office against those denominations outside the Catholic tent, is creating a misleading center of the Christian Church.
I think this is entirely unfortunate and highly suggestive of a defensive move on the part of Benedict rather than a well-thought out theological position. Although I am deeply respectful of Catholic theology (talk to any person I took a seminary class with about that) I find the idea of papal primacy entirely inaccurate and disrespectful of faithful obedience to Jesus Christ.
**Update**
Response to Benedict as found on commentary on CNN.com
Forgive me for sounding much less forgiving than I usually am about inter-denominational dialogue, but that is just crap. Benedict's words show a papacy reaching for stability in 2000 years of history while conveniently forgetting that the Catholic Church has never been a monolithic entity. Nor that arguments about the papal primacy, while admittedly old, began from a political motive as Irenaeus points out.
I will be the first to acknowledge that many Protestant denominations condemn the Catholic Church or even just consider it backward and wayward. I will also admit that many Protestant denominations see themselves as the true heirs of Jesus and the Apostles. However, this entirely misses the point of the Christian faith. In fact, you can see the origination of cultic behavior in sects that develop superiority complexes about the nature of faith. Don't take my point too far. But the Pope, by reaffirming the primacy of his office against those denominations outside the Catholic tent, is creating a misleading center of the Christian Church.
I think this is entirely unfortunate and highly suggestive of a defensive move on the part of Benedict rather than a well-thought out theological position. Although I am deeply respectful of Catholic theology (talk to any person I took a seminary class with about that) I find the idea of papal primacy entirely inaccurate and disrespectful of faithful obedience to Jesus Christ.
**Update**
Response to Benedict as found on commentary on CNN.com
The Crap We Live With Every Day Of Our Lives
I was listening to NPR this afternoon and heard a very interesting thing. The program itself was about the academic qualifications of rap music as a medium for real study. An interesting subject by itself, but one I will save for later. The point I wanted to address tonight was about something the interviewee said in defense of his thesis. If you think about it, in every single area of culture you can possibly imagine roughly 80 to 90% of material is either crap, unoriginal, pointless, meaningless, crass or plain stupid.
We like to imagine otherwise, by categorizing certain things as "more" cultured than other things. However, if you just reflect on the process of cultural qualifications you will see the bias' implicit in the methodology. Namely, that far too often what is "old" is more cultured than what is "new." This of course is shielded by saying that it has survived the test of time. Notwithstanding the fact that if that were true everyone would only naturally enjoy Beethoven. That clearly isn't true.
But what I really wanted to ask was about the nature of our qualifications. Take me for example. I can't stand Jane Austin I don't know how many times I've tried and failed to read any number of her books. They are bloody boring pieces of Victorian blabbery. Sounds pretty haughty of me to say that considering how many people argue her books are the epitome of world-class literature, not to mention rip-roaring good stories. Perhaps I am just classless? Or maybe I have even more class than everyone else considering how much I love the "real classics" i.e. Homer and the tragic playwrights of Athens. Maybe after reading those I know better than to think Jane Austin is anything but an interloper. =)
But then again, I'm only talking about the cream of the crop when it comes to certain potential areas of culture. What about the fact I love really bad 80's music? Just grant me a second to explain. My passion for admittedly bad music doesn't depend on the least on it being remotely good. I just love that music. People tell me to listen to good music, but almost all the time I don't like it. Why not? Perhaps it has something to do with my relative lack of musical knowledge. So because I am uneducated when it comes to music I am naturally drawn to bad music. Or I'm drawn to it because I don't know better.
But that leads me to another question. Since no one is able to comprehend everything at once and in equal terms it seems entirely natural for someone like myself who is quite knowledgeable about the ancient world to think of ancient literature as qualitatively different than modern literature. And by qualitative I mean more cultured. It is only natural that I find most modern fiction abject crap. Or to dance to a tune I've danced before (and been beaten down on) why do I think most fantasy literature doesn't cut it compared to Lord of the Rings? Is it because I'm snooty? Perhaps. Or because what attracts me to Lord of the Rings has very little if anything to do with fantasy, and much more to do with cultural analysis and linguistic history.
But getting back to the original quote. Why is it that if 80 to 90% of what is produced (no matter what field you compare) is crap or just basically worthless, is it still produced in the first place? What is the standard by which culture is defined? Why is there a standard in the first place? In fact, how is it that we can suggest the numbers 80 to 90% and still mean much of anything? 50% of statistics can be wrong you know. =) And here again we are drawn to yet another question. Let's say my analysis is basically correct and culture is entirely subjective. I like excruciating 80's love songs and my friend likes classical guitar. Big whop! Well that cannot be true either since what is enjoyed is also shared in like-minded groups. Are we subjective only to a general point where we can group together? Or are we entirely subjective?
Perhaps what it all comes down to is that those who don’t know any better produce the 80 to 90% of what is produced no matter what field. What a disappointing potential answer. Any other suggestions?
We like to imagine otherwise, by categorizing certain things as "more" cultured than other things. However, if you just reflect on the process of cultural qualifications you will see the bias' implicit in the methodology. Namely, that far too often what is "old" is more cultured than what is "new." This of course is shielded by saying that it has survived the test of time. Notwithstanding the fact that if that were true everyone would only naturally enjoy Beethoven. That clearly isn't true.
But what I really wanted to ask was about the nature of our qualifications. Take me for example. I can't stand Jane Austin I don't know how many times I've tried and failed to read any number of her books. They are bloody boring pieces of Victorian blabbery. Sounds pretty haughty of me to say that considering how many people argue her books are the epitome of world-class literature, not to mention rip-roaring good stories. Perhaps I am just classless? Or maybe I have even more class than everyone else considering how much I love the "real classics" i.e. Homer and the tragic playwrights of Athens. Maybe after reading those I know better than to think Jane Austin is anything but an interloper. =)
But then again, I'm only talking about the cream of the crop when it comes to certain potential areas of culture. What about the fact I love really bad 80's music? Just grant me a second to explain. My passion for admittedly bad music doesn't depend on the least on it being remotely good. I just love that music. People tell me to listen to good music, but almost all the time I don't like it. Why not? Perhaps it has something to do with my relative lack of musical knowledge. So because I am uneducated when it comes to music I am naturally drawn to bad music. Or I'm drawn to it because I don't know better.
But that leads me to another question. Since no one is able to comprehend everything at once and in equal terms it seems entirely natural for someone like myself who is quite knowledgeable about the ancient world to think of ancient literature as qualitatively different than modern literature. And by qualitative I mean more cultured. It is only natural that I find most modern fiction abject crap. Or to dance to a tune I've danced before (and been beaten down on) why do I think most fantasy literature doesn't cut it compared to Lord of the Rings? Is it because I'm snooty? Perhaps. Or because what attracts me to Lord of the Rings has very little if anything to do with fantasy, and much more to do with cultural analysis and linguistic history.
But getting back to the original quote. Why is it that if 80 to 90% of what is produced (no matter what field you compare) is crap or just basically worthless, is it still produced in the first place? What is the standard by which culture is defined? Why is there a standard in the first place? In fact, how is it that we can suggest the numbers 80 to 90% and still mean much of anything? 50% of statistics can be wrong you know. =) And here again we are drawn to yet another question. Let's say my analysis is basically correct and culture is entirely subjective. I like excruciating 80's love songs and my friend likes classical guitar. Big whop! Well that cannot be true either since what is enjoyed is also shared in like-minded groups. Are we subjective only to a general point where we can group together? Or are we entirely subjective?
Perhaps what it all comes down to is that those who don’t know any better produce the 80 to 90% of what is produced no matter what field. What a disappointing potential answer. Any other suggestions?
Red, White... but Not Blue
One of the unexpected pleasures of dog sitting in a rather remote location is that I can go outside and tan without the fear of people seeing me. =) And by tanning I mean staying outside and getting my impossibly white skin burnt red which will later turn back to white. But in the meantime its rather nice to just sit outside and soak in the sun as it were. I don't ever expect to be the kind of dark-toned person who the magazines suggest the world find attractive. Far from it. But the sun does feel good and its nice to be outside for long stretches of time to get the fresh air as well.
In a few hours I will take Dudley, the golden retriever I am sitting on a long walk down the Kent Trail. I have this ongoing fantasy of finding the perfect girl by walking a dog and meeting her walking her dog. Although Dudley is not my dog, I can still play the game. =) Heh, maybe just meeting people will be fun by itself. I used to meet some people with my other sister's dogs, but they were much more aggressive than Dudley so must people didn't want to get too close. We'll see how it goes.
In a few hours I will take Dudley, the golden retriever I am sitting on a long walk down the Kent Trail. I have this ongoing fantasy of finding the perfect girl by walking a dog and meeting her walking her dog. Although Dudley is not my dog, I can still play the game. =) Heh, maybe just meeting people will be fun by itself. I used to meet some people with my other sister's dogs, but they were much more aggressive than Dudley so must people didn't want to get too close. We'll see how it goes.
De Administrationis Natura
C-Bass has a fascinating post (scroll down to find it) from a couple of days ago where he discusses the nature of Chinese government, specifically the rise of the Communist party following the anarchy after Pu Yi's forced abdication. He raises a fundamental question about government that specifically relates to the nature of Christians in government - although most North American Christians don't like to admit that.
The question is really all about the relation between God and government. More specifically what government does God sanction? Or is there a particular style of government that is "more" Christian than another type? C-Bass raises an uncomfortable question for many North American Christians by quoting from Chinese Christians who react against North American Christians praying for an end to Communist rule in China. Rather they want prayer for strength of faith. And he points out that it is entirely unclear in Scripture where God comes down on one side or another in regards to political systems.
This may not be the most appropriate time to discuss Christianity and politics since tomorrow is the Fourth, but C-Bass raises questions that I think are too often ignored, or worse yet assumed to be wrong in the beginning. There is a natural inclination to believe that democracy equals Biblical truth. Or, on the opposite spectrum, that a kind of socialism better represents the Christian ideals, specifically those found in Acts. However, if we simply look at the flow of history democracy is a rather late development. For most of Christian history the church has functioned in plutocratic or aristocratic kingdoms or empires. The church's allegiance (both Catholic and Protestant) to these political systems was never really in doubt. There have always been theological justifications for whatever political system the church finds itself in. Usually these justifications are half-baked and notoriously crafted "after the fact." I think it only a natural extension of the same tendencies in the church to casually shift their theological framework to fit new patterns of political reality. That means being able to justify shifting from a monarchal framework to a democratic framework in our case.
I need to be up front in saying that I have been heavily influenced by theological contrarians in terms of my theology of government. People like Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder are my guiding lights and because of that I tend to draw back in horror when people suggest God advocates a particular governmental system over any other. I am deeply skeptical of any kind of silly progressive view of history where things get better and better based on growing knowledge and insight. When President Bush came to Calvin I signed the protest letter, not because I am a Democrat (I am not) but because I was deeply troubled by his underhanded assertions that Christianity equals being Republican.
There seems to be a need for Christians to find a place to "fit in" to the broader political system no matter where they are. This is partially a result of reading Romans 13 and its stress on obeying those in authority over you. However, after reading Ellul and Yoder I came away with a different interpretation. One that suggests that, as C-Bass noted, the role of the Christian is to be a witness to their faith no matter what government they serve under. That means that Christians are to be "counter-cultural" in a Communist state, a Democracy, a monarchy, etc. Counter-cultural does not mean anti-government however. I am not advocating a kind of radical anarchism. Ellul writes eloquently about the failure of the anarchic movement to be anything more than a bunch of whiny brats who can't serve others because they are always so infatuated with their own sense of righteousness. Counter-cultural means that Christians always stand with one foot in the present and one foot in the eschaton. It’s a vantage point question, one that fundamentally changes how Christians view the world and the way they act in it. No matter what government they serve under the Christian is able to discern what is against the common imago dei of humanity and work to create a "better" world. That work is essentially unending because no system... EVER, can guarantee the establishment of God's will on earth. Praise God for that.
Christians have their work cut out for them in this world. We don't shy away from the present; we fully embrace it and work for the good of everyone. Why? Because we know better than to be bogged down in the present. And that is the Godly paradox of Biblical wisdom on our politics.
The question is really all about the relation between God and government. More specifically what government does God sanction? Or is there a particular style of government that is "more" Christian than another type? C-Bass raises an uncomfortable question for many North American Christians by quoting from Chinese Christians who react against North American Christians praying for an end to Communist rule in China. Rather they want prayer for strength of faith. And he points out that it is entirely unclear in Scripture where God comes down on one side or another in regards to political systems.
This may not be the most appropriate time to discuss Christianity and politics since tomorrow is the Fourth, but C-Bass raises questions that I think are too often ignored, or worse yet assumed to be wrong in the beginning. There is a natural inclination to believe that democracy equals Biblical truth. Or, on the opposite spectrum, that a kind of socialism better represents the Christian ideals, specifically those found in Acts. However, if we simply look at the flow of history democracy is a rather late development. For most of Christian history the church has functioned in plutocratic or aristocratic kingdoms or empires. The church's allegiance (both Catholic and Protestant) to these political systems was never really in doubt. There have always been theological justifications for whatever political system the church finds itself in. Usually these justifications are half-baked and notoriously crafted "after the fact." I think it only a natural extension of the same tendencies in the church to casually shift their theological framework to fit new patterns of political reality. That means being able to justify shifting from a monarchal framework to a democratic framework in our case.
I need to be up front in saying that I have been heavily influenced by theological contrarians in terms of my theology of government. People like Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder are my guiding lights and because of that I tend to draw back in horror when people suggest God advocates a particular governmental system over any other. I am deeply skeptical of any kind of silly progressive view of history where things get better and better based on growing knowledge and insight. When President Bush came to Calvin I signed the protest letter, not because I am a Democrat (I am not) but because I was deeply troubled by his underhanded assertions that Christianity equals being Republican.
There seems to be a need for Christians to find a place to "fit in" to the broader political system no matter where they are. This is partially a result of reading Romans 13 and its stress on obeying those in authority over you. However, after reading Ellul and Yoder I came away with a different interpretation. One that suggests that, as C-Bass noted, the role of the Christian is to be a witness to their faith no matter what government they serve under. That means that Christians are to be "counter-cultural" in a Communist state, a Democracy, a monarchy, etc. Counter-cultural does not mean anti-government however. I am not advocating a kind of radical anarchism. Ellul writes eloquently about the failure of the anarchic movement to be anything more than a bunch of whiny brats who can't serve others because they are always so infatuated with their own sense of righteousness. Counter-cultural means that Christians always stand with one foot in the present and one foot in the eschaton. It’s a vantage point question, one that fundamentally changes how Christians view the world and the way they act in it. No matter what government they serve under the Christian is able to discern what is against the common imago dei of humanity and work to create a "better" world. That work is essentially unending because no system... EVER, can guarantee the establishment of God's will on earth. Praise God for that.
Christians have their work cut out for them in this world. We don't shy away from the present; we fully embrace it and work for the good of everyone. Why? Because we know better than to be bogged down in the present. And that is the Godly paradox of Biblical wisdom on our politics.
It's a Bouncing Baby Girl!
Jason and Julie Bakker, good friends of mine from college, just welcomed their first child yesterday. Elaina Christine Bakker was healthy and is doing great, along with her mother.
I don't know how many of my readers know the Bakker's or if had already heard the news, but if you would like to e-mail congratulations to them e-mail me and I will send you there e-mail address. Or if you know people who know the Bakker's please let them know too. Spread the word as it were.
I don't know how many of my readers know the Bakker's or if had already heard the news, but if you would like to e-mail congratulations to them e-mail me and I will send you there e-mail address. Or if you know people who know the Bakker's please let them know too. Spread the word as it were.
Blog Hiatus
Sorry for the relative lack of blog postings lately. I've hit one of those streaks where I either don't feel like posting or I find really, really bad reasons for not posting and then justify those bad reasons with bad logic. In any case, I hope to be back in the game very soon. I just bought a keyboard protector for my keyboard, which was suffering from what can only be described as an attack of the balding head. Egads! The protector is very nice, very black and very comfortable on my fingers. So perhaps that will be just the trick I need to get motivated again.
Signing off...
Signing off...
Proving Myself Wrong
I have this hypothesis that I'm rather sure is completely off base, but I can't shake it. Its kind of a bizarre way of explaining who I am and especially why I do the things I do. I was thinking about how I could possibly prove it today at work, but instead I came away thinking of the many ways I could disprove it.
The obviousness of my introvertedness should be fairly self-evident to those who know me. And yet, in direct contrast to my outward shyness, my mind works at overdrive ALL THE TIME. I literally can't shut it off... ever. And its not just thinking about stuff all the time. Its thinking about questions, queries, conundrums, paradoxes, mysteries, and esoteric tidbits non-stop and all at the same time. So that leads me to my false hypothesis.
Namely, there must be a relation between my overactive brain (perhaps better put as an overactive internal dialogue) and my relative reluctance to be socially active. Or so I would like to imagine. But the more I think about it the less it makes sense. I have a great many friends who are far smarter than me and many have rollicking social lives. And obviously not all introverted, anti-social types are constantly thinking. The classic logical trap.
Yet I can't seem to shake this idea that my extremely colorful internal dialogue sometimes shades my external relations a bit gray and dry. Perhaps I'm overplaying one against the other in order to create meaning where none exists. But in spite of my own objections to this kind of "felt" hypothesis, I really want to come to grips with my "natural" tendency toward internal rather than external excitement.
To sum up I suppose I should point out that blogging is nothing if not a virtual extension of an internal dialogue. Hmmm...
The obviousness of my introvertedness should be fairly self-evident to those who know me. And yet, in direct contrast to my outward shyness, my mind works at overdrive ALL THE TIME. I literally can't shut it off... ever. And its not just thinking about stuff all the time. Its thinking about questions, queries, conundrums, paradoxes, mysteries, and esoteric tidbits non-stop and all at the same time. So that leads me to my false hypothesis.
Namely, there must be a relation between my overactive brain (perhaps better put as an overactive internal dialogue) and my relative reluctance to be socially active. Or so I would like to imagine. But the more I think about it the less it makes sense. I have a great many friends who are far smarter than me and many have rollicking social lives. And obviously not all introverted, anti-social types are constantly thinking. The classic logical trap.
Yet I can't seem to shake this idea that my extremely colorful internal dialogue sometimes shades my external relations a bit gray and dry. Perhaps I'm overplaying one against the other in order to create meaning where none exists. But in spite of my own objections to this kind of "felt" hypothesis, I really want to come to grips with my "natural" tendency toward internal rather than external excitement.
To sum up I suppose I should point out that blogging is nothing if not a virtual extension of an internal dialogue. Hmmm...
Woohoo! 6-Time Uncle
Little Adam Jeffrey VanderHart was born this afternoon at 1:26. He was 7 pounds, 3 ounces and 20 and one half inches long. Mother and son are doing extremely well. In fact mother looks like she could run around the block! Amazing. Everything went very well and the birth itself was extremely quick. I was actually the first one to visit, so that was nice to spend a few hours with my nephew. Sometime this evening I should be getting pictures from Adam's grandpa so I will post them as quickly as I can.
I love being an uncle!
Adam (Hebrew - def.) of the earth, human
Jeffrey (English - def.) God's peace
I love being an uncle!
Adam (Hebrew - def.) of the earth, human
Jeffrey (English - def.) God's peace
To Fathers and Their Fabrications
This Father's Day I celebrate one aspect of fatherhood that is largely overlooked in the annual celebrations. Namely, the ability of father's to fabricate outlandish stories to explain difficult concepts to their children when they don't know the story. The Washington Post has a hilarious story about father's making stuff up as they go along at museums.
Not being a father myself, I can't quite understand what goes into making up such fabulous tales. But being an uncle has taught me a great deal about the joys of waylaying unsuspecting nephews and nieces through tall tales. I am a very naughty uncle. =)
And the king of all fatherly storytellers is Calvin's dad from the strip Calvin and Hobbes. My personal favorite. Where does wind come from? From the trees sneezing.
Happy Father's Day!
Not being a father myself, I can't quite understand what goes into making up such fabulous tales. But being an uncle has taught me a great deal about the joys of waylaying unsuspecting nephews and nieces through tall tales. I am a very naughty uncle. =)
And the king of all fatherly storytellers is Calvin's dad from the strip Calvin and Hobbes. My personal favorite. Where does wind come from? From the trees sneezing.
Happy Father's Day!
Show Me the Loving!
Today is the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage in the United States. To mark the occasion many cities around the US are holding celebrations. Chicago is even hosting a conference on the subject.
I'm not going to post a big spiel about this case, suffice of to say that the rate of interracial (I really do hate that word) marriages in the US is still fairly low considering how multi-cultural we are as a nation. That being said, I'm supremely glad we are moving beyond the limitations of race and ethnicity in regards to whom we marry. If you get a chance read the wikipedia article about the Loving case and focus especially on the words of the judge who convicted the couple. His rationale for convicting them is beyond absurd.
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Judge Leon Bazile
I also wanted to briefly point out that many sites online attempt to ask whether the Bible expressly forbids interracial marriage. Most, if not all sites, come down on the side of allowing it. But they seem to preface their opinions by noting how hard interracial marriages can be. James Dobson states explicitly that while he has nothing against interracial couples, he wants to make sure people know how difficult an union like that will be. Not to sound to high and mighty... but to me that sounds like a pathetic last gasp. If interracial marriages are hard that just means the Church has more work to do to reach out to those couples. People like Dobson should point that out before they focus on the difficulty. IMHO.
<-----Links Follow----->
Does the Bible Forbid Interracial Dating and Marriage?
John Piper's Thoughts **Well-reasoned**
James Dobson on Interracial Dating and Marriage
I'm not going to post a big spiel about this case, suffice of to say that the rate of interracial (I really do hate that word) marriages in the US is still fairly low considering how multi-cultural we are as a nation. That being said, I'm supremely glad we are moving beyond the limitations of race and ethnicity in regards to whom we marry. If you get a chance read the wikipedia article about the Loving case and focus especially on the words of the judge who convicted the couple. His rationale for convicting them is beyond absurd.
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Judge Leon Bazile
I also wanted to briefly point out that many sites online attempt to ask whether the Bible expressly forbids interracial marriage. Most, if not all sites, come down on the side of allowing it. But they seem to preface their opinions by noting how hard interracial marriages can be. James Dobson states explicitly that while he has nothing against interracial couples, he wants to make sure people know how difficult an union like that will be. Not to sound to high and mighty... but to me that sounds like a pathetic last gasp. If interracial marriages are hard that just means the Church has more work to do to reach out to those couples. People like Dobson should point that out before they focus on the difficulty. IMHO.
<-----Links Follow----->
Does the Bible Forbid Interracial Dating and Marriage?
John Piper's Thoughts **Well-reasoned**
James Dobson on Interracial Dating and Marriage
For Goodness' Sake
For Better or For Worse is hands down one of my favorite comic strips out there. It would take far too long to explain why, but I wanted to focus on one thing in particular that I enjoy about the strip.
Let me preface my statements by admitting something. I am a grinch. Well, rather I am not what you would call an overly optimistic individual. I'm not outgoing, sociable, engaging, charismatic, etc. I know that I have that reputation, and sometimes I use it to my advantage, but other times it annoys me to know that I'm that way.
Yet after spending several hours last night reading through a couple of years worth of FBOFW comics I came to another realization about myself. There is something optimistic, nay... giddy about myself that I can't contain. I was reading through the comics and was startled by how "emotional" I got about certain story lines and character development. FBOFW is fairly well known for portraying a fairly standard suburban Canadian family and their ongoing struggles with daily life. Unlike a lot of comic strips the characters actually age here and as you read you begin to commiserate with some characters as they develop and grow. However, equally FBOFW has also been criticized for being too overly sentimental and romantic about the goodness of its characters. And that is what got me thinking...
I am unabashedly Calvinist when it comes to viewing the human condition. I believe in original sin. I don't think babies are born sinless. I can't accept an overly rosy view of human beings' potential as we evolve (all historians should know better). That being said, I have this preposterously high view of goodness. I use to be more of a cynic (and to be honest I still struggle with that), but the older I get the more I realize how important the generic idea of goodness is. How do I reconcile total depravity with idealistic goodness?
If nothing else FBOFW tries to show people generally doing good things. Even when bad things happen the characters always try to do the right thing (maybe on the second or third time around, but they get there). There is a real sense of idealism that you get from the strip. I find this absolutely mesmerizing because it illuminates something about the Christian life I hadn't been able to put my finger on. The daily practice of goodness, being kind, forgiveness, gentleness, etc is hard work. Well duh, you might say. But think about it. As Plato once said... what's the point of being good? What do you get out it? Usually it means more hardship, more pain, more struggle, more inconvenience. You get stung by people who take advantage of your goodness.
And yet that is precisely the point. Goodness has its own rewards that can't possibly be quantified. There are those cheesy commercials on TV where one stranger helps another stranger and then later that second stranger helps another stranger and so on. I love those commercials because it shows something deeper about goodness. Its shows the quality of relationships that are improved by goodness, even if there is no prior relationship to build on. What it also suggests is that goodness is not a byproduct of a good society, but an interjection into a fallen world. We don't become better people over time. Goodness is the actions that reject the status quo. Its a rejection of qualifiers and constraints. Does that mean goodness will, at the end of day, move us beyond pain and suffering? Absolutely not. Being good probably means more pain and suffering for those who attempt it. Is it worth it? I can't think of a single reason why not. And I haven't even begun to talk about the religious background of all this.
Here I stand, a foolhardy believer in being good. A dyed in the wool optimist (for all the wrong reasons).
P.S To see the strip I posted above in full go here. It’s hilarious.
Let me preface my statements by admitting something. I am a grinch. Well, rather I am not what you would call an overly optimistic individual. I'm not outgoing, sociable, engaging, charismatic, etc. I know that I have that reputation, and sometimes I use it to my advantage, but other times it annoys me to know that I'm that way.
Yet after spending several hours last night reading through a couple of years worth of FBOFW comics I came to another realization about myself. There is something optimistic, nay... giddy about myself that I can't contain. I was reading through the comics and was startled by how "emotional" I got about certain story lines and character development. FBOFW is fairly well known for portraying a fairly standard suburban Canadian family and their ongoing struggles with daily life. Unlike a lot of comic strips the characters actually age here and as you read you begin to commiserate with some characters as they develop and grow. However, equally FBOFW has also been criticized for being too overly sentimental and romantic about the goodness of its characters. And that is what got me thinking...
I am unabashedly Calvinist when it comes to viewing the human condition. I believe in original sin. I don't think babies are born sinless. I can't accept an overly rosy view of human beings' potential as we evolve (all historians should know better). That being said, I have this preposterously high view of goodness. I use to be more of a cynic (and to be honest I still struggle with that), but the older I get the more I realize how important the generic idea of goodness is. How do I reconcile total depravity with idealistic goodness?
If nothing else FBOFW tries to show people generally doing good things. Even when bad things happen the characters always try to do the right thing (maybe on the second or third time around, but they get there). There is a real sense of idealism that you get from the strip. I find this absolutely mesmerizing because it illuminates something about the Christian life I hadn't been able to put my finger on. The daily practice of goodness, being kind, forgiveness, gentleness, etc is hard work. Well duh, you might say. But think about it. As Plato once said... what's the point of being good? What do you get out it? Usually it means more hardship, more pain, more struggle, more inconvenience. You get stung by people who take advantage of your goodness.
And yet that is precisely the point. Goodness has its own rewards that can't possibly be quantified. There are those cheesy commercials on TV where one stranger helps another stranger and then later that second stranger helps another stranger and so on. I love those commercials because it shows something deeper about goodness. Its shows the quality of relationships that are improved by goodness, even if there is no prior relationship to build on. What it also suggests is that goodness is not a byproduct of a good society, but an interjection into a fallen world. We don't become better people over time. Goodness is the actions that reject the status quo. Its a rejection of qualifiers and constraints. Does that mean goodness will, at the end of day, move us beyond pain and suffering? Absolutely not. Being good probably means more pain and suffering for those who attempt it. Is it worth it? I can't think of a single reason why not. And I haven't even begun to talk about the religious background of all this.
Here I stand, a foolhardy believer in being good. A dyed in the wool optimist (for all the wrong reasons).
P.S To see the strip I posted above in full go here. It’s hilarious.
Geopolitical Chess Match
Fred Kaplan over at Slate has a very perceptive article about the new Russian-American relationship that has grown increasingly frosty in the past few months. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski also has a good piece over at Time.com.
Kaplan points out something I hadn't really thought of before. Namely that the new relationship developing between the US and Russia has less to do with Russia reclaiming its superpower role from the Cold War and has much more to do with Russia finding its place in a world devoid of a Cold War scenario. He suggests that the Cold War was a geopolitical anomaly that offered the world a choice between two competing worldviews. Countries naturally went one way or the other. However, when the USSR broke apart the US became the sole superpower in the world. That much is known. Fukayama's famous dictum that this meant the end of history was amazingly shortsighted and also couched in Cold War terminology that Kaplan argues is actually the anomaly. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union Kaplan argues that the world reverted back to a more naturally anarchic environment where countries did not have to choose between two ideologically opposed worldviews and was thus free to pursue nationalist interests irrespective of "political labels." This fundamentally explains why the Chinese model actually works in the post-Communist era. It has much less to do with ideology and much more to do with a kind of nationalist pragmatism embodied by leaders such as Deng Xiopeng.
The American reaction to France and Germany's unwillingness to back our invasion of Iraq also shows this new dynamic. We had expected a Cold War mentality of us vs. them with our allies (even those who didn't totally agree with us) to back us as a superpower. However, when that didn't happen our reaction was disbelief that nations would have interests beyond the parameters of our own (unrealistically defined as being universal and altruistic rather than nationalist).
This is very interesting to note especially with the notion of the "War on Terrorism." This seems to be an attempt (however valid) to redefine the world in terms of us vs. them and succeed the Cold War mentality with another simplistic anomaly. I'm not entirely sure how easy or realistic that is. Especially when we note that a surprising number of nations who are our allies in the "War on Terrorism" are so because of inherently nationalistic reasons. These countries include Russia, China and Pakistan especially. It will be very interesting to see how this develops.
I actually think part of the reason the US underestimated the global response to 9/11 was that following the attacks the world responded to a perceived threat each in their own way. Following World War II and the establishment of the United Nations the world responded to a new situation by being forced to choose sides in an environment otherwise devoid of choice and condemned under the weight of failed nationalism.
So what next?
Kaplan points out something I hadn't really thought of before. Namely that the new relationship developing between the US and Russia has less to do with Russia reclaiming its superpower role from the Cold War and has much more to do with Russia finding its place in a world devoid of a Cold War scenario. He suggests that the Cold War was a geopolitical anomaly that offered the world a choice between two competing worldviews. Countries naturally went one way or the other. However, when the USSR broke apart the US became the sole superpower in the world. That much is known. Fukayama's famous dictum that this meant the end of history was amazingly shortsighted and also couched in Cold War terminology that Kaplan argues is actually the anomaly. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union Kaplan argues that the world reverted back to a more naturally anarchic environment where countries did not have to choose between two ideologically opposed worldviews and was thus free to pursue nationalist interests irrespective of "political labels." This fundamentally explains why the Chinese model actually works in the post-Communist era. It has much less to do with ideology and much more to do with a kind of nationalist pragmatism embodied by leaders such as Deng Xiopeng.
The American reaction to France and Germany's unwillingness to back our invasion of Iraq also shows this new dynamic. We had expected a Cold War mentality of us vs. them with our allies (even those who didn't totally agree with us) to back us as a superpower. However, when that didn't happen our reaction was disbelief that nations would have interests beyond the parameters of our own (unrealistically defined as being universal and altruistic rather than nationalist).
This is very interesting to note especially with the notion of the "War on Terrorism." This seems to be an attempt (however valid) to redefine the world in terms of us vs. them and succeed the Cold War mentality with another simplistic anomaly. I'm not entirely sure how easy or realistic that is. Especially when we note that a surprising number of nations who are our allies in the "War on Terrorism" are so because of inherently nationalistic reasons. These countries include Russia, China and Pakistan especially. It will be very interesting to see how this develops.
I actually think part of the reason the US underestimated the global response to 9/11 was that following the attacks the world responded to a perceived threat each in their own way. Following World War II and the establishment of the United Nations the world responded to a new situation by being forced to choose sides in an environment otherwise devoid of choice and condemned under the weight of failed nationalism.
So what next?
Feelin' All Lovey-Dovey
My good friends Meleeka and Jason got married on Saturday. I have been over at their house for much of the past week trying to help with what I can (and perhaps getting in the way a little as well). It was actually rather fun to learn some of the tricks of the trade wedding planning. (No worries... I have no plans for my own future.)
Noting that I already made some brief comments about death and funerals last week, I wanted to move on to love and marriage a little. Of course my vast experience does not allow me much to say, but I will try nonetheless.
First off, congratulations are in order for the bride and groom. But beyond that, Meleeka actually did so much work for her wedding I find it hard to believe. She made her own cake (actually three cakes), did the video montage, designed and sewed her dress and Jason's daughter’s dress, planned the wedding out even before marital counseling, and was still directing everyone on Saturday. Absolutely amazing. On top of all that she never seemed down or under pressure. The wedding itself was held at the Calvin Seminary Chapel, which is quite nice. A very nice, simple ceremony with wonderfully selected music. The reception was held at the new Woodlawn Ministry Center and was equally nice. Laid back and straightforward was the name of the game.
In fact that brings me to my first observation about marriage. It seems to me that the older people get the more relaxed they are about marriage. This may be a vague generalization, but it works for me. It almost seemed odd to me how relaxed Jason and Meleeka were about their wedding. But in the end it was a real relief from some of the bridezillas or grooms that check out of the process. What was especially nice to see was yesterday they held a lunch, after going to church, for friends and family. No rush, just spending quality time with family and friends. That was really special. They had spent a lot of time preparing for the wedding, but more importantly they had spent a lot of time preparing for life after the wedding. The "ordinary" after the "extraordinary."
Now on to other general thoughts about marriage. I've never been able to get a handle of why some relationships work and some don't. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason (duh). I have married friends who are complete opposites, and then others who seem to be cut from the same cloth. And yet, in the end, each marriage is based on something deeper than simply attraction. I would go on a religious tangent here, but I'll restrain myself. I've tried to appropriate certain relationship dynamics from friends of mine and visualize myself with someone either totally opposite me or quite the same. And yet each time it doesn't seem to cut it. Why? I've never gotten close to figuring out the why of attraction, not to mention the how.
But like Pastor Jonker said at Meleeka and Jason's wedding... marriage is fundamentally about building a life together. He used Paul's list of virtues in Colossians to describe the Christian marriage as one of compassion, dedication, forgiveness, and love. But what is so much more interesting about those virtues is that in marriage they are lived out in the daily grind. Virtue is not esoteric in marriage, its preposterously normal. I still think it is one of the most breathtaking things to see when two people are able to dedicate themselves to each other. Breathtaking because such dedication takes real work and because that work only makes sense in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
I sit here unable to really come up with more to say. I've been writing and rewriting for the past half and hour and still can't really crystallize my thoughts about this weekend. Perhaps it is because of my lack of experience in the whole love, dating arena. There really is more I want to say, but I can't come up with anything coherent at the moment. But that whole notion of the "normal" marriage and what that means for building a relationship over a lifetime just intrigues me to no end. I'll try and come back to this at some point in the future when I've thought about it more (or experienced it).
Noting that I already made some brief comments about death and funerals last week, I wanted to move on to love and marriage a little. Of course my vast experience does not allow me much to say, but I will try nonetheless.
First off, congratulations are in order for the bride and groom. But beyond that, Meleeka actually did so much work for her wedding I find it hard to believe. She made her own cake (actually three cakes), did the video montage, designed and sewed her dress and Jason's daughter’s dress, planned the wedding out even before marital counseling, and was still directing everyone on Saturday. Absolutely amazing. On top of all that she never seemed down or under pressure. The wedding itself was held at the Calvin Seminary Chapel, which is quite nice. A very nice, simple ceremony with wonderfully selected music. The reception was held at the new Woodlawn Ministry Center and was equally nice. Laid back and straightforward was the name of the game.
In fact that brings me to my first observation about marriage. It seems to me that the older people get the more relaxed they are about marriage. This may be a vague generalization, but it works for me. It almost seemed odd to me how relaxed Jason and Meleeka were about their wedding. But in the end it was a real relief from some of the bridezillas or grooms that check out of the process. What was especially nice to see was yesterday they held a lunch, after going to church, for friends and family. No rush, just spending quality time with family and friends. That was really special. They had spent a lot of time preparing for the wedding, but more importantly they had spent a lot of time preparing for life after the wedding. The "ordinary" after the "extraordinary."
Now on to other general thoughts about marriage. I've never been able to get a handle of why some relationships work and some don't. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason (duh). I have married friends who are complete opposites, and then others who seem to be cut from the same cloth. And yet, in the end, each marriage is based on something deeper than simply attraction. I would go on a religious tangent here, but I'll restrain myself. I've tried to appropriate certain relationship dynamics from friends of mine and visualize myself with someone either totally opposite me or quite the same. And yet each time it doesn't seem to cut it. Why? I've never gotten close to figuring out the why of attraction, not to mention the how.
But like Pastor Jonker said at Meleeka and Jason's wedding... marriage is fundamentally about building a life together. He used Paul's list of virtues in Colossians to describe the Christian marriage as one of compassion, dedication, forgiveness, and love. But what is so much more interesting about those virtues is that in marriage they are lived out in the daily grind. Virtue is not esoteric in marriage, its preposterously normal. I still think it is one of the most breathtaking things to see when two people are able to dedicate themselves to each other. Breathtaking because such dedication takes real work and because that work only makes sense in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
I sit here unable to really come up with more to say. I've been writing and rewriting for the past half and hour and still can't really crystallize my thoughts about this weekend. Perhaps it is because of my lack of experience in the whole love, dating arena. There really is more I want to say, but I can't come up with anything coherent at the moment. But that whole notion of the "normal" marriage and what that means for building a relationship over a lifetime just intrigues me to no end. I'll try and come back to this at some point in the future when I've thought about it more (or experienced it).
Of Challenges and Triumphs
I went to a funeral this evening. An old missionary with the CRC who had worked in China and Japan and also supervised the whole Asia area had recently passed away. He was a close friend with the missionaries serving on the Asian field including my parents and the kids knew him as Uncle Ed. Although I don't have as many memories of him as my sister, I wanted to go to his funeral.
Its a special thing... a Christian funeral. It almost sounds morbid to say that, but I really believe it. It’s a moment of profound realization in the faith. A moment when the reality of both the limitedness of our earthly life meets the limitlessness of eternity. There are tears of sadness and tears of joy intermingled with no apology required.
My dad and I were talking about Christianity and how its lived on our way to my brother's party last Saturday. He likes to jab me a little about how intellectual I am in my faith. And I understand that. It doesn't really bother me that much since I am who I am. But the more I reflect on it the more I come to understand even the limitation of knowledge in faith. That is not to say that faith without knowledge is best... I don't think so. But being at the funeral and seeing faithful people celebrating a faithful life offer a helpful critique to the kind of Christianity I often assume to be right. I spend a great deal of time reading the message board on LibraryThing's Christianity group. Its fascinating how smart and well-read people are in their faith. But its more interesting to note how finicky and picky people can be regarding what they know. I tried to answer some times and usually got in a spot of trouble because I didn't phrase my answers correctly or didn't quite grasp the nuances of a particular argument.
Here again I reflect on the funeral and its window onto the life of the Church. The beauty of a group brought together by shared experiences (missionary). But even more than that... the near-ephemeral beauty of a "family." One of the great gifts of being a missionary kid is the experience of having non-related family all over the world. One of the speakers tonight put it so well when he said that we have been granted a foretaste of heaven by opening ourselves to uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, even parents and grandparents who are family through faith. It’s a rather unique experience as far as I can tell because its forced on us by the distance between the blood relatives. I mean I have no problem calling my Uncle Vince and Aunt Lucy uncle and aunt even though they are Filipino. I have several sets of grandparents in Guam who helped raise me. The list goes on and on.
And that brings me back to earth when I get caught up in my intellectual Christianity. I'm never going to be a touchy-feely kind of Christian. But when I'm with my family like I was tonight singing, "Lead on O King Eternal!" I can't help but feel the triumph of an eternity breaking through the challenges of the here and now.
Its a special thing... a Christian funeral. It almost sounds morbid to say that, but I really believe it. It’s a moment of profound realization in the faith. A moment when the reality of both the limitedness of our earthly life meets the limitlessness of eternity. There are tears of sadness and tears of joy intermingled with no apology required.
My dad and I were talking about Christianity and how its lived on our way to my brother's party last Saturday. He likes to jab me a little about how intellectual I am in my faith. And I understand that. It doesn't really bother me that much since I am who I am. But the more I reflect on it the more I come to understand even the limitation of knowledge in faith. That is not to say that faith without knowledge is best... I don't think so. But being at the funeral and seeing faithful people celebrating a faithful life offer a helpful critique to the kind of Christianity I often assume to be right. I spend a great deal of time reading the message board on LibraryThing's Christianity group. Its fascinating how smart and well-read people are in their faith. But its more interesting to note how finicky and picky people can be regarding what they know. I tried to answer some times and usually got in a spot of trouble because I didn't phrase my answers correctly or didn't quite grasp the nuances of a particular argument.
Here again I reflect on the funeral and its window onto the life of the Church. The beauty of a group brought together by shared experiences (missionary). But even more than that... the near-ephemeral beauty of a "family." One of the great gifts of being a missionary kid is the experience of having non-related family all over the world. One of the speakers tonight put it so well when he said that we have been granted a foretaste of heaven by opening ourselves to uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, even parents and grandparents who are family through faith. It’s a rather unique experience as far as I can tell because its forced on us by the distance between the blood relatives. I mean I have no problem calling my Uncle Vince and Aunt Lucy uncle and aunt even though they are Filipino. I have several sets of grandparents in Guam who helped raise me. The list goes on and on.
And that brings me back to earth when I get caught up in my intellectual Christianity. I'm never going to be a touchy-feely kind of Christian. But when I'm with my family like I was tonight singing, "Lead on O King Eternal!" I can't help but feel the triumph of an eternity breaking through the challenges of the here and now.
Highlighting History (With Popcorn For All)
Martin Scorsese is starting production on a film version of one of my absolute favorite books, Silence by Shusaku Endo. If you haven't read that book go and pick it up right now. It’s a fabulous account of the missionary movement in 17th century Japan that incorporates all kinds of questions about history, culture and faith. Endo himself is a Japanese Christian and his study of the effects of European missionary movements in Japan is endlessly interesting.
I personally can't wait to see what Scorsese does with the novel. Although I'm concerned it might become a polemic against cultural imperialism deftly shaded under the shadow of a historical period drama. Not that I'm for cultural imperialism in any way. But Endo's great ability to create depth and complexity is enough to raise serious questions without resorting to a kind of historical simplicity that denounces what is supposedly known yet doesn't answer anything in return. It might be the kind of Hollywood production I like to call the reactionary-for-the-heckuva-it movie. And that would be a shame.
In any case, read the book. It'll really make you think.
I also found this fantastic article by Philip Yancey about Endo.
I personally can't wait to see what Scorsese does with the novel. Although I'm concerned it might become a polemic against cultural imperialism deftly shaded under the shadow of a historical period drama. Not that I'm for cultural imperialism in any way. But Endo's great ability to create depth and complexity is enough to raise serious questions without resorting to a kind of historical simplicity that denounces what is supposedly known yet doesn't answer anything in return. It might be the kind of Hollywood production I like to call the reactionary-for-the-heckuva-it movie. And that would be a shame.
In any case, read the book. It'll really make you think.
I also found this fantastic article by Philip Yancey about Endo.
Sudden Anger Management Class
Now that I have a cell phone I suppose I should be more forgiving of people who use cell phones. But goodness sakes! On the road this afternoon I was behind a guy driving ten miles under the limit on a road with one lane, driving erratically and yapping on his phone. I wanted so badly to honk my horn at him, but fortunately my horn is under the weather at the moment so I didn't do anything stupid.
But I cannot seem to get over my near-vitriolic hatred of people who talk on the phone in the car (needless to say hands-free phones may be a little better). So I actually had to count to 10 to try and control my rage. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
But I cannot seem to get over my near-vitriolic hatred of people who talk on the phone in the car (needless to say hands-free phones may be a little better). So I actually had to count to 10 to try and control my rage. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Super Duper Christian Future
The Washington Post has an article on the recent passing of the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the rise of a new generation of Christian leaders. Its mainly interesting because it notes that our present age is one of the anti-hero or anti-leader. A people who intrinsically distrust "natural" authority. In that way the rise of the youthful evangelicalism is almost unguided in a strange way. Nevertheless there are certain leaders to be sure, but they all seem to be trendy rather than social pillars. Everyone from Brian McClaren to Joel Osteen seems to be leaders of movements rather than leaders like Billy Graham.
But what I find most interesting about the rise of a new evangelicalism is its fundamental adherence to rather conservative social positions. (I should point out that I fundamentally find myself in this camp as well.) While modern evangelicals are more likely to be environmentally friendly and more conscience of the social ills around them, they do not seem to be falling wholesale into the liberal camp. Why is this? There seems to have been a strong reaction against the hyper-conservatism of people like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. But rather than replacing their conservatism with hyper-liberalism, the modern evangelical movement reframed the debate. The social positions of Dobson and Falwell didn't go away. But they were refreshed after being (what I consider) held captive by a political and cultural agenda. Being opposed to abortion isn't just a conservative position, and that is where both the religious right and the left simply don't understand Christian ethics.
I noticed this especially at seminary. I was stunned, to be perfectly frank, by the "conservativeness" of my fellow students. But it wasn't the kind of dry, stuffy conservatism that is passed down from their anti-60's parents. This is a Christianity that is refreshing and potent, made more so because these people take responsibility for the ethical and moral claims their faith makes on them. I came into seminary expecting to find people I could change, but they woke me up to a kind of Christianity that I had largely ignored... much to my own detriment.
This is precisely why I'm so insistent that either the left or the right cannot claim Christianity. The "Babylonian Captivity" is not just a historical event in Christianity. It is something that happens all the time. The ability of the Church to continually reflect its high calling is found mainly in a constant back and forth between God and humanity - the story of the Bible. We can measure the success of the emerging modern evangelical movement based on their insistence on keeping to the Word and building the crux of the Church - relationships.
But what I find most interesting about the rise of a new evangelicalism is its fundamental adherence to rather conservative social positions. (I should point out that I fundamentally find myself in this camp as well.) While modern evangelicals are more likely to be environmentally friendly and more conscience of the social ills around them, they do not seem to be falling wholesale into the liberal camp. Why is this? There seems to have been a strong reaction against the hyper-conservatism of people like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. But rather than replacing their conservatism with hyper-liberalism, the modern evangelical movement reframed the debate. The social positions of Dobson and Falwell didn't go away. But they were refreshed after being (what I consider) held captive by a political and cultural agenda. Being opposed to abortion isn't just a conservative position, and that is where both the religious right and the left simply don't understand Christian ethics.
I noticed this especially at seminary. I was stunned, to be perfectly frank, by the "conservativeness" of my fellow students. But it wasn't the kind of dry, stuffy conservatism that is passed down from their anti-60's parents. This is a Christianity that is refreshing and potent, made more so because these people take responsibility for the ethical and moral claims their faith makes on them. I came into seminary expecting to find people I could change, but they woke me up to a kind of Christianity that I had largely ignored... much to my own detriment.
This is precisely why I'm so insistent that either the left or the right cannot claim Christianity. The "Babylonian Captivity" is not just a historical event in Christianity. It is something that happens all the time. The ability of the Church to continually reflect its high calling is found mainly in a constant back and forth between God and humanity - the story of the Bible. We can measure the success of the emerging modern evangelical movement based on their insistence on keeping to the Word and building the crux of the Church - relationships.
The Natural Ills and Subsequent Redemption of Tom From Guam
Yesterday evening was spent in dinner and game playing with Hoort, Chris, Deano and Dan. Sort of a guy’s night out as it were. Loads of fun, lots of video game playing (my naturally abhorent videogaming skills readily discernable), and good food. I collected on a seven-year-old bet made between Chris, Boom and I concerning the last of us to remain single. Having "won" the bet Chris took it upon himself to cook a very delicious steak for me that promptly invalidated whatever exercise I had done earlier in the day. =) Mmmmm.... fattening.
And then, wonder of wonders. Dan brought along some relatively cheap cigars he had bought from somewhere. He wanted to have a victory smoke and I figured what would be the harm. Now, I have never smoked anything before... ever. I never tried smoking in high school. My mom thought she caught me once, but instead of smoking I was trying to burn a piece of wood with a lighter. So I'm not a smoker, but I am a pyromaniac. Oops. Anyway, I had to ask for directions on how to smoke seeing as I am a rank amateur. Once I got the hang of it (and figured out how to light the darn thing) I got through one. But man alive, I don't understand the charm of smoking. My mouth felt like an ashtray for nearly twelve hours afterward. I had to buy some Wilhelmina peppermints to clear my throat. I suppose I could taste some flavor, but the dry ashy taste I felt afterwards didn't do much to charm me on smoking. Blech!
So church this morning was partially devoted to choking back the ashy taste and hoping people wouldn't smell the smoke in my breath. I guess one smoke won't kill me, but thankfully I have no interest in picking it up as a habit.
In other news from last night... Chris has a very nice house. Its fun to go over to friends houses and see how they decorate and plan out their houses. Its a nice contrast to the usual hurricane ravaged dorm room motif. Cleanliness is next to Godliness (maybe...). (Don't come over to my place though.) But seeing that house got me thinking about what I want in an eventual house. Being single actually helps me because I can kind of plan around exactly what I like. You can go around the internet and find cool floor plans for houses. Most of them are either too large for me (I don't like large houses generally) or have too much segmentation of rooms. I like a more open floor plan. What I really want to do is find a general floor plan I like and then customize it with an architect so it works for what I want. I found this one plan that caught my eye this afternoon at amazingplans.com. Its nice and simple, it has a kind of offset floor plan that I like, and its small enough to not be too ostentatious, but large enough to host friends. There are a couple of things I would change around, but for the most part this fits well with what I like. Just in case you were interested.
And then, wonder of wonders. Dan brought along some relatively cheap cigars he had bought from somewhere. He wanted to have a victory smoke and I figured what would be the harm. Now, I have never smoked anything before... ever. I never tried smoking in high school. My mom thought she caught me once, but instead of smoking I was trying to burn a piece of wood with a lighter. So I'm not a smoker, but I am a pyromaniac. Oops. Anyway, I had to ask for directions on how to smoke seeing as I am a rank amateur. Once I got the hang of it (and figured out how to light the darn thing) I got through one. But man alive, I don't understand the charm of smoking. My mouth felt like an ashtray for nearly twelve hours afterward. I had to buy some Wilhelmina peppermints to clear my throat. I suppose I could taste some flavor, but the dry ashy taste I felt afterwards didn't do much to charm me on smoking. Blech!
So church this morning was partially devoted to choking back the ashy taste and hoping people wouldn't smell the smoke in my breath. I guess one smoke won't kill me, but thankfully I have no interest in picking it up as a habit.
In other news from last night... Chris has a very nice house. Its fun to go over to friends houses and see how they decorate and plan out their houses. Its a nice contrast to the usual hurricane ravaged dorm room motif. Cleanliness is next to Godliness (maybe...). (Don't come over to my place though.) But seeing that house got me thinking about what I want in an eventual house. Being single actually helps me because I can kind of plan around exactly what I like. You can go around the internet and find cool floor plans for houses. Most of them are either too large for me (I don't like large houses generally) or have too much segmentation of rooms. I like a more open floor plan. What I really want to do is find a general floor plan I like and then customize it with an architect so it works for what I want. I found this one plan that caught my eye this afternoon at amazingplans.com. Its nice and simple, it has a kind of offset floor plan that I like, and its small enough to not be too ostentatious, but large enough to host friends. There are a couple of things I would change around, but for the most part this fits well with what I like. Just in case you were interested.
Growing Up Into Adultivity
I recently discovered something I never thought would happen. I actually rather enjoy tucking in my shirt. Its true. I couldn't believe it. Most of my friends will attest to my near-absolute disdain for tucking in my shirt on almost every occasion save church. Well, after losing a lot of weight I've discovered that tucking in my shirt no longer carries the same risk of people seeing how big I actually am, nor does it infringe on my range of movement as much as feared.
One of my personal fears is actually to not be able to move my arms. I freak out when my arms are pinned. Part of leaving my shirts untucked all the time was a general feeling of freedom and no restrictions. But the better I feel about myself and how I look the more relaxed I get and thus having my shirt tucked in no longer feels as constricting.
Maybe I'm overanalyzing this whole thing, but I am genuinely shocked at how comfortable I feel tucking my shirt in. I'm becoming vain. That is the last thing I need since I already suffer from an incurably large ego.
Of course maybe I'm just growing up. Perish the thought...
One of my personal fears is actually to not be able to move my arms. I freak out when my arms are pinned. Part of leaving my shirts untucked all the time was a general feeling of freedom and no restrictions. But the better I feel about myself and how I look the more relaxed I get and thus having my shirt tucked in no longer feels as constricting.
Maybe I'm overanalyzing this whole thing, but I am genuinely shocked at how comfortable I feel tucking my shirt in. I'm becoming vain. That is the last thing I need since I already suffer from an incurably large ego.
Of course maybe I'm just growing up. Perish the thought...
R.I.P. to a Reverand
The passing of Reverend Jerry Falwell today has brought a lot of issues to my mind. And I'm still thinking through them in no particular order. So I won't write an obituary until I have had time to process my thoughts. Needless to say Rev. Falwell was a polarizing figure both in the mainstream and in the Christian culture. I've already read a lot of the obits in the main newspapers and they do a fair job of describing the man and his life. But I'm hardly interested in the kind of knee-jerk reaction that often accompanies the death of such a divisive figure. Those reactions usually only serve to magnify the writers, and the readers’ judgments and curtail a real thoughtful analysis.
At the same time that I'm trying to be thoughtful I can't escape my own judgments about Rev. Falwell. What do you say about Rev. Falwell? Do you condemn him as an intolerant fundamentalist bigot? Or do you celebrate his steadfast commitment? I think its ironic that we often play the vox dei about a figure like Rev. Falwell, but then turn around and consider people's opinions of us as this, that or the other thing as simplistic. Surely we can stand to not be so foolhardy.
At the same time that I'm trying to be thoughtful I can't escape my own judgments about Rev. Falwell. What do you say about Rev. Falwell? Do you condemn him as an intolerant fundamentalist bigot? Or do you celebrate his steadfast commitment? I think its ironic that we often play the vox dei about a figure like Rev. Falwell, but then turn around and consider people's opinions of us as this, that or the other thing as simplistic. Surely we can stand to not be so foolhardy.
Dilemmas in Evangelistic Ethics
There is something about Mormons (the LDS Church) that gets me going. I mean I absolutely love it when Mormons come to my door asking if I have been "saved." The last time it happened I opened the door, quickly responded that I was an evangelical Christian and purposely showed off my rows upon rows of books. They quickly moved away from their script and began to disengage from what could have obviously been a less than comfortable conversation.
That has led me to question how I answered them when they asked if I knew Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Obviously it would be a lie if I were to say I was not saved. But at the same time since they are programmed to respond to an evangelical Christian I feel bad that I can't engage them more in conversation. So how do I answer the door when the Mormons come knocking? I can't lie, but I very much want to talk to them openly about my faith, their faith and the conflicts I see between the two.
What is so interesting is that when Mormons do door-to-door evangelism they have this ability to not offend evangelical Christians by pressing them to join the LDS Church. Such pressing would acknowledge that there is a radical difference between the traditional Christian Church and the LDS Church. But I want to use the opportunity if presented with it to engage them in a real, friendly dialogue about faith.
I guess its interesting also because I wouldn't expect most Christians who do door-to-door evangelism to know how to answer the really deep questions about their faith. So should I expect the Mormons at my door to be any different? I did some door-to-door tract passing in Dearborn last year, which was not a pleasant experience to put it mildly. I've never been comfortable trying to proclaim the Gospel to complete strangers. I'd much rather have a one-on-one or small group setting and really spend some time hashing it out. Maybe what I should do is invite the next Mormons at my door to coffee (my apartment is so small it wouldn't really work inside).
How to do counter-evangelism while retaining the strong moral foundation that is essential to whom I am as a Christian? That is a tricky path to trod.
That has led me to question how I answered them when they asked if I knew Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Obviously it would be a lie if I were to say I was not saved. But at the same time since they are programmed to respond to an evangelical Christian I feel bad that I can't engage them more in conversation. So how do I answer the door when the Mormons come knocking? I can't lie, but I very much want to talk to them openly about my faith, their faith and the conflicts I see between the two.
What is so interesting is that when Mormons do door-to-door evangelism they have this ability to not offend evangelical Christians by pressing them to join the LDS Church. Such pressing would acknowledge that there is a radical difference between the traditional Christian Church and the LDS Church. But I want to use the opportunity if presented with it to engage them in a real, friendly dialogue about faith.
I guess its interesting also because I wouldn't expect most Christians who do door-to-door evangelism to know how to answer the really deep questions about their faith. So should I expect the Mormons at my door to be any different? I did some door-to-door tract passing in Dearborn last year, which was not a pleasant experience to put it mildly. I've never been comfortable trying to proclaim the Gospel to complete strangers. I'd much rather have a one-on-one or small group setting and really spend some time hashing it out. Maybe what I should do is invite the next Mormons at my door to coffee (my apartment is so small it wouldn't really work inside).
How to do counter-evangelism while retaining the strong moral foundation that is essential to whom I am as a Christian? That is a tricky path to trod.
Raining Stupidity and Hypocrisy
Perhaps it’s the book I'm presently reading, or perhaps its my bedevilment as a single person... but I've been thinking about sex lately. Yep, sex.
One of the cold ironies of being chronically single is an apparent ability to pass myself off as neutral when it comes to advice on relationships and dating in general. I've had this since high school actually. People gravitate towards me to talk about their relationships or about things going on in their lives. Not that I mind per say, I like to think that I'm good at listening and being trusted to keep secrets is a privilege I carry with immense pride. But all that aside, all this talk usually leaves me flustered when I am alone and thinking about all the different things I've heard. Being someone who needs to think, compare, contrast, evaluate and comprehend everything makes being a listener a particularly hard job.
OK, the book I'm reading "The Myth of the American Superhero" has a particularly interesting section on the Disneyification of the American mythology. One of the aspects that is talked about there is sexuality, specifically Disney's ability to portray sexless sex. Thus not only accepting the cultural norms of the 1940s and 50s, but creating an illusive idea about sexuality that continues to play today in a much different world. What you get is a view of sexuality devoid of reality. Sexuality that is both fantasy and largely emotionless. The kind of innocence that Bambi exudes. Or the matronly savior figure of Snow White who rescues and restores without a hint of any realness about her (despite being surrounded by seven old men). This is interesting especially since most media since the 50s have moved away from that same sense of innocence, but rather than promoting a balanced view of sexuality, they have moved to a view that since innocence is not really realistic, the only realistic sexuality is lust-filled, depraved and devoid of genuine concern. The opposite of the Disney effect is a cynicism that has not really replaced Disney, only rejected the angelic innocence it sees as unattainable. So you see the rise of the sympathetic portrayals of multiple sex partners, none of which ever carry any real respect since the object is not intimacy, but self-fulfillment. The longing search for the Disney ideal, condemned to perpetually fail makes the modern vision of sex almost Sisyphean in nature.
But here's my second point. Christians have largely been equally as stupid about their portrayals of sexuality both in the popular medium and in their teachings. I would argue that Christian traditionalists who harken back to a golden era of good sexuality have idolized a form of sex that is totally devoid of reality. In fact, the key problem for Christians is that they actually find their sexuality reality not through a well-constructed theology, but from a reaction against what they perceive in the culture around them. Christian sexual ethics seems to be mostly built around the idea of "don't do what those people are doing." What this does is create a false dichotomy between Christian sexual ethics and the whole idea of sexuality. It actually works to spiritualize sexuality in a way that divorces it from reality. So Christians are committed to finding a sexuality that is not at all related to them, but is rather counter-related to a preconceived notion of what the world does.
The spiritualization of Christian sexuality especially works to idealize elements of sexual fulfillment. Perhaps better put, not so much idealize as Christianize. This has a long history in Christian thought that is partially due to most theology being written by single men. The humanity intrinsic to sexuality becomes spiritualized and compartmentalized in order to properly control the passions. You find this a lot in studies of Christian marriages, where the spouses become estranged over time not because they don't get along, but because they can't open up. There is also a built in failure foundation to Christian marriage because since sexuality is transformed into a spiritual experience, the real thing necessarily fails to live up to the hype. So sexuality is both a prized possession that is kept in lockup until marriage and then when it is released it is immediately undermined by the sheer weight of expectation. You wonder why so many Christian teens have sex before marriage. The expectations of holy withdrawal are preposterous and dangerous.
Again, this may just be me opening up after a long time of holding it in, but I have a lot of concerns about this area. I totally reject the idea that sexuality is so normal that humanity does itself a disservice by not getting it on all the time with however happens to be next. I also reject the idea that sexuality is a purely spiritual act between "soul-mates" before God. Like most of life sexuality is complex, related to the whole human experience and also deeply relevant to a person's spiritual walk. I guess I want to promote a Godly humanism that rejects humanist self-sufficiency, but also avoids the pedestals of both Disney and modern Christianity. A sexuality that is God-given, natural, beautiful AND cooperative, sacrificial, friendly and respectful. No sappy love songs playing over this scene. No absurd idealism, nor depraved cynicism.
Of course all this comes from a guy who has been up to bat exactly once and whiffed in three straight pitches. So take with a grain of salt. =)
One of the cold ironies of being chronically single is an apparent ability to pass myself off as neutral when it comes to advice on relationships and dating in general. I've had this since high school actually. People gravitate towards me to talk about their relationships or about things going on in their lives. Not that I mind per say, I like to think that I'm good at listening and being trusted to keep secrets is a privilege I carry with immense pride. But all that aside, all this talk usually leaves me flustered when I am alone and thinking about all the different things I've heard. Being someone who needs to think, compare, contrast, evaluate and comprehend everything makes being a listener a particularly hard job.
OK, the book I'm reading "The Myth of the American Superhero" has a particularly interesting section on the Disneyification of the American mythology. One of the aspects that is talked about there is sexuality, specifically Disney's ability to portray sexless sex. Thus not only accepting the cultural norms of the 1940s and 50s, but creating an illusive idea about sexuality that continues to play today in a much different world. What you get is a view of sexuality devoid of reality. Sexuality that is both fantasy and largely emotionless. The kind of innocence that Bambi exudes. Or the matronly savior figure of Snow White who rescues and restores without a hint of any realness about her (despite being surrounded by seven old men). This is interesting especially since most media since the 50s have moved away from that same sense of innocence, but rather than promoting a balanced view of sexuality, they have moved to a view that since innocence is not really realistic, the only realistic sexuality is lust-filled, depraved and devoid of genuine concern. The opposite of the Disney effect is a cynicism that has not really replaced Disney, only rejected the angelic innocence it sees as unattainable. So you see the rise of the sympathetic portrayals of multiple sex partners, none of which ever carry any real respect since the object is not intimacy, but self-fulfillment. The longing search for the Disney ideal, condemned to perpetually fail makes the modern vision of sex almost Sisyphean in nature.
But here's my second point. Christians have largely been equally as stupid about their portrayals of sexuality both in the popular medium and in their teachings. I would argue that Christian traditionalists who harken back to a golden era of good sexuality have idolized a form of sex that is totally devoid of reality. In fact, the key problem for Christians is that they actually find their sexuality reality not through a well-constructed theology, but from a reaction against what they perceive in the culture around them. Christian sexual ethics seems to be mostly built around the idea of "don't do what those people are doing." What this does is create a false dichotomy between Christian sexual ethics and the whole idea of sexuality. It actually works to spiritualize sexuality in a way that divorces it from reality. So Christians are committed to finding a sexuality that is not at all related to them, but is rather counter-related to a preconceived notion of what the world does.
The spiritualization of Christian sexuality especially works to idealize elements of sexual fulfillment. Perhaps better put, not so much idealize as Christianize. This has a long history in Christian thought that is partially due to most theology being written by single men. The humanity intrinsic to sexuality becomes spiritualized and compartmentalized in order to properly control the passions. You find this a lot in studies of Christian marriages, where the spouses become estranged over time not because they don't get along, but because they can't open up. There is also a built in failure foundation to Christian marriage because since sexuality is transformed into a spiritual experience, the real thing necessarily fails to live up to the hype. So sexuality is both a prized possession that is kept in lockup until marriage and then when it is released it is immediately undermined by the sheer weight of expectation. You wonder why so many Christian teens have sex before marriage. The expectations of holy withdrawal are preposterous and dangerous.
Again, this may just be me opening up after a long time of holding it in, but I have a lot of concerns about this area. I totally reject the idea that sexuality is so normal that humanity does itself a disservice by not getting it on all the time with however happens to be next. I also reject the idea that sexuality is a purely spiritual act between "soul-mates" before God. Like most of life sexuality is complex, related to the whole human experience and also deeply relevant to a person's spiritual walk. I guess I want to promote a Godly humanism that rejects humanist self-sufficiency, but also avoids the pedestals of both Disney and modern Christianity. A sexuality that is God-given, natural, beautiful AND cooperative, sacrificial, friendly and respectful. No sappy love songs playing over this scene. No absurd idealism, nor depraved cynicism.
Of course all this comes from a guy who has been up to bat exactly once and whiffed in three straight pitches. So take with a grain of salt. =)
Brilliantly Biting Commentary
Read this for the humor, and then read it again for the subtle attack on rationales behind limiting women in the ministry. Great stuff. Thanks to a friend of Swagman for this one.
---------------------------------------------
Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
10. A man's place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths; repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
---------------------------------------------
Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
10. A man's place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths; repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
Lies Sung Through a Golden Web
It seems the demise of mythology has been greatly exaggerated.
I have a seemingly personal vendetta against practically all things modern. And by modern, I mean modernist. I hate modernist architecture. I despise the assumption of scientific truth through sterile methodology. The list goes on and on. One of the things that most displeases me about modernism is its vapid inability to comprehend the power of story - of narrative. Perhaps a better way of putting that would be that modernism assumes it is beyond mythology.
The book I'm reading now, The Myth of the American Superhero talks at length about how scholarship for much of the 20th century largely discounted the power of myth in the modern world. This despite the incredible growth of mythological figures embodied in comics and even more powerfully in the mythology perpetuated by fascist Germany. Of course it seems likely that the power of the Nazi mythology was largely discounted because of what happened during the war. That being said, it seems painfully ignorant of scholars to dismiss mythology simply because it doesn't actually work in real life. If mythology depended on real life for its vitality the ancient Greeks wouldn't have gotten very far.
As much as modernism loses itself in delusions of its own importance, postmodernism loses itself in delusions of the story as truth. But rather than fan my self-righteousness by bashing both modernism and postmodernism, I want to engage in a question of mythology... backwards.
One of the most hilarious things about modern scholarship is how seriously they take ancient mythology. This is not to say that there are not serious things to take out of it. But lets examine the duality between how they view the stories of the Greek heroes and modern stories of Superman, etc. For the most part modern mythology, as exemplified in comic books, is discounted as pop culture rabble. The lowbrow beatings of cultural ignoramus. Take the derision Star Trek fans are shown. Really take your pick. Modern mythology is seen as backwards and petty. But if you really take a step back and look at ancient mythology you will see that very little of it relates to the sort of classical veneer we've painted it with over the centuries. Modern scholarship (and I graduated with a degree in Classical Studies so I'm part of the problem) has largely romanticized the classical (note the word choice) mythology.
If you take a serious look at the ancient world and the modern world we find amazing similarities between the lowbrow mythology of the masses and the highbrow assumptions that mythology doesn't really have an affect. Both worlds are much more complex than the assumption of the ancients as superstitious rusticans and the modern world as enlightened technocrats.
That being said, the idea that mythology is largely a fiction is absolutely true. Campbell recognizes this in his classic "Hero With a Thousand Faces" when he describes the archetypes of mythology. They are largely tailored to community building through the shared narrative of exit, challenge and triumph. Likewise, the American myth of the superhero can be traced to a subversion of the Christian worldview into a secular environment while retaining the framework of a savior-required mess. Communist mythology, anarchist mythology, democratic mythology... they all carry the same basic premise that, while it is not necessarily factual, the story carries power that can stir the soul.
But if we allow that... what is our next step? You might argue that it would be easier to just view the whole mythological premise as perfunctory and unnecessary. But what if we took a step back and saw the mythological demand that doesn't seem to go away no matter how hard we try as something other than a pre-modern tendency of ours to subvert the evolutionary drive towards a higher intelligence? What if we assumed for a moment that the mythology we try to create isn't just an opiate, but is rather a deeply held need?
Tolkien and Lewis argued that mythology, while being "false" echoed truth. And this is where I fault postmodernism since they have no ability to digest truth outside of the assumptions of the story. The argument is that mythology really is an attempt to retell the same story and fill the same need. What is that story? That book I'm reading points to a common American mythological motif, the Eden before the fall. So we can argue that Americans are willfully disingenuous about seeing their country as Eden and therefore altruistic in everything it does. And we would be right. But there is an echo here of something more. What if the story of an Eden and the right purpose in life was actually true? False stories point to a truth.
Now what makes these stories false if they point to something true? Here I think we have to explore the idea that what makes the story true is exactly what makes it impossible to replicate outside of its truest telling. The Eden story is impossible to replicate because there really is no Eden. Obviously. Likewise, the need for a savior is impossible to replicate because we have never discovered a savior to take that role. The mythological stories are created to fulfill a need that cannot otherwise be filled. And you wonder why mythology is filled with "special creatures" or "god-like heroes." You can't have a mythology without them. And why is this? Because the need for a savior demands something special. But since we obviously aren't special we create Superman to fill that void. Why?
We seem to create a new savior at every turn. Haven't we evolved past that pre-modern mindset? I don't think so. The demand is always there because the need has yet to be filled. Unless... the need is already filled and we just don't know it yet. Mythology... lies that point to a truth.
I love reading about how Christianity is so backward looking because we live in a world dominated by these pre-modern fantasies. I love reading about the geniuses of our age and the ages before how did away with the fantasy of God and replaced Him with their brilliant thoughts. I love how history shows again and again that no matter how hard we try the fantasy of God has a strange pull over the hearts of humanity. I love the complexity, the failures and the faults. I love all of it because it shows me overwhelmingly that despite my best efforts I am bound to a true fantasy.
I have a seemingly personal vendetta against practically all things modern. And by modern, I mean modernist. I hate modernist architecture. I despise the assumption of scientific truth through sterile methodology. The list goes on and on. One of the things that most displeases me about modernism is its vapid inability to comprehend the power of story - of narrative. Perhaps a better way of putting that would be that modernism assumes it is beyond mythology.
The book I'm reading now, The Myth of the American Superhero talks at length about how scholarship for much of the 20th century largely discounted the power of myth in the modern world. This despite the incredible growth of mythological figures embodied in comics and even more powerfully in the mythology perpetuated by fascist Germany. Of course it seems likely that the power of the Nazi mythology was largely discounted because of what happened during the war. That being said, it seems painfully ignorant of scholars to dismiss mythology simply because it doesn't actually work in real life. If mythology depended on real life for its vitality the ancient Greeks wouldn't have gotten very far.
As much as modernism loses itself in delusions of its own importance, postmodernism loses itself in delusions of the story as truth. But rather than fan my self-righteousness by bashing both modernism and postmodernism, I want to engage in a question of mythology... backwards.
One of the most hilarious things about modern scholarship is how seriously they take ancient mythology. This is not to say that there are not serious things to take out of it. But lets examine the duality between how they view the stories of the Greek heroes and modern stories of Superman, etc. For the most part modern mythology, as exemplified in comic books, is discounted as pop culture rabble. The lowbrow beatings of cultural ignoramus. Take the derision Star Trek fans are shown. Really take your pick. Modern mythology is seen as backwards and petty. But if you really take a step back and look at ancient mythology you will see that very little of it relates to the sort of classical veneer we've painted it with over the centuries. Modern scholarship (and I graduated with a degree in Classical Studies so I'm part of the problem) has largely romanticized the classical (note the word choice) mythology.
If you take a serious look at the ancient world and the modern world we find amazing similarities between the lowbrow mythology of the masses and the highbrow assumptions that mythology doesn't really have an affect. Both worlds are much more complex than the assumption of the ancients as superstitious rusticans and the modern world as enlightened technocrats.
That being said, the idea that mythology is largely a fiction is absolutely true. Campbell recognizes this in his classic "Hero With a Thousand Faces" when he describes the archetypes of mythology. They are largely tailored to community building through the shared narrative of exit, challenge and triumph. Likewise, the American myth of the superhero can be traced to a subversion of the Christian worldview into a secular environment while retaining the framework of a savior-required mess. Communist mythology, anarchist mythology, democratic mythology... they all carry the same basic premise that, while it is not necessarily factual, the story carries power that can stir the soul.
But if we allow that... what is our next step? You might argue that it would be easier to just view the whole mythological premise as perfunctory and unnecessary. But what if we took a step back and saw the mythological demand that doesn't seem to go away no matter how hard we try as something other than a pre-modern tendency of ours to subvert the evolutionary drive towards a higher intelligence? What if we assumed for a moment that the mythology we try to create isn't just an opiate, but is rather a deeply held need?
Tolkien and Lewis argued that mythology, while being "false" echoed truth. And this is where I fault postmodernism since they have no ability to digest truth outside of the assumptions of the story. The argument is that mythology really is an attempt to retell the same story and fill the same need. What is that story? That book I'm reading points to a common American mythological motif, the Eden before the fall. So we can argue that Americans are willfully disingenuous about seeing their country as Eden and therefore altruistic in everything it does. And we would be right. But there is an echo here of something more. What if the story of an Eden and the right purpose in life was actually true? False stories point to a truth.
Now what makes these stories false if they point to something true? Here I think we have to explore the idea that what makes the story true is exactly what makes it impossible to replicate outside of its truest telling. The Eden story is impossible to replicate because there really is no Eden. Obviously. Likewise, the need for a savior is impossible to replicate because we have never discovered a savior to take that role. The mythological stories are created to fulfill a need that cannot otherwise be filled. And you wonder why mythology is filled with "special creatures" or "god-like heroes." You can't have a mythology without them. And why is this? Because the need for a savior demands something special. But since we obviously aren't special we create Superman to fill that void. Why?
We seem to create a new savior at every turn. Haven't we evolved past that pre-modern mindset? I don't think so. The demand is always there because the need has yet to be filled. Unless... the need is already filled and we just don't know it yet. Mythology... lies that point to a truth.
I love reading about how Christianity is so backward looking because we live in a world dominated by these pre-modern fantasies. I love reading about the geniuses of our age and the ages before how did away with the fantasy of God and replaced Him with their brilliant thoughts. I love how history shows again and again that no matter how hard we try the fantasy of God has a strange pull over the hearts of humanity. I love the complexity, the failures and the faults. I love all of it because it shows me overwhelmingly that despite my best efforts I am bound to a true fantasy.
Opening It Up to the Peanut Gallery
Jared (he who either never updates his blog or can't because of the censors) English sent me an e-mail question that really got me thinking. (Pardon to Maria English who actually sent the question.)
I tried to answer the best I could but the question keeps popping back into my head. Sure, Trinitarian theology is probably the closest thing to angels dancing on the heads of pins, but the application of the Trinity in the Christian life is absolutely crucial. So I wonder about the question and the virtual Pandora’s box it opens. I'm not going to answer my question here, nor am I leaving it as a rhetorical question. Rather, I just wanted to ask and see if anyone had ideas, impressions or such. Or as some of you might remember... comments, questions or answers?
We know that God is 3 in 1. And all are equally God. So then we do we use the
article "the" before Holy Spirit? This sounds like a demotion because its not a
proper noun like God or Jesus.
I tried to answer the best I could but the question keeps popping back into my head. Sure, Trinitarian theology is probably the closest thing to angels dancing on the heads of pins, but the application of the Trinity in the Christian life is absolutely crucial. So I wonder about the question and the virtual Pandora’s box it opens. I'm not going to answer my question here, nor am I leaving it as a rhetorical question. Rather, I just wanted to ask and see if anyone had ideas, impressions or such. Or as some of you might remember... comments, questions or answers?
Literally... Beauty and the Beast
Time Online has an absolutely hilarious article about the growing trend of marrying outside your hotness level. Interfacial marriage as the author describes it. GO READ RIGHT NOW! It'll make your day.
Critical Questions in Manned Space Flight
"So, uh... do you wanna have sex?"
CNN has a very good article (with some humorous undertones) about NASA's attempts to create an ethical framework for issues that might arise on long-distance space travel. One of the questions you might not think of right off the top of your head is this: what do young healthy people do during the three years it takes to get to Mars? One of the obvious responses (noting that space travel is now open to men and women alike) is to have sex.
Ethical theory on earth aside for a moment, this raises all kinds of fascinating questions and possibilities. The article raises a lot more questions as well, but this one is supposed to catch your attention (for good reason). What is the best way to get people interested in theory? Base the question on something like sex.
So what do you think? If you were on a spaceship heading to Mars, and knowing that it would take three years to get there, and being around that age - how about it?
And people think theory isn't fun...
CNN has a very good article (with some humorous undertones) about NASA's attempts to create an ethical framework for issues that might arise on long-distance space travel. One of the questions you might not think of right off the top of your head is this: what do young healthy people do during the three years it takes to get to Mars? One of the obvious responses (noting that space travel is now open to men and women alike) is to have sex.
Ethical theory on earth aside for a moment, this raises all kinds of fascinating questions and possibilities. The article raises a lot more questions as well, but this one is supposed to catch your attention (for good reason). What is the best way to get people interested in theory? Base the question on something like sex.
So what do you think? If you were on a spaceship heading to Mars, and knowing that it would take three years to get there, and being around that age - how about it?
And people think theory isn't fun...
Monday, March 23
Slideshow Euphoria
My family had an Easter get-together this afternoon. We had a wonderful dinner and a great time of fellowship with my parents, siblings and 4 and 1/2 grandkids (my sister is 7 months pregnant). After dinner we went downstairs and my dad set up his 30 year old slide projector to view some of the 1500 slides my parents have from their early days on the mission field and also from my grandparents.
Both my older sisters remember being out in the Philippines when my parents served there. I was only 4 when I left so I don't have any memories of it that I can recall beyond extremely vague snippets. My dad tells me that I spoke the local language as fluently as any native born 4 year old, but I haven't spoken it since so I wouldn't know. Both my sisters spoke it as well. But seeing those old slides with pictures of me eating and dressed in a brown suit type outfit was so funny that all of us were on the floor laughing. The pictures of my sisters were equally funny and they could remember a lot of the details shown in the pictures which added a whole new level to what we were watching.
It reminded me again of how much I enjoy looking at those old pictures. I often will recollect with other MKs (Missionary Kids) how much fun slideshows are, much to the utter amazement of other friends. I look forward to seeing those slides and photos that we showed in churches when we came back on vacations. The memories are absolutely golden. Things I hadn't remembered in years all of a sudden come rushing back into focus. Its wonderful.
At the same time it also provides my family with great ammunition for the day (if ever) I get married. They can pull out all these classics of young me. Oh well, at least there's some good stories.
Both my older sisters remember being out in the Philippines when my parents served there. I was only 4 when I left so I don't have any memories of it that I can recall beyond extremely vague snippets. My dad tells me that I spoke the local language as fluently as any native born 4 year old, but I haven't spoken it since so I wouldn't know. Both my sisters spoke it as well. But seeing those old slides with pictures of me eating and dressed in a brown suit type outfit was so funny that all of us were on the floor laughing. The pictures of my sisters were equally funny and they could remember a lot of the details shown in the pictures which added a whole new level to what we were watching.
It reminded me again of how much I enjoy looking at those old pictures. I often will recollect with other MKs (Missionary Kids) how much fun slideshows are, much to the utter amazement of other friends. I look forward to seeing those slides and photos that we showed in churches when we came back on vacations. The memories are absolutely golden. Things I hadn't remembered in years all of a sudden come rushing back into focus. Its wonderful.
At the same time it also provides my family with great ammunition for the day (if ever) I get married. They can pull out all these classics of young me. Oh well, at least there's some good stories.
How Do You Talk About Death in a Good Way?
Today is Good Friday, one of the most important days in the Christian liturgical year. For many Christians the irony is not lost on calling the day that Jesus was nailed to the cross "Good Friday." Its a way of both acknowledging what happened and showing how the sacrifice of Jesus initiated a new way of looking at the world. So the irony of calling Good Friday "Good Friday" is something that should be kept strongly in focus.
That being said. Its always hard to talk about Jesus' death on the cross in anything but a penitential spirit. Do you know what I mean? Passion Week is a week dedicated to the last days of Jesus before his gruesome death. Its a time to remember what He did for the world. But its far too easy to be caught up in the brutality, the horror of the act. Catholics in the Philippines take these remembrences to an astonishing extreme by having themselves crucified for a short time to experience some of the torment that Jesus went through. Yet, this is not the point of Passion Week, and its to the Church's credit that they largely disavow these extreme practices.
How do you talk about Jesus' death and not get caught up in the darkness? Penitence only makes sense if there is hope beyond. Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was a hard movie to watch, but it was more difficult because it focused too much on death and not on the whole point of Passion Week - Easter. Resurrection Sunday is the culmination of Passion Week. Its the day that brings the truest meaning to the despair that Christians remember throughout the week. Good Friday presents the paradox of God becoming man and dying for us. Easter Sunday shows us the paradox of God saving those who have lived under the threat of condemnation through sheer grace.
Only the penitent will understand the true joy of a hope made real on Sunday. But it is only that hope that allows the penitent to move beyond their tears.
That being said. Its always hard to talk about Jesus' death on the cross in anything but a penitential spirit. Do you know what I mean? Passion Week is a week dedicated to the last days of Jesus before his gruesome death. Its a time to remember what He did for the world. But its far too easy to be caught up in the brutality, the horror of the act. Catholics in the Philippines take these remembrences to an astonishing extreme by having themselves crucified for a short time to experience some of the torment that Jesus went through. Yet, this is not the point of Passion Week, and its to the Church's credit that they largely disavow these extreme practices.
How do you talk about Jesus' death and not get caught up in the darkness? Penitence only makes sense if there is hope beyond. Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was a hard movie to watch, but it was more difficult because it focused too much on death and not on the whole point of Passion Week - Easter. Resurrection Sunday is the culmination of Passion Week. Its the day that brings the truest meaning to the despair that Christians remember throughout the week. Good Friday presents the paradox of God becoming man and dying for us. Easter Sunday shows us the paradox of God saving those who have lived under the threat of condemnation through sheer grace.
Only the penitent will understand the true joy of a hope made real on Sunday. But it is only that hope that allows the penitent to move beyond their tears.
Knowing the Right Guys
Sorry, no update tonight. I was going to write something more profound, but my car needed a new alternator so I brought it to a friend from church who changed it for me tonight. How great is that? Everyone needs to know one person who is skilled with cars. At least I do, seeing that I know just about nothing. Nor do I care that much.
Anyway, thanks Ken!
Anyway, thanks Ken!
Breaking in the New Pad
I remember my first post on Blogger... story continues for a while...
Anyway, I just wanted to announce my new blog site with the same name as my old one. I like that name quite a lot. I'll be posting here from now on, although I will keep checking my old site and perhaps even update once in a while there just to keep it going. I'm not going to transfer any of my old posts over here. Too much work and not enough caring on my part.
So, what should my first post be about? Meh... I'll just leave it at the announcement and commence with the boring rants as soon as I feel inspired.
Anyway, I just wanted to announce my new blog site with the same name as my old one. I like that name quite a lot. I'll be posting here from now on, although I will keep checking my old site and perhaps even update once in a while there just to keep it going. I'm not going to transfer any of my old posts over here. Too much work and not enough caring on my part.
So, what should my first post be about? Meh... I'll just leave it at the announcement and commence with the boring rants as soon as I feel inspired.
The Truth in a Mirror
I've been trying to develop some blog posts that incorporate more intellectual material, but I haven't been very inspired lately. So I've been posting quite a bit about myself, which may or may not be a good thing.
In any case, after working at losing weight for the last six months or so I've gotten fairly close to where I want to end up. I still have a few more pounds to drop and I'm doing crunches every night so the weight I do have looks better on me. (Good grief, and I always imagined I didn't care about how I looked.) But overall the weight loss program I put myself on worked remarkably well. The stationary bike I bought has payed for itself and I continue to ride every night. I started doing those crunches which I was always afraid of before, but have gotten much more into lately. And my eating habits (while not as perfect as they could be) are a hundred times better than they were before.
What continues to trouble me is looking in the mirror in my bathroom. People at church have pulled me aside and asked if I've lost weight. My siblings and parents have noticed the change as well. But looking in the mirror I continue to be plagued with an underlying self-doubt about my progress. I know I look better. I know I feel better. But the hardest part of losing weight for me is changing how I view myself from the inside out. One of the reasons I let myself go and gain so much weight was because I've always struggled with my image and my self-worth. Obviously you get caught in a self-defeating spiral and that is exactly what happened to me. But even now (after losing close to 40 pounds) I still carry myself defensively.
Perhaps the issue is not really related to either being overweight or having lost weight. I had thought that skinny people had better self-images based solely on their appearance. I know that is simplistic, but that is what I thought. Of course skinny people have just as many doubts as overweight people, but I had wished to myself that I could self-help my image issues by losing weight. It worked to some degree, but there is something about the inner me that is not reflected in the mirror.
You hear again and again how people are attracted to physical beauty. There is an obvious truth to that on the surface. But this meditation on my inner self has taught me more fully about the beauty, or the ugliness on the inside and how people can see that as well. Mirrors don't always tell the truth.
In any case, after working at losing weight for the last six months or so I've gotten fairly close to where I want to end up. I still have a few more pounds to drop and I'm doing crunches every night so the weight I do have looks better on me. (Good grief, and I always imagined I didn't care about how I looked.) But overall the weight loss program I put myself on worked remarkably well. The stationary bike I bought has payed for itself and I continue to ride every night. I started doing those crunches which I was always afraid of before, but have gotten much more into lately. And my eating habits (while not as perfect as they could be) are a hundred times better than they were before.
What continues to trouble me is looking in the mirror in my bathroom. People at church have pulled me aside and asked if I've lost weight. My siblings and parents have noticed the change as well. But looking in the mirror I continue to be plagued with an underlying self-doubt about my progress. I know I look better. I know I feel better. But the hardest part of losing weight for me is changing how I view myself from the inside out. One of the reasons I let myself go and gain so much weight was because I've always struggled with my image and my self-worth. Obviously you get caught in a self-defeating spiral and that is exactly what happened to me. But even now (after losing close to 40 pounds) I still carry myself defensively.
Perhaps the issue is not really related to either being overweight or having lost weight. I had thought that skinny people had better self-images based solely on their appearance. I know that is simplistic, but that is what I thought. Of course skinny people have just as many doubts as overweight people, but I had wished to myself that I could self-help my image issues by losing weight. It worked to some degree, but there is something about the inner me that is not reflected in the mirror.
You hear again and again how people are attracted to physical beauty. There is an obvious truth to that on the surface. But this meditation on my inner self has taught me more fully about the beauty, or the ugliness on the inside and how people can see that as well. Mirrors don't always tell the truth.
Writing News Stories from the Middle East
The Onion has a rather brilliant story about the continuing violence in the Middle East. It is so brilliant you could read it 20 years ago, today or 10 years from now and it would still make sense.
Oh, the Humanity!
For some unknown reason the last two apartments I have lived in have had wonderful views out of the main window. And both of these views have been viciously torn away by "progress." In the last apartment it was a golf course (very well manicured and nice trees) that was destroyed to make way for an abomination called subdivisions - complete with fake lakes. This time I had some beautiful large trees and bushes that hid my apartment from prying eyes. But the owner of the property decided to tear down all the trees and now there is nothing but a desolate wasteland between my window and the road.
Progress? Humph! Its disgraceful, disgusting and basically vile what is done in the name of progress. Of course, I may just be complaining because I no longer have a beautiful view. But lets assume I'm not as egotistical as we all know I am. For the sake of all things natural - leave me some trees!
Progress? Humph! Its disgraceful, disgusting and basically vile what is done in the name of progress. Of course, I may just be complaining because I no longer have a beautiful view. But lets assume I'm not as egotistical as we all know I am. For the sake of all things natural - leave me some trees!
Guamish Mating Rituals (No Dancing Involved)
I've written several blog posts about my fascination with attraction. Not so much being attracted, but the why of attraction. And in particular, the why of individual tastes in attraction. Clearly different people have different things that they look for in potential mates. I've always been extremely curious about what determines those factors and if in fact they play a role in bringing people together.
Just to give some quick examples from my own experience. The bottom line attraction factor for me is that a woman has to be a Christian. I know that sounds generic, but I've discovered that if I meet someone who possesses all the traits I like in women, but is not a Christian I find her interesting, but not attractive. That's been true for as long as I can remember. The other thing that instantly pops into my head is she has to be a non-smoker. I kid you not, I can see a supermodel, but if she smokes I am instantly repulsed. Its almost a gut, physical reaction. Purely on the physical side I'm generally attracted to women with long, dark, curly hair. Why hair? I have no idea.
However, all those factors listed above are simply abstractions. I can't love abstractions. And so attraction takes on a messiness of reality that complicates the whole process. Quite frankly I'm not sure what got me thinking about this again, but here I am. Maybe I'm just a little lonely tonight (awwwww!).
P.S. The two key factors for me that are absolute, non-negotiable are:
1). Christian
2). She has to meet my Oma and pass inspection. =)
of course knowing who Julius Caesar was certainly helps.
Just to give some quick examples from my own experience. The bottom line attraction factor for me is that a woman has to be a Christian. I know that sounds generic, but I've discovered that if I meet someone who possesses all the traits I like in women, but is not a Christian I find her interesting, but not attractive. That's been true for as long as I can remember. The other thing that instantly pops into my head is she has to be a non-smoker. I kid you not, I can see a supermodel, but if she smokes I am instantly repulsed. Its almost a gut, physical reaction. Purely on the physical side I'm generally attracted to women with long, dark, curly hair. Why hair? I have no idea.
However, all those factors listed above are simply abstractions. I can't love abstractions. And so attraction takes on a messiness of reality that complicates the whole process. Quite frankly I'm not sure what got me thinking about this again, but here I am. Maybe I'm just a little lonely tonight (awwwww!).
P.S. The two key factors for me that are absolute, non-negotiable are:
1). Christian
2). She has to meet my Oma and pass inspection. =)
of course knowing who Julius Caesar was certainly helps.
Behold the Feet of Him Who Brings Good News
I've been fascinated with a renewed sense of idolotry lately. I'm currently reading a comprehensive history of the Reformation (much more than simply Luther, Calvin and the Anabaptists) and the theme of a highly radical suspicion of anything remotely idolotrous crops up again and again - especially among the Reformed groups in Reformational Europe. For some reason this struck me especially hard when reading about it.
I think partially because I've been reading so much about Scripture (and by Scripture I mean the idea of Scripture). What does it mean to have God's revelation? Is Scripture only Scripture in the original language? Etc... Perhaps I'm also drawn to this because of my fascinating with the comparison and contrast between Christianity and Islam. There is a saying that "as the Qur'an is to Islam, so Jesus is to Christianity; and as Muhammad is to Islam, so the Bible is to Christianity." The point of the saying is to show that Islam does not worship Muhammad in any way like Christians worship Jesus. At the same time the Qur'an is viewed as Islam's holy book only in its original 7th century Arabic and is not considered the real thing in translation. While the Bible is considered Christians holy book whether in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or any other language it has been translated into.
What is striking for me though is Christians continued inability to grasp the position of Scripture in their lives. Or perhaps I should better say that Christians have never developed a clear understanding of the identity of Scripture. All too often different versions are granted superior positions of authority for clearly cultural, ethnocentric, or even supposedly prophetic reasons. We had one lady come in the bookstore in Guam and ask for the "Holy Bible." When my mom took her to the Bible section she shook her head and again asked for the "Holy Bible." So my mom had to ask which version she wanted. Not surprisingly she wanted the King James Version, which to her was the only true "Holy Bible."
In my discussions with other people on Library Thing we have been talking about which version of the Bible we read. Many people use the King James, while most others use either the NIV or any number of other translations. I prefer the NRSV myself, but that is mostly because it is easier to study from because it sticks closer to the original language. But again people have brought up points about how translations change certain parts of the Bible. My book on the Reformation points to Luther changing certain sections in his German translation to fit his own theological agenda, contra Catholics. All this leads me to question the idea of Biblical literalism.
Its rather easy to say that the Bible is inspired. But for me the idea of Biblical literalism exchanges the message, the Good News for the messanger, namely the varied texts that make up the Bible. To a certain extent it suggests that the the Bible is a thing to be worshiped. I always get extremely nervous in churches that have gold covered Bibles.
I suppose that my Reformed background has given me a fear of idolotry. I don't want to make it sound like I'm willing to change parts of the Bible for lack of respect of it as a wholistic revelation. Far from that. Rather, it seems to me that the ongoing power of the Bible for Christians is its ability to speak in different languages and cultures by being both a base of faith and a sounding board for the growth of an authentic faith identity in the lives of believers. The dialogue between God and humanity is both represented in the Biblical story as well as continued and reflected in the ongoing life of the Church around the world. In that way the Bible is both inspired, authentic and totally able to be translated. All without falling victim to seeing it as a holy object. That is dangerous.
I think partially because I've been reading so much about Scripture (and by Scripture I mean the idea of Scripture). What does it mean to have God's revelation? Is Scripture only Scripture in the original language? Etc... Perhaps I'm also drawn to this because of my fascinating with the comparison and contrast between Christianity and Islam. There is a saying that "as the Qur'an is to Islam, so Jesus is to Christianity; and as Muhammad is to Islam, so the Bible is to Christianity." The point of the saying is to show that Islam does not worship Muhammad in any way like Christians worship Jesus. At the same time the Qur'an is viewed as Islam's holy book only in its original 7th century Arabic and is not considered the real thing in translation. While the Bible is considered Christians holy book whether in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or any other language it has been translated into.
What is striking for me though is Christians continued inability to grasp the position of Scripture in their lives. Or perhaps I should better say that Christians have never developed a clear understanding of the identity of Scripture. All too often different versions are granted superior positions of authority for clearly cultural, ethnocentric, or even supposedly prophetic reasons. We had one lady come in the bookstore in Guam and ask for the "Holy Bible." When my mom took her to the Bible section she shook her head and again asked for the "Holy Bible." So my mom had to ask which version she wanted. Not surprisingly she wanted the King James Version, which to her was the only true "Holy Bible."
In my discussions with other people on Library Thing we have been talking about which version of the Bible we read. Many people use the King James, while most others use either the NIV or any number of other translations. I prefer the NRSV myself, but that is mostly because it is easier to study from because it sticks closer to the original language. But again people have brought up points about how translations change certain parts of the Bible. My book on the Reformation points to Luther changing certain sections in his German translation to fit his own theological agenda, contra Catholics. All this leads me to question the idea of Biblical literalism.
Its rather easy to say that the Bible is inspired. But for me the idea of Biblical literalism exchanges the message, the Good News for the messanger, namely the varied texts that make up the Bible. To a certain extent it suggests that the the Bible is a thing to be worshiped. I always get extremely nervous in churches that have gold covered Bibles.
I suppose that my Reformed background has given me a fear of idolotry. I don't want to make it sound like I'm willing to change parts of the Bible for lack of respect of it as a wholistic revelation. Far from that. Rather, it seems to me that the ongoing power of the Bible for Christians is its ability to speak in different languages and cultures by being both a base of faith and a sounding board for the growth of an authentic faith identity in the lives of believers. The dialogue between God and humanity is both represented in the Biblical story as well as continued and reflected in the ongoing life of the Church around the world. In that way the Bible is both inspired, authentic and totally able to be translated. All without falling victim to seeing it as a holy object. That is dangerous.
Happiness is Thinking I Think
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
- Don Marquis
- Don Marquis
Painting the Forest, While Forgetting the Trees
There has been some recent speculation in the headlines that at least one aspect of President Bush's surge in Iraq is gaining significant headway. Despite the horrific attacks that killed over 200 in Baghdad on Tuesday alone there has been a quiet story building in al-Anbar province. The local Sunni tribes have begun moving against al-Qaeda elements who used to depend on these tribes for protection. This is being trumpeted as a chink in the insurgency, possibly a chink that can be exploited to remove the local support for insurgents while at the same time moving Sunnis closer in line to the government in Baghdad.
However, we have to look more closely at the situation. President Bush has argued extensively that the insurgency is split between several different groups, all of which want to bring down the government. In such a scheme we would assume that with local Sunni tribes breaking away from the foreign jihadi elements they would naturally seek a strong ally with the national goverment. That oversimplifies the insurgency however. Bush has also argued that by defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq we will have defeated the "terrorists." But lets assume for a moment that al-Qaeda does not have a strong foundation in Iraq and the elements usually associated with it are either splinter groups or fame seekers attempting to hop on the al-Qaeda name. There is little evidence that there is any operational control between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency (even with the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). With local Sunni tribes moving against al-Qaeda it begs the question - what happens next? If al-Qaeda's influence in Iraq (whether that be operational or inspirational) is sidetracked it does not answer the fundamental question about the Sunni fears over disinfranchisement in the new government run by majority Shi'ites and nominally nationalistic Kurds.
The fact that Sunni tribes in al-Anbar province are turning against al-Qaeda actually suggests something more complicated. Namely, that the Sunni insurgency is centralizing and reidentifying itself along its traditional nationalist lines and ignoring the attempts of al-Qaeda to paint their struggle as pan-Arab. While this is a blow to al-Qaeda it also suggests that the Bush administration fails to adequately understand the geo-political underpinnings of the Iraq situation. It also narrows the administration's ability to define its enemies as a monolithic terrorist movement under the banner of al-Qaeda. Roughly speaking, the success in al-Anbar means that Bush administration's justification for fighting in Iraq is no longer applicable. We are no longer fighting "terrorists" as the President has often claimed, but we are fighting a purely Iraqi insurgency that feels outside the political arena and wants in on the power grab.
However, we have to look more closely at the situation. President Bush has argued extensively that the insurgency is split between several different groups, all of which want to bring down the government. In such a scheme we would assume that with local Sunni tribes breaking away from the foreign jihadi elements they would naturally seek a strong ally with the national goverment. That oversimplifies the insurgency however. Bush has also argued that by defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq we will have defeated the "terrorists." But lets assume for a moment that al-Qaeda does not have a strong foundation in Iraq and the elements usually associated with it are either splinter groups or fame seekers attempting to hop on the al-Qaeda name. There is little evidence that there is any operational control between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency (even with the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). With local Sunni tribes moving against al-Qaeda it begs the question - what happens next? If al-Qaeda's influence in Iraq (whether that be operational or inspirational) is sidetracked it does not answer the fundamental question about the Sunni fears over disinfranchisement in the new government run by majority Shi'ites and nominally nationalistic Kurds.
The fact that Sunni tribes in al-Anbar province are turning against al-Qaeda actually suggests something more complicated. Namely, that the Sunni insurgency is centralizing and reidentifying itself along its traditional nationalist lines and ignoring the attempts of al-Qaeda to paint their struggle as pan-Arab. While this is a blow to al-Qaeda it also suggests that the Bush administration fails to adequately understand the geo-political underpinnings of the Iraq situation. It also narrows the administration's ability to define its enemies as a monolithic terrorist movement under the banner of al-Qaeda. Roughly speaking, the success in al-Anbar means that Bush administration's justification for fighting in Iraq is no longer applicable. We are no longer fighting "terrorists" as the President has often claimed, but we are fighting a purely Iraqi insurgency that feels outside the political arena and wants in on the power grab.
Upon the Ending of Innocence
The idea that we are shaken away from an implicit innocence every time America suffers another mass killing does not explain the rawness of what happened yesterday. Clearly we are far from innocents watching in bewilderment as bad things happen around us. That being said, the reaction to the slaughter at Virginia Tech exemplifies something deep about who we are as Americans.
The American mythology likes to explain the American person as unique, individualized and for the most part moralistically innocent. It seems like every time we have a Columbine or a 9/11 the media reacts as if the American people have no history with such horrors. And the American people themselves tap into this reserve of our shared narrative to explain, to justify, and to hope that the innocence may eventually return. Innocence creates a position of power over chaos. We grasp at imaginary answers (including religious ones) and return to what makes the most sense... that we are fundamentally innocent. It cannot be anything else.
Have you read the stories about the shooting? Have you seen the videos? Have you wept over the lose of so many innocents? I have, and will continue to do so the next time these horrors visit the US. The time between events like this make a mockery of our perceived innocence. But the power of this particular American narrative cannot be denied.
The question I'm left struggling with after the tears is this: does our "innocence" prevent us from fixing the problems that result in yet another day when we are left speechless?
The American mythology likes to explain the American person as unique, individualized and for the most part moralistically innocent. It seems like every time we have a Columbine or a 9/11 the media reacts as if the American people have no history with such horrors. And the American people themselves tap into this reserve of our shared narrative to explain, to justify, and to hope that the innocence may eventually return. Innocence creates a position of power over chaos. We grasp at imaginary answers (including religious ones) and return to what makes the most sense... that we are fundamentally innocent. It cannot be anything else.
Have you read the stories about the shooting? Have you seen the videos? Have you wept over the lose of so many innocents? I have, and will continue to do so the next time these horrors visit the US. The time between events like this make a mockery of our perceived innocence. But the power of this particular American narrative cannot be denied.
The question I'm left struggling with after the tears is this: does our "innocence" prevent us from fixing the problems that result in yet another day when we are left speechless?
A Reminder
For those of my readers who want to comment on my posting, please remember that the comments are now found at the top of each post rather than at the bottom. Its opposite what it was on my old blog. There has been some confusion about that and I should have pointed it out. Anyway, just something to note.
Unfortunate Movie Suckatude and the Why
I rented I, Robot this afternoon. It is an adaptation of the series of short stories by Isaac Asimov about robots writen several decades ago. Unfortunately I have not read the short stories, but I do have a thing for Sci/Fi so I thought what the heck. The whole movie is based on the premise of the Three Laws of Robotics that Asimov suggested in his short stories and their future implications for a world where robots live among humanity. Quite honestly, its a fascinating area of futurology and one that I'm particularly interested in based on my reading of Jacques Ellul's pronouncements about technology.
The problem was that the movie really failed to deliver on its promise. It was good, but not in a way that made me even half-heartedly like it. It began strongly with the questions, but quickly moved to a starring vehicle for Will Smith (who is made for action material and the producers knew that). Actually it reminded me a lot of Minority Report which also began with some very interesting questions but lost its way about half-way through and lost my interest as well. I don't want to really review the movie so much as comment on the why of it losing its traction for me.
Several of my close friends are really big into Fantasy literature. Outside of Tolkien I never got into it (and I can bring up an old point I know will tick off some readers, but I won't). Fantasy just never spoke to me the same way Sci/Fi does. I like the interplay of technology and humanity, the exploratory nature of space and beyond. Perhaps Sci/Fi and Fantasy aren't really that different, I just prefer one over the other. The questions of Sci/Fi are the things that really interest me. The questions that are raised by things like the Three Laws of Robotics or seeing things before they happen (taken from both I, Robot and Minority Report). Really deep questions about the nature of humanity in the face of technology, or even in the incorporation of technology into humanity.
I don't know where this post is leading. I'm just kind of emoting I guess after watching that movie. I wanted it to be more than it was, and it had its moments to make the jump into something special. But it moved back into the standard action genre just when it was getting interesting. For as much flak as the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies got, I rather enjoyed them. There you have the possibility of Sci/Fi to ask questions all humanity asks in a way that demands the viewer look beyond the appearance of truth.
Maybe I shouldn't have expected as much as I did in I, Robot. But because I'm naturally inclined to like Sci/Fi in the first place I'm more disappointed when it doesn't work as well as it could have. Oh well.
The problem was that the movie really failed to deliver on its promise. It was good, but not in a way that made me even half-heartedly like it. It began strongly with the questions, but quickly moved to a starring vehicle for Will Smith (who is made for action material and the producers knew that). Actually it reminded me a lot of Minority Report which also began with some very interesting questions but lost its way about half-way through and lost my interest as well. I don't want to really review the movie so much as comment on the why of it losing its traction for me.
Several of my close friends are really big into Fantasy literature. Outside of Tolkien I never got into it (and I can bring up an old point I know will tick off some readers, but I won't). Fantasy just never spoke to me the same way Sci/Fi does. I like the interplay of technology and humanity, the exploratory nature of space and beyond. Perhaps Sci/Fi and Fantasy aren't really that different, I just prefer one over the other. The questions of Sci/Fi are the things that really interest me. The questions that are raised by things like the Three Laws of Robotics or seeing things before they happen (taken from both I, Robot and Minority Report). Really deep questions about the nature of humanity in the face of technology, or even in the incorporation of technology into humanity.
I don't know where this post is leading. I'm just kind of emoting I guess after watching that movie. I wanted it to be more than it was, and it had its moments to make the jump into something special. But it moved back into the standard action genre just when it was getting interesting. For as much flak as the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies got, I rather enjoyed them. There you have the possibility of Sci/Fi to ask questions all humanity asks in a way that demands the viewer look beyond the appearance of truth.
Maybe I shouldn't have expected as much as I did in I, Robot. But because I'm naturally inclined to like Sci/Fi in the first place I'm more disappointed when it doesn't work as well as it could have. Oh well.
Hehehe... Midwest Bias!
Pardon my French, but EAT MY SHORTS EAST AND WEST COAST!
Chicago has been awarded the right to compete for the Olympics in 2016 over Los Angeles. I could not be more happy if I tried. I had a silly, stupid grin on my face when I first heard the announcement in the Meijers parking lot this afternoon. I was so nervous that the USOC was going to choose LA over Chicago I couldn't bear to listen to the announcement live. So I went grocery shopping and when I turned my key to start my car the first thing on NPR was the announcement. YES!!!
First of all, I have an enduring dislike of either the West or East coasts of the US. Maybe that's because I was mostly brought up in Chicago and now live in Grand Rapids. Maybe its because I can't stand the insufferable stuckupedness of either coast. Maybe its a lingering anxiety from the many times I've been to LA and almost always feeling crappy. So the fact that New York got embarassed for their bid for the 2012 Games and LA has now lost out to Chicago just makes me absolutely delighted.
All that being said, I am also a passionate believer in dreams and visionary movements. I actually get emotional when scientists talk about standard new discoveries in astronomy. And the Olympic movement absolutely touches my heart. I can't tell you how many times I've watched the video from the London bid. Its absolutely amazing. So the fact that Chicago (basically my home town and somewhat backyard) gets to bid for the 2016 Games just makes me exuberant. Add the benefit of lording it over the East and West coast and, well... I don't know what else to say.
I love an editorial in the Chicago Tribune today that called on Chicagoans to "sell their city to the world." Amen! Two more years until the final decision, but I'm so excited I can hardly wait. Bring the Games to Chicago!
Chicago has been awarded the right to compete for the Olympics in 2016 over Los Angeles. I could not be more happy if I tried. I had a silly, stupid grin on my face when I first heard the announcement in the Meijers parking lot this afternoon. I was so nervous that the USOC was going to choose LA over Chicago I couldn't bear to listen to the announcement live. So I went grocery shopping and when I turned my key to start my car the first thing on NPR was the announcement. YES!!!
First of all, I have an enduring dislike of either the West or East coasts of the US. Maybe that's because I was mostly brought up in Chicago and now live in Grand Rapids. Maybe its because I can't stand the insufferable stuckupedness of either coast. Maybe its a lingering anxiety from the many times I've been to LA and almost always feeling crappy. So the fact that New York got embarassed for their bid for the 2012 Games and LA has now lost out to Chicago just makes me absolutely delighted.
All that being said, I am also a passionate believer in dreams and visionary movements. I actually get emotional when scientists talk about standard new discoveries in astronomy. And the Olympic movement absolutely touches my heart. I can't tell you how many times I've watched the video from the London bid. Its absolutely amazing. So the fact that Chicago (basically my home town and somewhat backyard) gets to bid for the 2016 Games just makes me exuberant. Add the benefit of lording it over the East and West coast and, well... I don't know what else to say.
I love an editorial in the Chicago Tribune today that called on Chicagoans to "sell their city to the world." Amen! Two more years until the final decision, but I'm so excited I can hardly wait. Bring the Games to Chicago!
Spiritual Arrogance
The Washington Post has an interesting, if somewhat buried story, about an ongoing flap at the National Institute of Health. Specifically about how the head of the chaplaincy program is being charged as anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish. The charges stem from the head chaplain (a Methodist minister) creating an extremely difficult working environment for his collegues who were either Catholic or Jewish, and eventually when they complained he fired them.
I don't have much to say about this other than it only serves to confirm the worst stereotypes of Evangelical Protestant Christians. That we are callous, severely judgmental, and wholly lacking in an understanding of religions not explicity our own. I hate reading these stories, but they seem to keep popping up.
I don't have much to say about this other than it only serves to confirm the worst stereotypes of Evangelical Protestant Christians. That we are callous, severely judgmental, and wholly lacking in an understanding of religions not explicity our own. I hate reading these stories, but they seem to keep popping up.
To Sleep, Aye! There's the Rub.
Have you ever watched someone sleep? I know that sounds creepy, but just play along for minute. So, have you ever just watched as someone went through the sleep process? It really is an amazing thing to watch.
It seems to me that sleep is a great usurper. What I mean is that sleep takes away the dignity of the wakeful hours and suspends the individuals' ability to control how they look. Sleep removes us from an awareness of our surroundings and thus when people sleep they don't hide themselves. I fascinated by this primarily because I like to be in relative control of how I look and appear to people around me and when I'm not in control I feel naked. Now take that same feeling and multiply it ten-fold and you get the kind of freaky feeling I might get when people see me sleep. I fell asleep once in the library lounge at Calvin and when I woke up I knew I had been lightly snoring 'cause people were politely not staring at me.
But beyond that feeling, I am oddly attracted to that same nakedness of humanity that seems to only be accessible when we are asleep. I am no celebrity watcher, but it absolutely fascinates me to think about what some of the most attractive and wealthy people in the world look like when they sleep. You couldn't tell anything about their wealth or really even their looks. But you could see them tired, with their hair messed up, just normal. You see past the fiction and into something more real, more raw. And that fascinates me.
I once saw the most beautiful woman in the world. She was tired, cranky, a real pain in the butt. She was impatient, rude, and utterless charmless. The minute she fell asleep I saw something else in her that didn't take away any of those bad things, but totally reinterpreted them. I once saw the most beautiful woman in the whole world, but I only saw her when she fell asleep.
It seems to me that sleep is a great usurper. What I mean is that sleep takes away the dignity of the wakeful hours and suspends the individuals' ability to control how they look. Sleep removes us from an awareness of our surroundings and thus when people sleep they don't hide themselves. I fascinated by this primarily because I like to be in relative control of how I look and appear to people around me and when I'm not in control I feel naked. Now take that same feeling and multiply it ten-fold and you get the kind of freaky feeling I might get when people see me sleep. I fell asleep once in the library lounge at Calvin and when I woke up I knew I had been lightly snoring 'cause people were politely not staring at me.
But beyond that feeling, I am oddly attracted to that same nakedness of humanity that seems to only be accessible when we are asleep. I am no celebrity watcher, but it absolutely fascinates me to think about what some of the most attractive and wealthy people in the world look like when they sleep. You couldn't tell anything about their wealth or really even their looks. But you could see them tired, with their hair messed up, just normal. You see past the fiction and into something more real, more raw. And that fascinates me.
I once saw the most beautiful woman in the world. She was tired, cranky, a real pain in the butt. She was impatient, rude, and utterless charmless. The minute she fell asleep I saw something else in her that didn't take away any of those bad things, but totally reinterpreted them. I once saw the most beautiful woman in the whole world, but I only saw her when she fell asleep.
Attention-Grabbing Headlines
What is the first thing you think of when I say the word "incest?"
I can only hope you reacted with disgust and disapproval. Time online has a very interesting article about a landmark Supreme Court decision handed down in 2003 that is now being used to argue in favor of consensual incest. It turns out that when the Supreme Court invalidated Texas' law against sodomy (ie. homosexual sex between consenting adults) it opened the door for further possible interpretations of the Court's intent.
I should point out that one of the classic arguments of the Conservative Christian political groups is that by opening the door to legitimate homosexual relationships (either marriage or otherwise) the courts would be opening the doors to a number of much more controversial areas including incest. Although its very easy to scoff as this argument it seems to be somewhat accurate in this case. The article on Time quotes a defense attorney in Ohio who is arguing that the same legal framework that allows consenting homosexual adults to do whatever they want in private also allows consenting adults who happen to be related to do the same.
The key seems to be what the government (whether state or federal) defines as fundamentally in its best interest and in the best interest of the public. Therefore, while homosexual acts between consenting adults does not constitute a clear danger to either the public or private good (according to the Supreme Court) incest does in fact present a clear danger. And that line is how government can pass legislation to make incest against the law, while retaining the rights of homosexual individuals to be who they are.
But here we get back to the question above. Who defines the danger to the public and private good? The conservative groups argue that by allowing gay marriage the very framework of traditional heterosexual marriage is threatened. So not only is gay marriage or gay rights in general a threat for opening the door to more universally condemned practices, it is a threat inandof itself. The other side will argue that gay marriage and gay rights simply confer the same rights on consenting adults who happen to be gay that those who happen to be heterosexual enjoy. There is no threat, nor is there a threat to further doors opening since the line between what happens between consenting adults and what happens in incest or other less than savory activities is quite clear.
At some point the Supreme Court will have to decide about this line. Most, if not all of the lower courts have agreed that while the Supreme Court's decision created more rights for the private individual, it did not open the door to actions deemed dangerous and against the public good.
What do you think?
I can only hope you reacted with disgust and disapproval. Time online has a very interesting article about a landmark Supreme Court decision handed down in 2003 that is now being used to argue in favor of consensual incest. It turns out that when the Supreme Court invalidated Texas' law against sodomy (ie. homosexual sex between consenting adults) it opened the door for further possible interpretations of the Court's intent.
I should point out that one of the classic arguments of the Conservative Christian political groups is that by opening the door to legitimate homosexual relationships (either marriage or otherwise) the courts would be opening the doors to a number of much more controversial areas including incest. Although its very easy to scoff as this argument it seems to be somewhat accurate in this case. The article on Time quotes a defense attorney in Ohio who is arguing that the same legal framework that allows consenting homosexual adults to do whatever they want in private also allows consenting adults who happen to be related to do the same.
The key seems to be what the government (whether state or federal) defines as fundamentally in its best interest and in the best interest of the public. Therefore, while homosexual acts between consenting adults does not constitute a clear danger to either the public or private good (according to the Supreme Court) incest does in fact present a clear danger. And that line is how government can pass legislation to make incest against the law, while retaining the rights of homosexual individuals to be who they are.
But here we get back to the question above. Who defines the danger to the public and private good? The conservative groups argue that by allowing gay marriage the very framework of traditional heterosexual marriage is threatened. So not only is gay marriage or gay rights in general a threat for opening the door to more universally condemned practices, it is a threat inandof itself. The other side will argue that gay marriage and gay rights simply confer the same rights on consenting adults who happen to be gay that those who happen to be heterosexual enjoy. There is no threat, nor is there a threat to further doors opening since the line between what happens between consenting adults and what happens in incest or other less than savory activities is quite clear.
At some point the Supreme Court will have to decide about this line. Most, if not all of the lower courts have agreed that while the Supreme Court's decision created more rights for the private individual, it did not open the door to actions deemed dangerous and against the public good.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
