WiseSerpents

A great quote on Orthodox/Catholic unity

2009-07-22T09:15:00.001-07:00

[...] reunion of the Orthodox and Roman churches has become an imperative, and time is growing short. I say this because I often suffer from bleak premonitions of the ultimate cultural triumph in the West of a consumerism so devoid of transcendent values as to be, inevitably, nothing but a pervasive and pitiless nihilism. And it is, I think, a particularly soothing and saccharine nihilism, possessing a singular power for absorbing the native energies of the civilization it is displacing without prompting any extravagant alarm at its vacuous barbarisms. And I suspect that the only tools at Christianity's disposal, as it confronts the rapid and seemingly inexorable advance of this nihilism, will be evangelical zeal and internal unity.

-David Bentley Hart, "The Myth of Schism"

Review of Marcus Borg's "The Heart of Christianity"

2009-07-09T17:25:00.000-07:00

HI BLOG! Sorry to be gone so long... where were we. Oh yes...

I recently read progressive Christian Marcus Borg's book "The Heart of Christianity". I highly recommend it for any individual or small group as a piece of reflection. It's a book that probably better discussed than read in solitude. Many things that need to be said are contained in this work, and Borg manages to say them with a flair that I certainly cannot match. Yet, I also find much of what he says disagreeable. Below is my review. If you should ever choose to read the book then I would welcome any feedback:

I really appreciated his laying into the heritage of the Enlgihtenment. In particular, it was nice that he treated "traditional" Christianity - ie: the classic protestant and now evangelical formularies of faith - as relatively modern products (last 400 years) in the grand scheme of a 2100 year old religion. He does a very nice job of articulating a better biblical hermeneutic, which he calls "historical-metaphorical", a combination of historical context and metaphorical meaning that take precedence over historical accuracy. I would like to say that despite what some may say about his proposal, he is really just recognizing this reading strategy It pre-dateds literalism by several centuries. Furthermore, I have noticed that Anglican writers do some of the best work on the interaction between faith and science - Borg is no exception.

I also think that he is on point in terms of what is wrong with the modernist evangelical Protestant approach: bilical literalism, too much focus on the afterlife to the exclusion of the contemporary life, all kinds of 'ists' and 'isms' that arise as a result, and just generally the emphasis on 'faith' as a kind of will to believe those things which are patently unbelievable. These are indeed the cancers of normative Western Christianity.

On the other hand, I always wonder with the Borg's of the world if their remedy is not more destructive in some ways than the cancer (a bit like chemo). In particular...

Christianity has always been enculturated (as he redundantly reminds us), but it has also been a judge of cultures. It isn't true that the morals and ethics of the New Testament squared all that well with the Greco-Roman worldview into which it was born. In particular, the normal Roman imperial world had plenty of alternate sexual and family pratices, and the NT self-conciously took hard-line stances against them. Too often liberal Christians act as if Christianity was birthed into a world of religious singularity, but pluralism has been a reality from the start.

Also, the "scandal of Christian particularity" has been well-attested since the beginning, and early church writers are nearly unanimous in declaring the God of Abraham known through Christ as the pinnacle of human faith, not simply another mystery cult that could be "affirmed" along with the pagan cults. Even if we agree that the Bible may be God speaking metaphorically and allegorically (Borg and I do agree on this...), it does not follow that all other religions are therefore equally valid. God can be just as exclusive via a particular set of metaphors as He can be via literal historical happenings. I cannot accept that faiths which make radically opposing claims regarding the human condition are just people responding to God "in their own cultural stream" - that's a bit mediocre.

Finally, as always, I dislike the tendency to dismiss personal morality and accountability from issues of salvation. Oddly, this is the one holdover from the Reformation that Borg insists on maintaining. I see no issue whatsoever in affirming that faith is, in the final analysis, something of a work. The Reformation notion that we are saved "by grace, through faith alone" is reductionist in the extreme. I think that the tradition is solidly on the side (especially pre-Reformation) of explicitly claiming that a life pursuing the divine virtues is part of the saved mindset. Furthermore, Borg shoots himself in the foot by claiming that we "should" be good little social justice people without expecting that God will reward us. He calls the idea of trying to be righteous to earn God's favor "a religion of requirements and rewards." Simply put - I see no problem with that system. But then, I am not hung up on defending 'unmerited grace' in the form Borg presents it.

Words of import

2009-01-08T15:11:00.000-08:00

Today the words before Eucharist were ground into my bones for reasons that I doubt I will ever be able to fully disclose: "For I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies, neither will I give the a kiss, as did Judas."

Baptism with the spirit and fire

2008-12-14T20:05:00.001-08:00

I have often wondered how we should express the proper Christian view on Baptism. I found today's reading from John insightful, and remembered that Matthew was more elaborate in describing Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. Here it is, Matthew 3:11

‘I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.'

I think clearly there is a disconnect between Baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Clearly John is suggesting that Baptism with water is key in order to, as Jesus says a couple of verses later, 'fulfill all righteousness', but it is actually the reception of the Holy Spirit in blazing passion that is the gift of Christ. How to express this in the life of the Church?

Chesterton Reflection #5 - "Spiritual but not Religious"

2008-11-28T11:00:00.000-08:00

Many well-meaning persons today wish to maintain the position that they are "spiritual, but not religious." Usually this is intended to indicate that the person wants to maintain a world that is still full of potential, if undefinable, ultimate meaning, without actually committing themselve to any particular creed, which they find to be a self-limiting demand. No matter that everyone from true believers like Pope Benedict to professional skeptics like Dr. Bart Ehrman have insisted that spirituality without religious content is vapid, they insist that this is their prefered outlook on the divine.

Simply put, transcendence, which is the beginning of meaningful mystical experience, requires one to go outside of themselves and come into a contact that is not only beyond themselves, but patently superior to themselves. God isn't much of a God if it does not challenge a person's self-understanding and pre-existing standards. Truly, the Bible would indicate that to say one is a "spiritual person" is redundant. In Hebrew the word for person means "embodied spirit". In John I it is simply taken for granted that "there are many spirits", the worshipper must test them, because only one is the spirit of Christ - the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the only divine force on the market, but rather one of many options. Further, a person is by definition an embodied spirit, so they have a spirit, and thus a spirituality, by default. The question is not whether or not there is a spirit presence, but only which spirit that may be.

Chesterton: "Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definately recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners."

Chesterton Reflection #4 - Vows and duty

2008-11-28T10:33:00.000-08:00

I am continually amazed that our society lacks any sense of "vows". We are raised to believe that "I promise" is always contingent on changing information, and we dispense with everything from handshakes to blood oaths when we feel the slightest gust of fortune's winds. I suppose the place where this is obviously most true is marriage. Marriage, simply speaking, consists of a set of vows that one promises to live into. It is not meant to be a re-statement of the way things already are, in which case they would be called "articulations", but they instead create a new institution; they constitute a fundmanetally different identify than the couple had the day before. The ordain them into a certain office of a community, and enlist the community's support and oversight in helping the pair live into their covenant.

For the God of Christians and Jews, there is little worse than the breaking of a pact. It's not accidental that Dante put traitors in the lowest level of his Inferno, lower even than murderers and the like. It was God's very faithfulness to his covenant in spite of the people's actions that made him who He was. I often wonder why people take so many vows? If they realize that they cannot possibly live into them, it's nobler to simply opt out. Why be married if you do not believe in the marital vows that you are giving? Why be a Christian if you are crossing your fingers when uttering the creed?

It strikes me that vows are only formulated in difficult situations, and therefore should not be taken lightly. Why would we ever come up with a list of oaths and vows if we thought that an institution was going to be forever peachy? If marriage was supposed to be easy, if passion was always going to last, and if romantic mush frequently had the final say, then why would the church have ever felt the need to list out the particular hardships of the committment and forced members to sign on?

So again I am reminded of some anonymous pastor's sermon many years ago, which is forever etched in my shallow memory: "For Christians love is not an emotion, it's a committment."

Chesterton: "Whatever reason, it seemed and still seems to me that our attitude towards life can be better expressed in terms of a kind of military loyalty than in terms of criticism and approval. My acceptance of the universe is not optimism, it is more like patriotism. It is a matter of primary loyalty. The world is not a lodging-house at Brighton, which we are to leave because it is miserable. It is the fortress of our family, with the flag flying on the turret, and the more miserableit is the less we should leave it. [...] the point is that when you do love a thing, its gladness is a reason for loving it, and its sadness a reason for loving it more. All optimistic thoughts about England and all pessimistic thoughts about her are alike reasons for the English patriot. Similarly, optimist and pessimism are alike arguments for the cosmic patriot. [...] For decoration is not given to hide horrible things; but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because she is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico (a run-down suburb of London) as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grown great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find then knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.

[...] The worst jingoes do not love England, but a theory of England. If we loved England for being an empire, we may over-rate the success with which we rule the Hindoos. But if we love it only for being a nation, we can face all events: for it would be a nation even if the Hindoos ruled us. Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history. A man who loves England for being English will not mind how she arose. But a man who loves England for being Anglo-Saxon may go against all facts for his fancy. He may end (like Carlyle and Freeman) by maintaining that the Norman Conquest was a SAxon Conquest. He may end in utter unreason - because he has a reason. A man who loves France for being military will palliate the army of 1870. But a man who loves France for being France will improve on the army of 1870, This is exactly what the French have done, and France is a good instance of the working paradox. Nowhere else is patriotism more purely abstract and arbitrary; and nowhere else is reform more drastic and sweeping. The more transcendental your patriotism, the more practical are your politics."

Chesterton Reflection #3 - Liturgy

2008-11-28T10:09:00.000-08:00

Ok, so actually Chesterton was not writing an apology for litrugical practice in this section, but I believe that his comments are appropriately applied to this topic. Why? Simply because one of the modern assumptions about liturgical practice is that it is a dead ritual. It's just a bunch of programmatic crossing, bowing, mumbling and genuflecting that has no "spirit" to it. For now I will ignore the little asides about the "movement of the holy spirit" in worship and focus solely on the idea of repetitive worship unto itself, and how it is that such things can have meaning. Before Chesterton speaks though, I feel moved to say something on this topic.

Truthfully, most Christian churches have bastardized the entire concept of worship. They might be right in saying that liturgical worship does not "move" the person in the pews the same way that contemporary styles, with their constant plays on emotionality and sentimentality, are capable of doing. However, liturgical worship is also not trying to do such a thing. Ney, litrugical worship contends that worship is something different than these "seeker-sensitive" churches understand it to be. Namely, worship is 1. A duty and obligation of the believer to offer their sacrifice of thanks and praise, and 2. God-centered, not me-centered, worship.
Liturgy is in the style of the old Temple sacrifices. The people of Israel had a duty to offer the sacrifices in a set and orderly manner. The priest led the sacrifice and the people said "amen", which simply means "let it be", thus making it affective for them as well. Worship is a command of God, not simply an exercise in feel-good sentimentality meant for the exhaltation of the believer.
In order for liturgical worship not to become stale, the person must internalize a sense of awe at the ritual itself. The ritual must become an awe-inspiring act of worship, constantly guarded against vain approaches and the contempt of familiarity. I will now turn it over to Chesterton.

Chesterton:
"All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumptions that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. a man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue. [...] The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, no absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it agian until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we."

Chesterton Reflection #2 - Tradition

2008-11-28T09:51:00.000-08:00

This is arguably the best single section of the book. It's the most cohrent defense of Tradition in the Christian faith that has ever been put on the market, and is put forth in about three extensive paragraphs. It's amazing how men of literature can say in a few sentences what it takes professional theologians volumes of painstaking research to produce. Unfortunately, with the appeal of learned men such as Chesterton we also have to accept the hacks. They are also men of popular language and common expression, but unfortunately they are very persuasive and economical in their expressions of falsehood and half-truths.

Chesterton: "I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. [...] If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our counsels. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross."

Nurses dominate

2008-11-24T20:31:00.001-08:00

Nurses have been rated the most ethical profession in America for the seventh straight year according to a recent Gallup poll. And rightfully so I might add. Go nurses! See it here

Chesterton reflection #1

2008-11-11T08:16:00.000-08:00

I have started re-reading GK Chesterton's book Orthodoxy. I had forgotten how many key lines it contained. He was a natural quote maker, and I am going to celebrate some of the most poignant passages with short reflections in the next few entries.

"The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Chrstian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone made because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful."

Here Chesterton is addressing something that has really only come to full fruition since his time was passed. Today we have the phenomena of benevolent secularism. That is to say, we see the majority of the industrial world following an ethos that can only be described as an emotionally dictated charitable Humanism.

Chesterton's point has become even more acute since these same people began collectively claiming to be more moral than their religious counterparts. Many of them will tell you, without pause, that they simply do not need religion in order to be good. Given that many of them are nice people, and do practice some fine personal works, it is a difficult issue to confront.

Yet although charitable Humanists are moral in their own ways, they can be painfully misdirected, and often entirely unintegrated. Their ideas of right and wrong are almost totally culturally conditioned without a religious system in place to cause any questioning of their assumptions.

Further, there are times when certain morals (such as pity) that are practised in isolation become problem causers. An example was given by Robert Bork, who pointed out how misguided liberal charity was when coupled with liberal moral allowance. As freedoms multiply and moral requirements and taboos are loosened, we see a greater inequality of outcomes. Those who use their freedoms for profit and progress profit more and more, while those who use their freedoms for vice and dead-end idealistic endeavors fall further and further behind. In the meantime, the insistance that society continually provides support for those who have fallen behind ensures that we have an ever-widening class of people who are supported after misusing their freedoms, by those who used their freedoms wisely, without the latter being able to put any stipulations on their money for future charity.

Bork's example is only one among many. I remember working for a charitable NGO and thinking of how disassociated their sensibilities sometimes manifested. For instance, they were all about liberating sexual rights for individuals and also in favor of providing for treatments should people encounter difficulties from their behaviors (pregnancy, STD's, emotional damage, etc). But the group was far less inclined to say anything on the matter of properly governing the sexual behaviors in such a way that people might not suffer as frequently from those problems. So were they really loving? i'm not sure.

What I would say is that people have become single-minded in their notions of virtue. For one person, hard work is the ultimate virtue. For another it is pity and charity. For yet another the apex of human accomplishment is a superior education, or money. What binds many of them together is the lack of balance, and this is at the heart of Chesterton's point. His entire first chapter was devoted to the idea of "lunacy" being the result of single-mindedly pursuing one line of thought to its rational ends, but without being informed by other lines of thinking; other disciplines that might challenge single-disciplinary conclusions. He summed it up this way:

"...the circle of the moon is as clear and unmistakable, as recurrent and inevitable, as the circle of Euclid on a blackboard. For the moon is utterly reasonable; and the moon is the mother of lunatics and has given to them all her name."

A classic movie quote

2008-10-30T21:39:00.000-07:00

“There’s two dead women there… and two little kids. They scalped them all, all four of ‘em. Bounty hunters. The government down here pays 200 pesos a head for men, 100 for women and 50 for those kids. They kill any Indian and then claim they are Apache. I don’t see how any man can sink so low. Must be Texans… the lowest form of white man there is.” - Robert Duvall's character, the scout Al Seiber on movie Geronimo

Sermon on the Greatest Commandment - Matthew 22

2008-10-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God…

Some years ago when I was graduating from high school a man I looked up to told me that if I learned to love my neighbor as myself, then that’s all Christianity was really about. However much I did and do look up to this person as a mentor, I am actually going to disagree with what he said.

Today’s reading is arguably the most commonly quoted verse in the Scriptures. Even most non-Christians can cite some version of it. I think it’s even fair to say that it has become so common that perhaps we do not listen to it as carefully as we should. So let’s hear it again…

The Pharisees have come out to meet Jesus after they found out that he silenced their rivals the Sadducees. One of the Pharisees tests Jesus by asking him a legal question: “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He answers them by quoting two of the Mosaic laws: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Here’s where we need to be careful in our reading…

Again: The first and greatest commandment is to love God with everything we’ve got… Loving the neighbor comes second. We love God first, and by extension we love the neighbor. Much like we say in the Nicene Creed that we believe “in one God, the Father the almighty”, and it is only by extension that we can say Jesus is also God. We say it all the time – God from God, Light From light, True God From true God. So we then that we are not commanded in the first place to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are commanded to love our neighbors because of our love for God.

Now I realize that some of you may be muttering under your breath “wow, that’s nitpicky.” But it’s no small matter. What makes our Christian faith distinctive is not the saying ‘love your neighbor as yourself’. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Unitarians and Bahais can all say this without hesitation. What makes our faith distinctive is which God we are told to love, and what that God’s love looks like.

Let me give a brief explanation of why this matters, both to the Pharisees and to us.

First of all, notice that the Pharisees do not have any particular reaction to Jesus’ proclamation of the greatest commandment. His opinion that these two laws are the heart of the Mosaic law was absolutely normal for the Pharisees. Historically, it was the Rabbi Hillel, the greatest sage among the Pharisees, who is credited with founding this interpretation of the law a century before Christ. Any reader in the first century would have been aware of this, and would have expected the Pharisees to nod their heads.

If we can compare this story in Matthew with the same story in the Gospel of Mark, the Scribe who asked Jesus which commandment was the greatest receives his answer and says to him “You are right teacher, you have spoken truly.” Clearly what Jesus has said was not, in and of itself, terribly disagreeable to the Pharisees. It is a bad misreading to think that what was scandalous to people about Jesus Christ was his radical understanding of loving each other. That not only distorts the gospel, but paints a picture of the Jews as unloving neighbor haters.

Yet something does go wrong. By the end of today’s reading the Pharisees refuse to ask him any more questions, and a chapter later these are the same Pharisees who are leading the charge to kill him… What happened?

What puts Jesus on the wrong side of the Pharisees is that he destroys their idea of which God they think the commandment is talking about. The Pharisees are scandalized not by the morality that Jesus preaches, but by his claim to be the Messiah, and that God is only fully known through him!

In older times theologians have called this “the scandal of Christian particularity”, and it has always been the major source of hostility towards Christians from outsiders. And it still is.

Think about it this way: If someone asked any of us “what is the basis of Christianity?” and we said “to love our neighbor as ourselves”, they would not be terribly offended. In fact, everyone tends to like that part of our religion. But if we said “the basis of Christianity is to love God as he is known specifically in Jesus Christ”, well… the list of our opponents grows immensely.

Case-in-point: I ran across this little snippet in an Anglican blog out of London. The author is a member of All Souls Anglican Church, and he was talking about the visit of Mr. Julian Baggini, an atheist who covers religion for The Guardian newspaper. Mr. Baggini writes:

“Although an atheist, I can see that in its more thoughtful corners, religion has worthwhile things to say, and even good ways to live. That's why I went to All Souls, and it's also why on Saturday I debated secularism in east London in front of a Muslim audience. But at All Souls, I saw a side of Christianity that I don't like. They all seemed obsessed by salvation and glorifying Jesus.”

The blogger from All Souls, using that British flare for dry humor, heard this and remarked “Now there is an atheist money quote if I ever heard one!”

But here is the most interesting part. Mr. Baggini, an atheist, does not think that he can eliminate belief. So, he has decided to limit the effects of belief by supporting pluralism. Later in his essay he laments:

“Belief is not going to go away, and if we want those churches that thrive to be inclusive and, yes, pluralist in their approaches, we have to give support to those resisting the fundamentalist urge.”

Ah yes, the F word – fundamentalist. Funny, when I was a boy ‘fundamentalist’ meant someone who insisted on the literal, historical interpretation of the Bible. Now the word seems to describe anyone who is more religious than the person using it – in Mr. Baggini’s case, this means any Christian who spends their time glorifying Jesus.

So we see that to outsiders the priority of The Greatest Commandment is a big deal. If Christians speak primarily of social justice and loving their neighbors, the Julian Baggini’s of the world see us as a harmless bunch of superstitious morons, who can even be a good tool if led by more enlightened, secular minds. But those of us who, quote, “are obsessed by salvation and glorifying Jesus” – well we’re dangerous, and in desperate need of secular control!

It’s funny, Mr. Baggini’s comments are an almost perfect replica of the Pharisees in today’s gospel – as long as Jesus was content to just be a nice person, then he was a harmless fool. But once he claimed to be God, he needed killing.

Now I guess the question this raises is clear: If our specific commitment to Jesus Christ is so terrible to the outside world, why don’t we just give in? Why not just erase the whole Jesus part of this religion and stick with humanitarian efforts?

Although the theological answers to this question are many, I prefer to cite two things:

First, our faith simply will not allow this kind of convenient surrender. Think of the Nicene Creed that we say every Sunday. It does not balk on the matter of God’s specific identity: we believe in One God, One Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It is this God that early Christians died confessing. Historically, most of the martyrs of the church have not died because they were engaged in acts of social justice, but because they refused to worship the gods of Rome. They refused to bow down before the well-thought gods of Plato and the Stoics, and the Unitarians, and the Communists, and yes, even our current secularists.

Brothers and sisters, we are not the first age of Christians to be surrounded by religious alternatives. It has been a reality from the beginning, and previous generations did not see it as a reason to make our beliefs more socially acceptable.

Secondly, it is only when we accept and love God’s scandalous Otherness that we begin to understand that he loves differently than we do. Only when we first accept that God’s ways are not our ways can we begin to be instructed in how to grow in godliness.

Too often when we read the Great Commandment in reverse, we come away thinking that because I love myself, then I must love my neighbor, and then if I have a little bit left over, I can love God. The temptation is especially strong for the younger generations, of which I am a part. We are so strongly by Romanticism, we tend to think that “love” just means “to like a whole lot”. We read the Great Commandment as Jesus telling us to like each other and share happy feelings. Then we project that idea of love onto God.

But Scripturally, God’s love doesn’t look like that. In the Bible God is frequently angry with his people. There are many times in the Scriptures where God chooses to love us without liking us one little bit. God’s love is not the love of a friend, a colleague, or a social worker.

God’s love is the love of a Hebrew Father: It’s a love that sets boundaries, and is clear when we have stepped outside of them. It is a love that wants us to be holy and good more than materially successful. It is a love that tells us to tame our passions, not fulfill them. It is the love that bears with us even when we throw temper tantrums as children tend to do. It is a love that says “I know that you can never repay me for all I have done in raising you, but you can accept it with a glad heart.” It is a love that wants us to gradually mature into a child that will be worthy of its family inheritance – which in this case is the heavenly kingdom!

So we should not go forth after today’s reading thinking that our first job is to love our neighbors because we want them to love us back. That’s just human ethics. Instead, why not go forth and strive for a Godly love? Let us state with clarity to those who offend us “I may never like you, but because I am the servant of God and my savior Jesus Christ, I will still love you. I will still do right by you and wish you well.”

But if you take this challenge, beware. God’s love for people like us ultimately lands you on some crosses. And if they hated our master before us, do not think that you can take on his way of life without some acute pains. As the writer G.K. Chesterton reminds us:

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.”

Amen.

Reflection for The Bridge

2008-10-15T05:59:00.000-07:00

This semester I have involved myself in the Bible study of a campus ministry group called The Bridge. Although it is Methodist (pretty far from my religious sentiments) I have found the company excellent and the atmosphere pleasantly welcoming. In addition to this Bible Study group, The Bridge also does lunch for students once a week (which overlaps with one of my courses), and they publish a weekly newsletter. The newsletter contains a Reflection by one of the Bridge members. Last week I volunteered to write the reflection. Obviously this is for a popular audience and will not read as eloquent prose. Still, I enjoyed it. Here it is, as published:

Old Testament
"On God rests my deliverance and my honor; my mighty rock, my refuge is in God."
Psalm 62:7-8

New Testament
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.
John 14:27

God’s Peace, as it ever has been

by Ray Fulmer

Every Monday night - after long hours of teaching, learning, and testing - I look forward to winding down the night by walking my friend Amber to her car. We always have a number of things to talk about, but last night our usual chit-chat was cut short when her phone vibrated. It was a text from her brother: “The Dow Jones closed at -777, the largest single day drop in history. Remember to pray tonight.”

Amber closed the phone and without missing a beat informed me that she would not be praying for our stock market. I asked if she thought that it was a big deal, and her response surprised me. She said that she was not worried, and that we probably deserved it anyway. “Besides” she continued, “the worst that can happen is that we all have to live a little poorer for a few years. I’m cool with that. It’s nothing to worry God about.”

During my drive home I reflected on Amber’s attitude. I do not think that she was being sarcastic about not bothering God. I know that she is a prayerful woman. She was not planning to miss prayers that night; she was simply not going to bother God over the possibility of a little money loss.

Amber had done something very difficult – she had kept perspective. She has faith that God will deliver on his promises. We will be resurrected, we will live with Him forever, and in the meantime he loves us in our brokenness. Why get disturbed about the possibility of a lower standard of living, especially when we have little say in the matter? Her actions call to mind the “serenity prayer”, which is a prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr that I first heard at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. It goes like this:

“God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.”

Amen to that.

Simply Stunning

2008-09-08T02:34:00.000-07:00

Although the weather generally has been nice beyond belief this summer, this weekend was particularly fine. In the wake of five days of rain (residue from coastal hurricanes) I set out to work on the deer land with Paul and Wes. It had to be exactly 80 degrees and sunny, while the shade made it feel like 75. This followed a Labor Day canoe trip with the homies that was fun beyond description. It's always funny to me how, after all of the beautiful places that I've been and all of the incredible things I've seen, from skyscrapers to castles to the Rockies covered in snow, the most beautiful thing in the world is still a day in the Ozarks, sitting in wooded hills or paddling down one of its lightly flowing rivers, with a bright sun in low heat, breathing air untouched by industrial pollution or smog.

Tojo didn't want to surrender - so what do we do?

2008-08-13T09:52:00.001-07:00

I've always thought that moral condemntation of the US dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a little myopic. Although I've seen countless documentaries on WWII and read more than a few academic articles supporting the notion that the bombs were actually a roundabout way to save lives, I know many intelligent people who disagree. I've been told (albeit without the citation of compelling evidence) that Japan was about to give up anyway, and that it was just a retribution. Some have even forwarded the notion that it was racist (a trump card in all debates that I consider BS until proven worthwhile). And of course, let us not forget the International Peace Museum at Hiroshima (or is it Nagasaki? I'd have to ask Wes...).

Not one to shy away from evidence (especially if it supports my position ^^), I ran across this juicy little tidbit in the news today. Apparently Japanese war minister Tojo wanted to fight on... AFTER the nukes. Now, while I'm not sure if he should recieve the Darwin award or the He-Man trophy for world's biggest balls (or both) I can say with some confidence that his voice probably held more sway in Japanese operational planning before the nukes, leading me to conclude against the idea that all the fight was out of Japan before the bombs were dropped.

Now even if I'm right, this is no "God Bless America and no place else" kind of issue. The bombs were at worst a terrible and avoidable humanitarian disaster, and at best a measure of evil that prevented a greater measure of evil. But we can never back off of this part - dropping the bombs was an evil. I firmly believe that many people will have to stand trial before the most holy on the last day for that decision, but I refrain from issuing a judgement on God's behalf. Even if you're not much on divinity, at least consider that we nuked two wonderful places, one of which had been the bastion of Japanese Christianity for centuries. It's the land that gave us all sorts of wonderful marvels from Japaname to Godzilla, video games to Honda, Samuri, green tea, sushi and Shoji. One could even make the argument that in many respects Japanese and Americans are more alike than most: We're equally industrialized, we have analogous vices, and traditionally have respected a similar set of personal virtues - albeit we have sought to pursue them in very different ways. Finally, Japanese and Americans are both fascinated by the other. We indulge in one another's culture with abandon, and the results have been mostly positive.

All that to say this: If there's one place where the idea of human brotherhood can be incarnate more than abstract to us, it's in our relations with the Japanese people. This should add immensely to our realization of the full tragedy that we were, at some level, responsible for.

So what to do with the seemingly contradictory positions that I feel gravely that an evil was done here, but equally strongly that it prevented a possibly worse evil?

First I would propose an old Byzantine church solution - we must call all sin, sin. I sympathize with the American policy makers who decided to drop the bombs. They were put in a lose-lose situation, and are now the victims of removed and judgemental historians who will never have to live with the consequences of having made different choices. As Theodore Roosevelt said (paraphrasing) the lauds of history go to the man in the ring, not the spectator. Yet I also must insist that we DID lose something that day. We lost a degree of innocence that will never be recovered.

Secondly, if it is true that we must love our neighbors as ourselves, then we must put the question in reverse - would we have been willing to die in that way so that an overall greater number of deaths might be prevented? For now I will rest my case on the hope, without resort to empirical evidence that I cannot provide, that I would be willing to make that sacrifice.

Rhythm of the Week

2008-07-27T10:14:00.000-07:00

It's nearly impossible for me to do anything productive on the weekend. My body seems to be programed with a circadian rhythm that is sensitive to the magnetism of Saturday and Sunday. No matter how hard core I can go during the week, replicating even a fraction of that effort on a weekend day takes a Herculean feat of willpower. I have issues dieting, exercising, and especially reading and writing anything academic. For now I cannot tell if I should exert some effort in overcoming this block, or whether it is not instead a gift of sorts. God telling me that if he worked at a 6:1 ratio, humans were meant to be least as relaxed.

A simple problem that I cannot solve

2008-07-19T22:18:00.000-07:00

One of the more difficult tasks facing inherent idealists such as myself is to what extent our faith groups must accommodate the cultures in which they reside.

There is a strange negative reciprocity within faith groups on how to do meaningful ministry in a culture that most regard as hostile towards basic Christian morals. On the one end you have the accommodationists, who can run the gammut from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Both of them share the same basic idea, however different they may appear. They both buy into the model that says worship styles and ethical understandings are highly inculturated, and must be so, both for the attraction of new membership, and also for easing the transition between internal and external identity. They both tap into the same need to engage the culture on its own terms, and accept whichever of a couple of options we find ourselves left with. In this respect, they're very much in line with the two-party American political system.

Then there are the outcasts. I suppose my little Orthodox crew has to be considered as one of these as much as anyone. We tend to view that our culture is itself the problem, and conversion into our ranks is simply assumed to be a culutral change (or at least the choice of a distinctive subculture), and it is also assumed that some of our cornerstone teachings are too transcendent to be compromised. Indeed we tend to feel that any tweaking of the way we do this is a step in the wrong direction, as it threatens the intricate complex of interlocking self-definitions that make us distinct. For example, Baptist feel free to scrap whole forms of worship when they are deemed "not relevant" to youth, whereas most Orthodox pop gaskets if you propose even modest liturgical shifts.

So I find myself in this quandry. What is the balance? Should the particulars of worship forms and wording of dogmatic formulae be considered "packaging" that must shift in time and place, or is it true that shifts automatically represent a subtle departure that indirectly affect a longstanding ethos that has been responsible for creating those particulars. Can a non-Eastern liturgy really say the same thing? Must the spoon give way to the wafer, the wine to grape juice, and the daily repetition of set prayers to more emotive impromptus? Can the relatively simplistic "praise and worship" music of today truly touch the depths of spirituality of hymns that have been reviewed for hundreds of years for their precision and cyclic "feel" within a coherent cycle of worship?

Obviously I have chosen what I prefer, but I cannot help but look at those I consider very deep Christians who seem to have gotten there by other means. I also cannot help but look at those around me and wonder if the treasures I have found in accepting an alien brand of my faith can be meaningfully imparted in Greco-Roman clothing? Can I really see farmers in small town Arkansas ever coming en masse to be at home with methods and allusions that are not the creations of their forefathers? Or must I meet them "where they are"? And if so, what must be compromised to journey there with them?

It's a simple quandry, but one that I am completely unable to solve.

On the priesthood of believers

2008-07-04T13:34:00.000-07:00

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,
in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvellous light. Once you were not a people, but now you
are God’s people;once you had not received mercy, but now you have received
mercy. Live as Servants of God. Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to
abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul. Conduct
yourselves honourably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as
evildoers, they may see your honourable deeds and glorify God when he comes to
judge. (1 Peter 2:9-12)

I was reading this verse today and thinking on a book I have been reading (The Omnivore's Dilemma) along with many other sources of input I've had as of late. Most of these sources have to do with our consumerism, both at the financial and cultural/personal levels.

It's difficult when you realize just how engrossed we are in consumerism; difficult on the soul. At least for me, there's a sense of anguish about the whole system. Must we be resigned to living in a cultural structure that is foundationally built on the peddling of unneeded, often unwanted, and even more often harmful goods?

As is often the case in such ponderings, one must eventually devlove the nucleus of an answer around some excellent advice from Fr. Hopko: "Try and think of the solution that involves as much of yourself as possible." That is to say, try and think of which form of solution you can affect the most by a change in yourself, and let the macro-problem fall where it may.

The more I look at it, the more I am convinced that Christianity is not a majority religion. It cannot be. Indeed, the life of a Christian is far less fulfilled when they are lured into believing that they live among a "majority Christian people." Such thinking perverts the point made by Peter from a responsibility into a right (specifically a bragging right). A person believing that they are a Christian person living among a Christian nation believes that Peter is speaking about a group right that they, and those around them with similar identity, inherently possess: We are God's people, therefore he loves us more.

Conversely, if you take my starting point, that Christianity is always a minority faith, even among a "churched" people, then the verse becomes one of resistance, intended primarily to be read by an embattled minority who understands themselves as an ALTERNATIVE to the world around them.

But what does it mean to be not only the nation of God, but specifically a nation of "priests"?

I believe the point lies in appreciating the role of the priest in Jewish understanding. The priest is not simply an interpreter of the Law - a role far more specified to the rabbis. A priest is essentially one who sacrifices on behalf of all the people. To be a priest is by definition to be "set apart", and one cannot be set apart if one is part of the mainstream. Indeed, the moral law given by God to govern the Jewish people was a much smaller than the elaborate laws given only to the priests. One could say, at risk of extreme simplification, that the book of Leviticus is a book of laws given over entirely to the specifics of being a priest-within-a-people; one who is set apart for special behavior, even among those who are ruled by God's law.

Practically speaking, this means that Christians are called to live in opposition to norms of the culture around them. Now this is not a culturally elitist point. All cultures (to my knowledge) contain both baptizable and irredeemable aspects. "Christian culture" is in fact a perpetual subculture of the few who have been truly transformed by God's love and sacrifice (God's priesthood, if you will). The paradigm of this love is the one who sacrificed himself for an unappreciative majority. He wished to save those who wished to kill him.

This last point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Christians cannot realistically expect that people will come around, or at least not until they've gotten in their lashes on the backs of those who would try to save them. Druggies will not thank you for taking the crack pipe at the height of their habit, though they may retrospectively fight the habit for the honored love of a friend lost trying to save them. I believe the same basic logic works for people in general. The priests will initially be feared and loathed, precisely because they represent an uncomfortable alternative. They have chosen to put themselves under the stricter law; the harsher requirements.

And here I differ entirely with the Reformers. While we can all agree that one cannot "work their way into heaven" in such brutish form, I also think the wording of this passage excludes the possibility that our actions and virtues do not matter, or are not expected to be exceptional "among the Gentiles" - which is default for "nonbelievers". At some level Christians are called to model this alternative priestly life that they preach. We are not only to follow Christ, but to model Christ, in whatever broken form we can muster. Ultimately, the gentiles will not be drawn to something unless they can first say with some certainty "these people do represent something different from myself and what is commonly around me."

But what is around us? Honestly we can come up with plenty. But given my current readings and reflections, I think we are obliged to call out one of the strongest demons who we do combat with on a daily basis - Consumerism. This is the force that tries to control us by offering excessive bounties of goods. And I don't just mean STUFF. I mean those forces that try to commodify and secularize our very minds. I mean especially those forces that try and convince us that there is no unseen reality, and that our actions only have the consequences that we can measure in numbers and feel in physical and psychological damage. In short, Consumerism is the devil that tries to convince us that all of human interaction is easily categorized as a DEAL or a BARGAIN. That there is nothing sacred in life except sticking to promises we shake on with the contingencies we built into them. I can't think of anything that says "letter of the law and not the spirit" quite like this business model of living with others who we are supposed to treat as sacred vessels of God's creation.

Again I say, this demonic force is so large that its strongest power is in its sheer vastness. Nearly everything from the music we listen to, to the movies we watch, and the foods we buy, are tainted with its influence. Even our casual notions of "romance" are, on closer inspection, just creations of the demons of sales and marketing.

Take for example our expectant zenith of courtship - the diamond ring. Did you buy your wife a diamond ring? Don't think that has roots in consumerism? Look it up. Read on the history. We've been sold a bill of goods. It wasn't even a tradition until De Beers told us that it was, while at the same time sentencing the center of a continent to virtual slavery to provide our blood-soaked romantic baubles.

Before we can truly live lives differently from what is around us, we must first be aware of what it is that is around us. Be aware of where our food comes from, what our laws are based on, and generally we must become a more reflective people. Perhaps at the end of the day the fight against Consumerism starts with an understanding of how entranced we are by the aural culture and its neophilia. Perhaps being a nation of priests will only begin when we can first get some idea of what is profane, so that we might promote something sacred in its place.

But don't expect thanks. Questioning a lazily contented peoples' modus operandi, even at the level of something seemingly simply like a recent tradition manifested in a courtship bauble, is an invitation to harm. An apathetic pig with a full gut will tusk you for touching its trough of intoxicating slop, just as surely as a starving man will fight to the death for a morsel of grain. The sacrifice must be made with full appreciation that the majority will not love you for it, and will do unto you as it did unto your master, whom they hated first.

Idiocracy - The Joke is On Us

2008-06-06T07:47:00.000-07:00

Last night I finally got a chance to view the movie Idiocracy. The basic plot is that an average guy is frozen in cryogenic sleep for 500 years and wakes up to a world that is much dumber than the one he left, courtesy of the fact that dumb people have far more children then those who are intelligent.

But the plot isn't as important as the satire. Although it's a comedy on the face of it, I think that the biting social commentary is aimed at us, not at the fictitious "dumb people" in the movie. My guess is that it's precisely in our inability to get that the joke is on us that the movie makers get their ironic thrill.

The fact that the movie is aimed at us is made obvious when the main characters have a simultaneous epiphany - they realize that despite the stupidity and depravity of the people in 2505, their lives are pretty much analogous those the chracters were living back in 2007. That is to say, they are obsessed with money, sex and thrill-seeking; in short they are consumers, albeit ones who have lost the ability to couch their consumerism in gilded euphemisms.

The movie presents a hyperbole of how we already are, and asks us, via bathroom humor and crude sex jokes, to review the purpose of our own lives AND the integrity of our culture. In this latter point the movie is at its most subtle. In the idiotic future people still watch movies - they're just mindless (/plotless, literally), and they still have relationships - they're just shallow, and they still read - it's just trash, and they're still economically capitalist - they just have no ability to resist the punchlines of marketing.

Finally the movie is also a challenge to those few who DO understand that the joke is on them. It's a challenge to ask whether we're part of the problem or the solution. The main characters' little motto, borrowed from Thomas Paine - "Lead follow, or get out of the way" - turns out to be surprisingly prophetic in this slapstick distopian comedy.

Perhaps the entire movie can best be summed up when one distopian says to another "Wow you like sex and money too? No way! That's so cool. We should hang out."

Do the opposite

2008-05-12T16:35:00.000-07:00

A fitness coach recently gave a simple piece of advice to any of his proteges who wished to have a good body - Look at how most people around you live their lives, and do the opposite.

Truly the coach could not have forseen the way his advice would register in my mind. He was only saying, on the surface of it, that most people live a poor physical lifestyle, so you should be unlike them if you want a healthy body.

But as with all simple words of wisdom, the point can be extended.

One of my soap-boxes for quite some time now has been the way in which we carry on relationships. This runs the gammut from family to friends to romance and everything in between.

The time has come for some hard talks. On average, our interpersonal relationships fail. Let me repeat, because I don't think the point can be driven home hard enough: On average, we fail at relationships.

For the most part we have pathetically disrupted families, destructive romances built on nonsense and poor priorities, and while friendship is often demonstrated, I still have to say that co-dependence in self-destruction accounts for far too many "close friends."

With families the case is easily documented. On average, our marriages fail. On average, kids don't have two involved parents in their houses. On average we have no sense of greater family.

Romances are also a wreck. On average, we break up. On average, we have casual sex. On average, people cheat. On avearge we give our hearts away too easily, and recover them too effortlessly.

Friendships are more difficult to quantify, but I would still say that they suffer from general malaise. First of all, few people have friendships strong enough that they make any life plans around them. Secondly, the phrase "you're just a friend" has become the stock insult for would-be lovers who don't quite cut muster. Finally, we often think of "friends" as simply people we enjoy now and again. Nobody who we owe anything, but someone that we like to partner with in mutually destructive behaviors. Commonly we think of friends as people who love us no matter what, but not as people who will tell us biting truths with our best interests in mind.

So what to do? The best advice I've heard in a while was the coach at the beginning of this little schpeel - do the opposite. Prioritize your family and friends. Plan around them. Surround yourself with people who want the best for you, and not those who will buy you choclate ice cream to cheer you up from feeling fat. Don't give your heart away easily. Make sure there are tangible promises from a respectable source before allowing them any "rights" to you. And if something does go wrong romantically, do not treat it as some kind of game.

Get used to being single - we over date.

Become accustomed to friends who will critique you - we don't need "yes" men.

Love your family in tangible ways. Try to prioritize them over yourself at times.

and it goes beyond this...

Read, because most do not.

Read non-fiction, because most who read do not.

Exercise, because we're drowning in a sea of bodyfat and health difficulties.

Don't listen to relationship counselors, because they're the mouthpieces of a culture built on shitty assumptions.

Enjoy the outdoors, because we weren't meant to be lap dogs.

Work to live and not vice-versa, because nobody dies wishing they had another hour to give to the office.

Compete, because competative entertainment pushes us towards success.

Cook, because cuisine is an art of culture.

Be religious, because life without the sacred is boring.

Listen to different music, because top-40 kills brains cells and degrades women (even the women artists).

Be introspective, so that you can live a life worth living.

Give, because it isn't all about you.

Just generally do the opposite of a society that, on average, fails.

the Primary Intuition

2008-05-07T10:21:00.001-07:00

During my brief run as a Philosophy professor, one of the more interesting of my standing discussions is why people make a faith leap. Honestly, I do not find the "God-proof" arguments terribly compelling, and the good ones end up begging the question. For instance, I think the arguments from Religious Experience and Kierkegaardian Existentialism are persuasive, but not exactly "logical" in the sense of justifying the type of belief that religious conviction entails. If it was a purely intellectual decision, I believe that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

And yet my faithfulness is there. So I am left with the connundrum - how is it that I am drawn so strongly to a belief that is not based on the kind of empirical evidence that my secular beliefs are found upon?

In this little mini-quest of mine, the best thing I have to offer so far is a little reflection on the definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1-3

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

When I have presented this as an object of reflection to my classes on the nature of faith, I find that more often than not they get from it "faith is just a blind trust." The part of this analysis I find lacking is the "just" part. Honestly, the post does say that faith is blind, in that quite literally, it is not based on that which is seen. As a corollary, I would also have to say that it implies that if your faith is based on A,B,C proof-texts, it may not be the biblical faith that one really holds.

It's easy to focus on what the verse negates. It's easy to just say "ok God wants blind followers." It seems to excuse the problem of faith and reason in the minds of both believers and unbelievers alike, giving no real guidance as to what it might mean for a person to come to faith. But I think this is a bit lazy. If I'm reading it correctly, the verse actually DOES give a couple of really big hints.

First, it says that faith is based on hope, namely hope in the idea that there is an unseen reality that is, nevertheless, fully real. It can enter into our lives and affect us.

Hope is often the least emphasized of the three theological virtues (the other two being faith itself, and of course, love, the one most often emphasized). Yet I think that hope may be precisely what opens the door for faith and love. It's as if God is saying "Ok, I am telling you that there is a spiritual (read: immaterial) reality that is a counter-part to all that you do see. You can either accept or reject this proposition."

I call this call to hope the "Primary Intuition" of faith. If my reading of this verse is accurate, a person must hope for God. They must be open to the idea that all we see, hear, do, and encounter has a divine and sacred as well as a mundane significance. As we come to know God more fully this is fleshed out and developed in a more specific way, but I think it remains a pre-requisite for openness to God that we be fundamentally hopeful people. We have to be able to look at the world around us and say "This is not enough. There is more."

One might then ask "well don't we all hope for that?" To this I must answer in the negative. In all honesty, God is rather inconvenient for us much of the time. To truly believe that there is a force watching out and caring about all of what we do and think is frightening (or should be). It means that we are constantly accountable to another standard. There is never really a time when we are "alone", however much we may prefer to believe that we are. In short, we have no choice but to hold ourselves accountable to godly integrity. By integrity I mean, as I posted from coach Dan John, that we must always be true to ourselves in every situation. We cannot close the door and lose our responsibility to God. We cannot hide behind our rights as autonomous citizens, nor our conveniences of life. We cannot merely assert that we are the center of our own little one-person universe. We cannot persecute without fear of judgement. We cannot cheat and not get caught. We cannot lie and not be found out. We cannot hate our brothers and sisters without consequence. And perhaps most importantly, we cannot really believe that we are in complete control of our own (or even our collective) destiny.

I think the point here is that it establishes the Burden of Proof in the God question. If we look at reality and say "I want to believe that there is more", then God is a de facto answer. Because we yearn for a greater presence, we will choose to weight those things that support divine existence more heavily that those things which cause us to question.

Many I know who have chosen not to believe do so largley on the grounds that they would rather give up the pressures of living under the reality of God than the pressures of living under the nihilism of life without Him. This is not to say that they are immoral. Indeed I think some actually start out with a very humanitarian, ethical impulse. They want to believe that parts of their lives only have the values that they assign to them. Certainly our sexual ethics can be much looser if sex is only as important as we want to treat it (thus opening the door for the idea that it can be "harmless fun" or something of the sort).

Also, I think non-hope is a great temptation for those who wish to believe that we can assert a greater level of control over the visible world. Many humanitarian crusaders have difficulty (in my experience) coming to grips with how limited our little moral crusades really are. They wish to believe that somehow if we could just increase our education, think more clearly, and institute the right political mindset, that we could really change the way people are, and thus the normal functioning of our world. It's much easier in some ways to have this atittude that to understand that we are called to be better people out of love for our common creator, and not because we can expect to see immediate large-scale results from our undertakings and sacrifices.

Basically, it's a hard pill to swallow that the light has to shine through the darkness, but the darkness is often prefered by people. It's difficult to buy into a system that tells you up front "look, people are a rough lot. The more you love them, the higher and thicker your cross is libel to be."

The second difficulty of faith is to believe that this unseen reality is not only co-real, but actually MORE real than the concrete instances of our lives. Now, I am not saying that we should simply opt out of things of the flesh as if they were unimportant. What I am suggesting is that we have to act on the priorities of the unseen world first, and let them dictate how we live in the world we can see. For example, when we say that "marriage makes the husband and wife one flesh" we are clearly not talking about a literal mixing of DNA. What we're saying is that "as far as God is concerned, your salvation is now a matter of co-striving. Everything that happens to one happens to two. You are one accountable entity in the eyes of God." Further, you could no more break this bond before God than you could cut your own arm off. You must treat the other, with all of their faults in place, as if they were part of you, inseparable in spirit, mind, and pleasure.

But it is a joyous message too. It allows us to hold that, in spite of the seeming mundane and trivial lives we lead, we are of cosmic importance to the creator of all things. All of our life is covered in divine concern, and therefore everything we do has divine significance. All can be beautiful or ugly, all can be clean or unclean, all can be worship or idolatry.

Basically, it is the choice to believe that we matter beyond what we seem to. That we are paradoxically so insignificant to the cosmic order, and yet so meaningful to the cosmic King.

counselors

2008-05-02T16:05:00.000-07:00

Most people who are on MTV shows don't need air time, they need a counselor. Case in point: Tila Tequila.

when life becomes allegory

2008-03-27T20:55:00.000-07:00

Doing biblical studies has given me a deep appreciation for the way in which metaphors can become reality for us. Like when you're reading the stories of David and Solomon, or even something obscure like the early chapters of Joel, somehow with the movement of the spirit they can tell you something about "reality", almost as if there was some kind of magic waiting to be unlocked by the movement of the Holy Spirit.

Now I wonder equally how the reverse might work. I'm learning how life itself can become the allegory. It's as if each little episode of our lives, no matter how seemingly irrelevant, can also become a story waiting to be unlocked by the inspiration of the spirit.

These same stories are like paradigms that we all have to live out ourselves. We not only read about the prodigal son, we are him at times... and we can be the father at times... and the older brother at times. We all build the temple, and we all cavort with the foreign gods. We all raise up our voices in praise and promise as did Solomon, and display his cunning wisdom at times, and also at other times, his desecrating idolatry.

It reminds me of how things really don't change. I mean they DO, but so long as people are people, our entire lives are already written, couched in the tales of characters long past. We are all immortalized, with different details, in those texts of antiquity. Even the messages... occasionally we have the same realization, state them anew, and they are once again enlivening. And there are times when I hear lines, and they remind me of our inherent connection with these people of old. The same wisdoms, parroted again for the first time, enculturated into a totally different space and time.

What in particular brought about this little reflection? Hehe... check it out.

How silly.

How simple.

How poignant.

"There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes

"It's all the same, only the names have changed." - Bon Jovi (Wanted Dead or Alive)

Words on integrity and relationships from Coach Dan John

2008-03-22T18:18:00.001-07:00

I really liked this little thing. It's from a letter written by Dan John, who is a well-known coach in the firtness and bodybuilding community, but also a Religious Education coordinator in the Roman Catholic church. Ostensibly he was talking about dating, but I liked the part on integrity and its connection to proper relationships; I don't think it has to refer only to dating.

Integrity is one of the things some people forget when they start getting
into
relationships. Integrity is being “one” person…so, on a date or just out
with friends, are
you the same person you are when you are with your family
at Thanksgiving? If you
change from place to place, event to event, you fail
the integrity test.

It is a great gauge for people you want to date, too. Watch somebody in
the school
cafeteria when the teachers aren’t around. Watch them when they
are with “less popular”
people. Watch ‘em. Someone who treats you like fine
gold and a disabled person like dirt is going to be treating you like dirt very
shortly, too.

A great clue for people is to watch how they act around their parents.
When I see
a student genuinely happy to see their folks, I know I have a kid
who acts the same at
home and school. Kids who are rude to their folks may
try to charm you but keep an eye
on your wallet.

If you are worried about introducing people you date to friends and
family, you
might want to put yourself through the integrity test.

-Daniel John (aka: Coach Dan John)

overt racism

2008-03-04T10:35:00.000-08:00

Well, one of my students is choosing to take an overtly racist position for her paper on abortion. The question for the essay reads: "Is an unborn essentially a human being who is in a stage of personal development, or is it essentially something less than human until birth or a certain stage of development?"

The real point is to get them to identify what it means to be "essentially human": What makes us what we are? How are we different than other animals? Do embryonic and fetal tissues share in those essential traits?

Anyhow, one of my students approached me with the question of what to do if ze (since it might be a man or a woman) thought it was ok to abort a black baby, but not a white one. I said well, it seems that you're proposing that race is an essential trait of humanity. The answer "yeah, basically."

As stoic as I typically am in the classroom (especially philosophy), it's difficult for me to stare down blatant, unrepentent racism in the modern world. I understand it as the product of a different place and time. I don't really judge racism in the American south a century ago, because it was a latent cultural assumption inherited from epochs of social conditioning. But today?

I mean seriously, which Sesame Street program did ze miss? Which of the millions of elementary indoctrination attempts, or MTV truisms didn't accomplish its brainwashing purpose? I'm a bit ticked. It's like hey, if you're going to brainwash people into being tolerance drones of all kinds of freakishness, at least make sure the good aspects of uber-tolerance are successfully imparted.

Besides, apparently this person doesn't have the kind of concerns that outweigh racism. For instance, I might think about being racist for a while, but then I couldn't watch Dave Chappelle's black white supremacist and bust out laughing. And what about all the hot Asian girls that are available to me as a single man? And then you've got the issue of Indian food. How can we live in a world where we can't acknowledge the objective superiority of spicy curry and nan to "meat'n'taters" ? Or there's the biggest issue of all: How can a racist live in a world where you can't pull for McFadden over Tebow for Heisman?

At this time and place of human history, I just don't get the impulse of racism...

Another prodigal post

2008-02-24T09:51:00.000-08:00

I returned to church today after an extended absence. The reading for the day: The Prodigal Son - ironic.

It's easy to see why this particular parable is one of the more well-known. It truly does speak to us on an analogous level. There are so many situations we face that we can logically extend the lessons of the story.

For me the difficulty always lies in the elder son who had kept the homestead running all these years. I realize that I'm supposed to boo him offstage and be more like the father, but it's incredibly difficult for my personality to see it that way.

The question I have so often faced is on what basis should we ever bother being moral?

Yes I know that in theory we're supposed to do it because "it's the right thing" and "because we love God." Somehow that doesn't quite cut it. Shouldn't it be the right thing to do because there is a benefit for having done it, and a consequence for having failed in doing it? And if that is true, isn't there logically a balance between forgiveness and disciplined insistance that we must strike?

For me, the problem becomes more acute in our cultural context. Oddly enough, even our secularized cultural inheritance is informed by Christian ideals. Among these is forgiveness. I might even claim that most secular people I know still believe at some level that forgiveness is divine, and inherently better than judgement. Yea, I might even claim that forgiveness is too easily given. A simple "I'm sorry" gets you out of any culpability.

We also have the unusual phenomena of persons who pre-meditate their own conversion. You know the mindset I'm talking about: For now I'm going to do whatever I want no matter how depraved, but later in life I will be a good citizen, join a church, sign up for the PTA, drink only in moderation, and vote Republican. As a person in college put it to me: "I have the ultimate 5 word get-out-of-jail-free card. I just have to tell people who ask me about my past "Well, I was in college" and it's all water off a ducks' back."

His point was clear. He was telling me hey, I can do whatever I want, because ultimately I can just "repent", people will buy it and even sympathize with it, and if you deny me that turn-around, you'll be the elder son.

Perhaps I've let that sentiment affect me too long. Yet, I cannot shake the sheer injustice of it. Of all reasons that I have to rail against my own religiosity, my ideals of justice are the primary stumbling blocks to my Christianity. Not unbelief, not the lure of material things, but the very notion of unconditional forgiveness. I can square with it now and again, but ultimately I yearn for an imperative for virtue.

I think the trick is in the sincerity of the repentance. If it's used simply to escape consequences, then I don't think we're obligated to acknowledge it as an action of God. On the other hand, if the person is truly penitent, then the obligation to receive them is impressed upon us. I can't explain it exactly, but I do get a sensation these days that helps me distinguish between the two. Namely, often the truly penitent person simply did not have a good standard before. They were, if you will, the "virtuous gentile". They were good by their own code, but they hadn't ever come to grips with the rigors of God's laws, so they didn't even have those categories to think in terms of. It's not that they sinned by commission, they just didn't recognize the standard of righteousness.

Finally, I have to say that the old debates regarding whether or not a person could sin after Baptism give me some satisfaction. Sure, the church ultimately ruled that we will all most likely sin after Baptism, but it does show me that others were plagued with the same problem. And even with all that I have learned, and my gradual growth into being a more forgiving soul, I still contribute a skeptical eye towards "penitents" that will help ensure that more forgiving hearts are not taken advantage of, and that their love is only poured out on those who truly desire to partake of it.

a little worse than normal

2008-02-23T21:37:00.000-08:00

I began talking to this cute young lady tonight at Books-a-Million. Turned out she was just a couple of years younger than me, and we had a decent amount in common. Certainly the cuisine chat was great, although I had to say that I felt that the South Beach Diet cookbooks I had in my hand sort of cramped my style. Not sure why diet books do that, but methinks it has to do with admitting that you need any tweaking at all. Smacks of underconfidence in some weird way...

After, we ventured together into the Christian books section. It suprised me to some extent that she had a working knowledge of theology. Apparently she went to a Christian high school, yet her knowledge of real THEOLOGY writers was more adult than that would suggest - more NT Wright, less (fill in inspirational writer).

At last it was time to gather my guts and do what must be done - ask her out on a date. So I asked where she lived. She said "Memphis". Damnay... I inquired as to whether or not that was her hometown. "No", she says, "Fort Smith is where I grew up. I hope to move back here soon, but my husband is in optometry school in Memphis."

A brief contemplation of suicide, and then I began the long march of re-channeling the converation towards inevitable dismissal.

"Nice to meet you", she said. "Really nice. It was so random and interesting. Wish I could talk to you more often, but we're just visiting family for the weekend. By the way, I'm Sara."

I replied in like words and then we parted.

Normally that sort of thing doesn't get to me. Why did it this time? She did seem like a particularly classy, informed, like-minded and quirky sort of person. Cute, in a deceptively youngish-looking and somewhat coffee shop way (my favorite).

It effected me more than usual. I've been blaise all evening.

Oh the definitions we lack...

2008-02-13T20:43:00.001-08:00

One of my classes today was quite convinced that what makes us humans, as opposed to "merely animals," is that we have a soul. Not only do we have a soul, but it would live forever, could have alternate destinations, and just generally mattered...

Of course, this all broke down when I asked a rather innocent question - What is a soul?

**************************** crickets ***************************

This should be an advertisement for the University

2008-01-25T20:06:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting in a Thai resteraunt in Van Buren when I hear the Arkansas fight song begin to blare in the background. At first, Farrah and I cannot determine if this clear sound is from a TV speaker or a cell phone ring. Finally we identify it as a cell ring (with excellent sound). About that time, after letting it ring for what must have been 10 rings worth of the university's fight song, a little Asian guy of about 60 flips his phone open, and with a thick Thai accent yells into it "AaallO!? WHO DE(a)R?"

Later tonight my phone rings, it's Abood, my best friend of Syrian origins now living in LA. "So... good news."

What's that?, I wonder aloud.

"Joe Adams, that cornerback and receiver hybrid from Little Rock who committed to USC? Yeah... well apparently he visited the UofA this weekend and liked it. Rivals even downgraded his commit to USC from hard verbal to soft. Good chance for the hogs to land him I think."

haha. I can just imagine the commercial. A guy from Bangkok, an Arab Muslim with his little cap on, sporting the long beard and living in LA pursuing grad studies in Islamic theology, and a cracker who just got in from killing deers in the Ozarks three-way call each other to talk about Razorback football... awesome.

A life worth living

2008-01-16T12:06:00.000-08:00

I was stirred the first time I heard of Fr. John Meyendorff's eulogy to Fr. Alexander Schmemann, "his was a life worth living."

I recalled aforementioned line today while giving a lecture on the value of Philosophy. I was talking about the misconception that so many people have that Philosophy is "useless". Then I brought up the fact that practically any issue we debate, question we attempt to resolve, or stance we end up taking is fundamentally a philosophical endeavor. The problem, according to me, is that too many who deem philosophy "useless" are adhering to a narrow definition of usefulness that boils down to "a skill that helps me acquire tangible things." Then, practically without realizing it (I'd given the lecture three times without this addition) I just flatly said what was on my mind, "... and if someone honestly places no value whatsoever on anything besides skills that acquire material things, I hope they fail out."

Now of course the students recoiled, because they assumed that I was insinuating a bias against materialistic people that would be reflected in the grades. I quickly said that's not what I'm saying. I won't make it happen per se. But, I still hold to my comment.

For me the issue is one of a life worth living. Socrates, who thankfully is their first reading, put it so well all those years ago: "The unexamined life is not worth living." I think in his eulogy to Fr. Schmemann, Fr. Meyendorff might well have had this exact idea, if not even this exact quote and author (which I do not doubt given his classical learnedness) in mind.

Truth be told, we Americans have such access to education, and such an opportunity to broaden ourselves, that whether or not we choose to live a "life worth living" - an examined life - is just that, a choice. We have the opportunity to make it happen. We also have the opportunity to skip over this self-examination and simply make money, marry 2.5 times, and die.

Here I'm taken to an early quote from the show Battlestar Galactica. Captain Adama is giving his (he thinks) retirement speech, and he poses a quandry: "So often we are thankful for our lives, but we rarely ask ourselves - do we deserve to live?" For modern Americans (among others) I think the question could just as easily be rephrased "do we deserve our prosperity." I'm of the opinion that if all we produce are buyers and havers, takers and absorbers, users and consumers, or as Tom Hopko says "copulators and calculators", then we are little more than extremely blessed and gifted parasites.

I cannot, for all of the love inside of me, find it in my heart to sympathize with the self-imposed problems of those who take blessings without thanks, and forfeit their responsibilities.

A funny evangelism brainstorming exchange today

2008-01-09T21:32:00.000-08:00

Kyle: "So here's the issue - We always tell people that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. They convert, but then later we mention 'oh hey, and now you have to give up everything.' By then, they don't want to hear that. So how can we front-load the question so that they know that God has a wonderful plan for their life, loves them, and also that it's not going to be easy?"

Me: "Easy. Start by telling them 'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Now let me tell you how the best plan God ever had worked out for the one he loved the most..."

Anglicans need not believe in the Virgin Birth

2007-12-27T09:11:00.000-08:00

This is a fairly interesting little piece about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, saying that the Virgin Birth, at least as recounted in Matthew, is a "legend". I can't tell if the statement is simply an instance of colossally stupid PR, or if Dr. Williams is simply being comprehended by lesser minds. In either case, I cannot really agree with him. Let me cite before I critique:

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has picked apart elements of the
Christmas story, including how a star rose high in the sky and stood still to
guide the wise men to Jesus's birth place.

Stars simply don't behave
like that, he told the BBC during an interview.

Dr Williams said there
was little evidence that the three wise men had existed at all. Certainly there
was nothing to prove they were kings.

The only reference to the wise men
from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague, he said.

I have a hunch that Dr. Williams is primarily bucking against the trend towards historicizing scripture, a move that I whole-heartedly support. On the other hand, I am very much a scripture-reading product of Fr. Tarazi and Fr. Behr, who likewise tend to go against the grain of historicizing scripture through and through, but who also are very careful to add the qualifier that scripture IS binding on Christians AS it's written, and that there IS a sense in which we must believe ALL of it.

Perhaps Dr. Williams had all of these qualifiers in mind. I must say that such statements are often difficult to decode for those who lack a formal theological education. But I would be interested to know if he indeed made further qualifications, or if he simply stuck to his point that "it's not a hurdle that new Christians need to bother with", in which case we're in disagreement. It's part of the creedal belief. While I would be all about him speaking in terms of "spiritualized" belief, I am quite uncomfortable with simply saying carte blanc that it's an unnecessary belief. After all, if Christ was not born from the virgin womb, in some sense, then we suffer an aesthetic problem saying that new Christians are born of the Virgin Church. The Church is the virgin mother, symbolized by Mary, who gives birth to new Christ's every day.

However he meant it, I reserve bloodthirsty judgment on him until I know more. But this I am certain of, it was not a smart thing to simply call it "a legend". This isn't Sampson killing 5,000 with the jawbone of an ass, nor is it Lot plugging his daughters while his wife is still being sprinkled on French Fries... this is a line from the Nicaean consensus of the early church. It's a cornerstone of Christian self-understanding, and at the very least he needs to tread these waters more carefully.

thankfulness, Ray style

2007-12-22T07:59:00.001-08:00

Seeing as though it's the second holiest part of the year (if you disagree and think it tops Pascha, then read some Behr/Hopko and try a 40 day fast) i've gotten to thinking about a couple of things I'm uniquely thankful for God bringing into my life these past few months:

1. i'm thankful for the thousand-acres of woodland near Mountainburg. It gives me a place to be free, to hunt, to hang with the boys (wes, Nate H, Jay, Dan, Shoji, Andy, Evan). I forgot how much I love this state until I got back into the wilderness. I thank god also for the other wonderful features of my home that I so often overlook: the trees, the playful squirrels, the many animals for me to hunt, all the little landmarks of Fulmer history, the smell and stillness of autumn and the pleasant bite of winter.

2. I'm thankful for my sisters and their friends. They've re-humanized me and grounded me back on terra firma after years of relative isolation in an academic bubble.

3. Also to my first classes of students for sticking with me as I figured out how to teach, especially for a few: Greg, Lizzie, Karen, Sheila, Matt, Cherish, Jamie, Shelby, Lindsey, Kenzie, Linh, John, Jimmy, Neal, Jojo, Zack, Jennifer, Katie, Shaundreika, D-Chap, Tara, Lukerts, Josh, Kelsey, and all the others I'm forgetting, for seeing me as a person who was teaching them, rather than just 'the prof' or 'the young guy'.

4. For Shoji, because there's nothing cooler than the couple of weeks we spent together, watching Tokyo meet the Mulberry; you were born part-Ainu, but I hope that your heart left part-Cherokee. Aboriginese unite!

5. For Wes and vong, because they've been the best old school friends around, and I couldn't ask for better.

6. For Farrah, for showing me how to love, forgive, and what those words look like enfleshed. It's odd watching someone take a little bit of advice from you, only to exceed you in spirit and wisdom, in such a short period of time.

7. For Barry, Tim and Shosh, for a variety of reasons, but particularly for their ability to keep it smart yet fun.

8. For Krish, Nate H, and Rob Avery, for pondering religion with love and opposition (and BW of course!) After all guys, sometimes gentiles do instinctively what the law commands, and show that although they do not know God, the Law of God is etched upon their hearts. (romans 1)

9. Nate Preston, for telling me that we should not trust anybody who doesn't read fiction, and thus reminding me that I needed become once again become trustworthy, and for just being my conscience when I became judgemental, narratival, and my usual self-important. Also, for smashing my idols faster than I can build them.

10. For the Garklavas', for owning.

11. For my mentors Fr. Tarazi, Fr Behr, Dr. Bouteneff, Dr. Cornell, Dr. Kiriopoulos, Dr. Barnet, Fr. Hopko, and posthumously Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Whatever spiritual advice I possess is merely standing on the shoulders of giants. Anything I accomplish for God's kingdom is merely a footnote to the musings of greater minds.

12. For my Vlad's homies - too many to name, but you know who you are - for showing me that the gwaace of the holy spiiiwit... really can fill all that is lacking to an open heart.

13. For my blood-brothers: Dooba, Wes, Paul, Webb, and Andy.

14. For my parents, because without everything they have given me, the rest of this list would be irrelevant.

oddest little dreams

2007-12-22T04:51:00.000-08:00

Last night I had a series of odd dreams. It's rare that my dreaming is so crystalline. I'm not one of those people who wakes up every other day with some claim to a lucid night experience, but last night was an exception.

The one that searing into my mind until this morning was a very strange one indeed. It was part of a larger set of mini-dreams where the character (ostensibly me) was faced with different situations where I had to sift through the other actors in the dream to figure out who the harmful ones were. My only guess is that the short story of demonic whodunit's can only be explained as a combination of reading too many Flannery O'Connor shorts, plus watching Saw and Saw II before bed.

But, back to my dream, the final dream in the series involved a very odd occurrance. I wasn't in much doubt as to who the bad ones were, nor the fact that they were too powerful to stop. At a certain point, and I can't remember if it was another character speaking, or a voice, or just my own thoughts on the situation, I had clearly lost the conflict, and I began to pray. The dream itself went dark as my dream-eyes were shut as tightly as my actual lids at night, and I remember thinking that the evil ones were gaining energy from everyone attempting to fight them. It's like the demons were using our own passions for survival, violent and flighty impulses, as sources of energy.

When I started to pray, I realized that I was going to be targeted. Still, I prayed, and had the thought "I will follow this path, even if I'm the last one on earth." So then there was a thunk, I believe that was me being killed, and I awakened in the dream to another place. I was there with another character who had been fighting the demons with a revolver. He walked away, looking dejected. I heard a voice, and might have even seen a person (can't be sure now) who simply told me "good...this is the path that divides." Then the land around, which had been arid the entire time, began slowly to bloom with greenery... at this juncture I lost the dream.

A winter's scene

2007-12-19T20:28:00.001-08:00

It was like a vision...

I was sitting in the stand, in the middle of nowhere, miles of low mountain woods on either side of me. Vision was high because the leaves were on the ground, and the sun was dying. The air was crisp enough that I breathed smoke without effort, and the cold left that acute ping on my tongue when my mouth opened too wide. I was huddled in camoflauge from head to toe, many layers deep.

Stillness reigned in all directs, except for a couple of squirrel's playing in the dry wood, and the slow trickle of a stream running over overlapping limestone rocks, creating hundreds of tiny waterfalls, as if God has left a tiny fawcet barely running. The water seemed cleaner in the cold.

The smell is remarkable. Unlike the summer, where every piece of flora and fauna from spiders to moss is exporting millions of scents, winter is austere; there are only the smells of evergreens, bark, fallen oak leaves, and dried hickory nuts blowing on the wind; well, and the musk of wild animals when they come near.

I sat there in the tree with bow in hand. The leaves were crunching under the ponderous movements from light hooves. Deer were coming. Out they came into the clearing. A small herd emerged from the mountain trail in orderly fashion. One of the larger does gave out a sharp bleet, warning the others about something.

There was no sound. Only the constance of the stream, and some inexplicable smoke rising in the trees.

Back to writing my books

2007-12-19T20:20:00.001-08:00

Well, my project for writing a book for publication, so advanced over the summer, took a serious hit with trying to get around and teach a new class this past semester. But, hope is just around the horizon as winter break promises to provide ample opportunity too kill deer and turkey, quite a bit of cooking and eating to accomplish, and little else. So, that should allow plenty of time to get my writing well underway.

Any volunteer rough draft readers?

Don't call it a comeback!

2007-12-19T20:18:00.000-08:00

Ahh, the title borrows from the beginning lines to the immortal LL Cool J classic "Momma Said Knock You Out". It's in reference to publishing back on my blog.

I haven't really been out of the writing loop, i've just been writing on facebook. Perhaps a couple of those magical little notes will need to be pasted on here in the near future.

Mindless party nonsense; how I hate thee

2007-12-14T23:18:00.001-08:00

Tonight was a very interesting indeed. My mother had the pinning ceremony for her nursing class (the fall graduates from the Nursing program). The after-pinning revelries were two-fold: First, faculty ate dinner at Red Lobster, and then we were all supposed to go to some guy's poolhouse and join the students for an after-party.

There were no kinks in that schedule.

It's interesting how much I dislike parties. I do not like public dancing, I do not like large numbers of moron Americans around copious amounts of alcohol, and I especially do not like blasting butts-and-bass music in the background while I attempt to carry on trite conversations with people who respond like they should be wearing an "I'd rather be shaking my butt to ths crappy music" shirt.

I do wonder why it is that the party scene bothers me so much. Beyond mild moral critiques, I simply do not enjoy myself. The combination of thumbing noise and shallow conversations wear me out. I'm not one who's ever done well with the concept of "just being", or the corollary "just doing". Things need to have a reason. I need to see what they're getting at, and consequently whether or not I should follow them.

Truth be told, it's odd to me that so many people enjoy the mindlessness of it all. Not really appealing for me. There's nothing at a party that I can't do a better job of with just a few friends.

Oddly, there is one instance where I found parties fun - seminary.

Yes, you heard it here first. Seminary shindigs were generally fun. Again, I have yet to formulate exactly why the difference is so stark. The loud music is there, as it the alcohol, but the internal culture of the participants made those experiences wholly other than what I encounter in the public sphere. Now for the arduous task of figuring out how virtually identical actions can be fun in one sector, and so bloody annoying in another.

First Blood and shrunken testicles

2007-10-22T06:23:00.000-07:00

I killed my first deer on Saturday. A nice doe worth 112 lbs. As Nate says, "strong work."

However, the beast couldn't go quietly into the night, nono. Instead, is sprints down the mountain at breakneck pace. We tried in vain for about 30 minutes to find a blood trail, but to no avail. Then Nate casually says "well let's head down this way. They like to head for water when injured." So he scours the right woods while I take the left trail, which was a bit clearer path. I finally get to bottom where the pond is, and I see something floating in the middle. I'm thinking "uh oh". So I throw a rock near the lump and the ripples cause an ear to bob.

Oh Dear.

So then I hear Nate's boyscout whistle way way way up the hill trying to contact me. We play dueling whistles for a while as I make the epic trek back up the wooded giant to find him. I see him sitting, he says "I think I found the trail." I replied "Good, but unfortunately I think I know where this trail ends." But we follow it anyway, hoping against hope that it's another deer and that mine is toasted on land somewhere. We follow it a good 1/4 of a mile through thickets and brush... all the way back to the pond. He takes one look out there "well...hehe... enjoy."

My duty was obvious. I sent Nate back 1/2 a mile to get our gear and the four-wheeler for transport. Meanwhile I strip and head into the murky water. I take one step in and my worst fears are confirmed... although the day is heating up rapidly, the water is still in the throes of the 50 degree morning. This was gonna hurt...

At first I went slowly, trying to acclimate to the temperature. I'm half numb when the water finally reaches my "critical parts". I then scream. That's when I decided to man up. I lunged out head first into the deeper water and swim as fast as I can trying to build up some body heat. Finally all that summer swimming comes in handy. I finally reach the carcass and grab the ear, pulling as I perform a one-arm backstroke to the land. At long last I reach the clay soil to where I have to stand, and began to pull for all I was worth. The second I had it firmly anchored on the clay edge I sprinted over to my dry clothes and started using my t-shirt to towel off, thus preventing sickness. Luckily I was layered and had the longer shirt (still not real heavy duty, but...). The boxers were soaked too. So, in I go to my camo pants sans undergarments. Then I knocked the clay off my feet while standing on the semi-wet t-shirt. Last on is the shirt. I let out a final primal scream and began jumping around for warmth.

It was definately a memorable way to get #1. Not bad for my initiation as a venison slayer.

Soon there will be feasting...

too animal for me

2007-10-18T20:59:00.001-07:00

Recently Ft. Chaffee has opened up for some special training programs. We've had an influx of temporary residents from various units around the country. Tonight I was in the gym working out with 5 of the guys from the "Special Warfare" division.

Yikes.

These dudes were animals. Ripped like whoa and having nothing but functional muscles. I'm usually more than enough of a stallion to feel good in the gym, but this was intimidating. It's not often that I'm in the gym with five other people and that I feel sure that I am the biggest wuss in the house. I suppose I hung as long as it was just pure weights, but when it came down to body-handling exercises... whoa. These guys were repping out weighted pull-ups like I do unweighted push-ups. It really reminds you of your place on the totem poll when you're in the presence of professional warriors.

misunderstandings be damned

2007-10-14T20:16:00.000-07:00

I was just speaking with someone on the subject of their brother being misunderstood by the parents. The convo was started indirectly by reflecting on Kafka's Metamorphosis.

These gripes can be legit. Certainly I sympathize with having a disconnect with the family. I often wonder... I think we're all misunderstood to some degree, especially once we've lived away from family for a while. But it seems unique to our generation that we feel that our differences are unique enough that others should actually spend their time giving a damn. Are we due that amount of special treatment?

Arkansan nightmare

2007-10-13T22:36:00.000-07:00

Well, the Hogs have now blown three 4th quarter leads in an equal number of games, starting their SEC season 0-3. Today after the game I told my mom "You've probably seen the end of a lot of things." Even though the Hogs only lost to an admittedly decent team 9-7, I think this game dug some graves.

First things first, the Hogs cannot win the SEC West, or even lose it in such a way that they were one of the "late season hopefuls." So, in a certain sense, that game was the end of hope for this year.Secondly, this game probably ended Darren McFadden's realistic shot at the Heisman. Until now his numbers had forced people to consider him, even during Arkansas losses. Tonight those numbers weren't posted. Not his fault of course. Auburn finally called the bluff on our offense in a way that no other team until now had done. They stuffed 8 men in the box all game and dared us to pass. Instead we spent most of the game running right at them. Still the result of an overall team failing, but nevertheless, that's that.

Lastly, it was probably also the tombstone on Nutt as our head coach next year. I'm not in the Nutt hater camp, and honestly people, the man couldn't pencil in "lose your top FIVE receiving threats" into his game plan for this year. Also, let's not pretend that the Auburn offense did any better against our defense than we did against theirs. Still, results have a way of taking precedence over the facts on the ground, and the results are three straight heart breaking losses for a coaching staff who had been able to deflect substantially criticism on the basis that "love us or hate us, we win games." Now that they haven't, and any lofty objectives are functionally out of reach, that line of reasoning will no longer work.

Indeed I will probably be one of the few Arkansans who still hold a love for Nutt. I sat through those long and ugly years under Danny Ford. While things haven't unravelled the way I'd have liked, I cannot forget that bright eyed young coach who walked into Fayetteville my freshman year and lit a fire in a dead-end program. It's too bad it usually has to end this way. Everyone's hero, the two-time coach of the year, booed twice in our home stadium, riddled with possible scandal (possibly not of his own making, although certainly mismanaged). Somehow in spite of all his flaws (or perceived flaws), Nutt is "coach" to me... like coach Lunny was in at Southside high school, and like Nolan Richardson was for Arkansas basketball.

I realize of course that college football is no biggie to the world at large. Nobody outside of my little corner of the world is affected by the difficulties of a middle-sized college football program falling on hard times. But in a place like Arkansas it's still a small enough circle of people that these things hit more personally. We all have a large investment in our team, not because they're a #1 contender on any regular basis, but because they're ours. It's especially sad when I see an Arkie coaching and two other Arkies playing on the opposite side of the ball. It's difficult seeing a boy from my hometown, who's brother is good friends with my sisters, line up under center for the other team. There's a feeling of family feud that has characterized this whole thing. Maybe that's what making the grapes so sour.

Ironically the grape crop in Arkansas did die in the fields this year. But there's one berry that will still be bottled into the sweet local nectar by our two state wineries - the native Arkansas muscadine. I have elsewhere written a poem of my home state based on the characteristic of this bittersweet berry. I still feel that it is a fitting emblem. A fittingly prospering crop that endures the ups and downs that characterize everything here: from football and politics to the weather. It is my hope that our beloved football team, like our little berry, can be resilient in spite of all, weather the cold, and once again be bottled into a bittersweet liquid that calms the souls and reddens the cheeks of her native sons.

Weezer redeemed

2007-10-09T15:12:00.000-07:00

Do you remember when you were when Pinkerton came out? Indeed, have you tried to block out 90% of what's come from the once great Geek-rock band since the blue album? Remember how we always insisted that Weezer couldn't have really sucked so badly that Pinkerton was the best sophomore record that they had to offer us? Well it turns out that we were right. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_from_the_Black_Hole

Anyhow, so apparently (as best I can piece it together), the bassist (Matt Sharp) went off to start his own band (The Rentals) and took a lot of the key songs (which were the ones that he had written) with him. I bought that cd (called Return of the Rentals) used for $6... it really does sound a lot like old Weezer, more so than Pinkerton. This leads me to conclude that those who felt that the bassist was at least 1/2 of the original sound were correct in their analysis. In fact, I like Return of the Rentals substantially more than Pinkerton. However, the best song on the would-have-been record was recorded but unreleased until later, and even then only on the back side of a single for some crappier recent Weezer song. So it's my duty to spread the love. Or in this case, lost love.

The song, titled 'I just threw out the love of my dreams' has that geek-rock sound and lyrical content that always made early Weezer so endearing. It features a guest female vocalist (not a sellout... it was meant to be a "theme" record, and so it fits in the story... just looks weird w/o the rest of the story). Apparently this is the last thing recorded by 'Old Weezer' from when they still had Sharp... besides of course that travesty called Pinkerton. Tell me this doesn't sound like what we were expecting when we got slapped with 'el Scorcho'.

Another thing that's interesting, if you read the article and do a little creative scheming, you can almost pastiche the record, minus about four songs. Still, the article on wiki makes a great case that two and possibly three of the songs from Return of the Rentals would have been on Songs from the Black Hole. Also, three or four actually were on Pinkerton in some form. Plus we've got I Just Threw Out the Love of My Dreams. So, all in all, you have a nice little Weezer mini-sophomore record as it was meant to be before fate intervened.Although this it all highly redemptive for Weezer in my eyes, it's just sad to know that they probably scrapped the second record we were looking for. (btw, of the Rentals songs that would have been on it, none are bad. They need that extra little Weezer touch, but I could have put them on the first record and they would've sounded at home).

As Wes and I know full well, all truly great bands dream at night of the holy grail of rock... to write a thematic record revolving around space, containing ambiguous sexual overtones. It's not until you have three completely straight guys sitting around strumming a guitar and singing your song to your boy crush at the top of their lungs that you've truly made it. And the only man who has done that... Bowie. Ziggy Stardust is still one of a kind, despite Weezer's best intentions.I like to think that Weezer could have pulled it off if they'd stuck together. Still, they tried, and mad props for that... here's to hoping they try again someday.

For now, indulge yourself on one of the songs that would have been blaring in our expectant ears cc. 1997 rather than... some garbage about half Japanese girls. Enjoy: http://pop.vox.com/library/audio/6a00b8ea074b861bc000c11414da9f5af5.html

Starbucks in the forbidden city forced to close its doors

2007-09-24T14:14:00.000-07:00

Apparently the Starbucks that had been located in China's ancient Forbidden City, where the emperors once lived, has been forced to close by a long line of protests and restrictions imposed by the pressured Chinese government. It was accused by a protest-leading local radio personality of having "undermined the solemnity of the Forbidden City and trampled on Chinese culture."

working in reverse

2007-09-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

In my brief stints as a youth minister (once by title, once by default), I was frequently asked "what is the problem with kids behavior? They go to church, why do they not believe differently than their peers?"

It's a valid question. I think over the past few years, largely under the guidance of living mentors who helped me articulate it, but also under the spiritual guidance of the saints of old, I have come up with a beginning to solving the problem. It may seem like "duh", but here it is: Being disconnected from our foundational doctrine of salvation, which was basically martryiology (the one who gives their life confessing Christ is the paradigm of the saved one). It was thought that as a natural extension of accepting death to this world, that the person would then behave accordingly. Hope of the resurrection frees you from the demands of this world, so that you can then behave in obedience only to Christ.

The problem is that we tend to work in reverse. We tend to want people to behave their way into a life of servitude. But we end up with the same problem that many medical cures face - we treat symptoms while the disease remains.

But of course it's more difficult to treat problems at the root. It's like paying off the national debt. It seems insurmountable, so instead we try and "manage" it. The Church ends up like a constant source of aspirin, constantly numbing the effects, and just waiting for the pain to flare up again, at which point we up the dosage. This process leads to a kind of numbness... a lax life built on a regimen of sedatives that gradually increase in potency. When aspirin will no longer suffice, then we go to morphine or opium, and so it continues. But how to get at the cancer itself?

:(

2007-09-07T21:14:00.000-07:00

Madeleine L'Engle is dead :(

So many hours I spent with her late in my elementary school career. Such a beautiful pen. It's cool, my emotions aren't piqued much, but it's always sad to have one less beautiful person in the world.

Bow hunting is no joke

2007-09-02T13:08:00.000-07:00

I spent most of yesterday sighting bows and a crossbow for the upcoming archery hunting season. Let me tell ya, I've got some experience with guns, but bows are a whole different level, especially if you use Recurve Composite bows instead of composite bows. You gain an appreciation for people who hunted with more primitive bows. Not the easiest thing. It's also interesting because shooting it roughly on target is mildly natural, while shooting it dead-on is quite difficult. It's along the "seconds to learn, a lifetime to master" line of skill sets.

Sigh, I've really liked being home alone over this weekend. I forget, after living with others so long, how much I enjoy a place to myself. It really frees the spirit. So much so that it could be dangerous. Of course, the place isn't entirely to myself. I have the dogs here, but that makes it even more fun. Ace is especially good at sleeping. Well-behaved dogs do wonders for sleep with their cuddliness.

This song, by this band, is pathetic

2007-09-02T13:05:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure that it gets certifiably lamer than "Alchoholin' Ass" by the talent-deprived band Hellyeah. If you don't want to take my word for it, then look it up on youtube. On the other hand, if you don't want to make yourself temporarily suicidal (a normal result of multiple-minute exposure to no-talent-not-quite-metal rock) then just take my word for it and hate it on principle.

A true martyr for Korea

2007-08-30T05:49:00.000-07:00

An old homie named Jennifer found a list of the most unusual deaths in history from 538 BC to the present. Luckily, I detected among them a story that needs to be told.

A 28-year-old South Korean man who collapsed of fatigue and died after playing
Starcraft for almost 50 consecutive hours in an Internet café.

Cannonization inquiry will begin next month.

Me and Andy... classic somehow

2007-08-27T18:10:00.000-07:00

A: hahahahah I asked that to a bunch of 45+ yr olds... only one of them knew... and he wouldnt say it out loud

R: that's when you've formed the perfect question

R: the grail of all teachers

R: the question so gosu, that even the informed dare not say it aloud

A: EXACTLY....

R: (I even typed that in a hushed way)

Equality of soul

2007-08-19T15:40:00.001-07:00

No matter what I might like to think, there are times when I meet someone of particular quality and my body quivers with the desire to bring them to Christ. It's difficult to get all of the motivations, but I have the sneaky suspicion it's because I want my club grown with my choice members.

Yeah, I know, egotistical, not the gospel, and all of that good stuff.

But it's hard for me. It's not that I would fail to encourage anyone to seek - i'm certainly evangelistic in my own way - but it's only natural to think that some people have earned a Christian identity. Like wow... he/she's really worthy of Christ!

I even get the passing feeling now and again that I can become fixated on someone's spiritual life. It's not unlike elementary school when there was that one person who you were drawn to, and the rest of the world disappeared as you thought of gaining their approval. I wasn't ever bad in that regard, but we all had the impulse, and sometimes it overtakes the young without their understand what's happened, or even that it has occurred. And yes, it continues into adulthood for many of us, although hormones have often put perspective on other infatuations by that time.

Two and a half of the best songs you've probably never heard

2007-08-15T07:22:00.001-07:00

Man I'm loving this youtube thing. It's allowing me to watch videos and live performances of so many bands that I would otherwise have no access to outside of outdated LP's, 8-tracks and reel-to-reels that my dad once collected.

Today I have two recommendations, and I would love to hear feedback. First, check out the live version of the Wishbone Ash song Warrior. I think Bush missed this as the Republican hardliner theme for the past election. Perhaps Romney should consider it? anyhow, great song. And while you're at it, you need to see this video titled "Joey" from the best band you have probably never heard of, Concrete Blonde. It's cc. 1989-1990. Superb music. I remember my uncle Tim gave dad Concrete Blonde's Bloodletting at the same time as the Black Crowes' Shake Your Money Maker. Both are excellent, but in terms of their other releases, the Crowes gained more popularity, while Concrete Blonde released far better music. If you like what you hear of them, do yourself a favor and purchase Bloodletting, followed quickly by Mexican Moon and Walking in London. You'll thank me.

Also, not on quite as high a caliber, but still of interest to smaller label rock fans, is Melissa Auf Der Maur's video for her 2003 single Followed the Waves (she is the former bassist for Hole and Smashing Pumpkins... not bad for a Canuck).

Por Andy

2007-08-14T19:24:00.000-07:00

This one's for Andy, on his soon-to-be move to North Carolina.

And remember what Petey says:

I'm a superstar, bought me a big ol' carFour-point-six, seen it 'cause
Black with the bars on the front and backand got a button in the middle, make
the trunk go eh-eh
- Petey Pablo "Raise Up"

Can't we all just not get along?

2007-08-13T09:05:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading this collection of essays on the doctrine of Deification called Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology. It was published by Princeton and was edited by Vladimir Kharlamov and Stephen Finlan.

Generally speaking I find it a solid collection of essays. Kharlamov does a nice job of synopsizing the first two major stages of the doctrine (apostolic writers and the early apologists), while Finlan once again shows his prowess as a researcher/writer (his book The Background and Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors is pure class. Grade-A work that should be read by everyone who's interested in the literary connectivity of the OT and NT.) This guy strikes me as peculiarly gifted, and I'm not exactly sure why he isn't on the short list of Who's Who in theology circles at the moment.

However, one thing got under my skin: the insistence that Orthodox are not unique in this "doctrine of theosis". I find this annoying on two levels:

Level 1: While yes, everyone has some form of the imitatio christi in their tradition, it is only a living, breathing, factor in the consciousness of Orthodoxy. I dislike the religion of scholars as it tends to measure reality by published works and linguistic debates rather than by the lived reality of a community. Sure, Luther or Calvin might have given a glancing nudge to theosis in some bastardized way. Does this mean that they had any comparable concept to what Orthodox are typically referring to? No. Does this mean that any Lutherans or Calvinists except the foundational writers picked up on these strands of thought? No. Most importantly, have I ever met a single serious Lutheran or Calvinist who had this doctrine as a category of thought which they were willing to discuss? No.

So let's stop the trendy wavering. Reformation theology by and large has not been open to the idea of theosis, and on the level of praxis, it still resembles the remarks of arrogant old Germans like Adolf Von Harnack, who wrote that the Orthodox churches don't have any trace of authentic Christianity whatsoever. Practically speaking, that is the consensus conclusion of Calvinism and Lutheranism, and the fact is that Reformed theology and Orthodox theology are competitors who are (essentially) professing different religions.

Level 2: There is too much presumption of theosis as a doctrine commonly understood and clearly articulated within contemporary Orthodoxy. In truth, it's difficult to speak of this "doctrine of salvation" in the same way that Lutherans can speak of salvation "by faith alone", or Calvin's TULIP. If anything, theosis was latched onto in the Western diaspora in order to say something in the foreign category of "soteriology", which in my reading had always had a more organic up until that point. Now this isn't to say that we didn't have the idea of theosis, but I don't think it was necessarily "the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of salvation" in the sense that it is now understood. Certainly there is little to no liturgical reflection on this idea, and I'm interested to track where the language first pops up in the 19th and 20th century. also, depending on who one reads, the "doctrine" looks very different.

Given these two hangups, I find Myk Habels' article, which tries to link REformation ideas of indwelling of Christ with "the Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of theosis" (as if such a thing is commonly understood and easily referenced) to be simultaneously thin and wishful. Especially the idea of "the three great streams to which all Christians ultimately appeal". Define... "great"

unclear writing fostering unclear thinking

2007-08-02T05:51:00.000-07:00

A good article from Dr. Gregory Pence. I do have 'a bone to pick' with his focus on cliches themselves rather than the problems associated with an expressive matrix formed around cliches. But that has already been better expressed by Harold Bloom (posted a couple of weeks ago).

Spousal culture curiosity

2007-07-30T22:45:00.000-07:00

This past year was very educational for me in a number of respects. Among these experiences was my assignment as a seminarian to a staunchly ethnic Jordanian church. Although I had my issues with the way the church ran and prioritized at times (and who doesn't), I must say that in general I appreciated the assignment and grew from it in a fairly painless way.

Among the many things I learned was that Arabs don't vary much in relations between the sexes, whether they are Muslim or Christian. Generally the sexes are very much segregated in public. Now I do not mean that iron walls are constructed to enforce this separation, nor does anyone think of legislating this traditional arrangement. The entire thing is one large tacit assumption of how men and women interact.

Oddly, though it grates on modern sensibilities on some sectors, I think that this model has a lot to teach us. I bring it up because of issues a good friend of mine is having (ok fine, and I have had similar issues in the past) with considering whether or not he can be with a girl from a vastly different background.

It's odd, because those of us who feel frequently alienated by our surrounding culture, often find that different cultures promote certain values that we appreciate far more than most of our peers. Therefore, we are naturally attracted to those women as potential spouses. Unfortunately there is a drawback: The same framework that ensured a girl who is different than those we are accustomed to also places a wall of disconnect between the two people as if it was a spell cast by an evil wizard.

Seriously, it's difficult to understand a person cross-contextually. What motivates them? Why was this or that joke funny? What are the archetypal characters used in the language of a culture that simply don't translate? (for instance, try explaining "hippie" to someone outside of a context where the 60's, pot, rock, and the sexual revolution were earth shaking events.) I had this experience on a small scale with a girl I liked quite a bit. We had the same value system, but the similarities stopped there. We tried desperately to find connection, because we admired each other (I might even use the word enomored), but ultimately we have to face the fact that the paradigmatic themes, images, and even vocabularies that we existed in were difficult to transcend.

I would say that's the #1 hangup people have about seriously pursuing cross-cultural relationships. No matter how similar a belief system and how intact a person is emotionally, cultures take enculturation, and it's difficult to appreciate a person's full personality if you're removed from a similar enculturation.

But back to the Arabs, I wonder if this wasn't always the case? I mean, men and women weren't always equally educated, nor were they taught to value and appreciate the same aspects of the family. I am wondering if the latent divide isn't the more normal arrangement.

If you are at all aware of internet dating sites, look at a profile. Chances are, one desire that the person will express is that they want to marry "someone who is [their] best friend" and not "just a spouse". Somehow this seems corrupted to me. It seems to me that the Arab method is more natural. Can your spouse really be expected to be a best friend as well? Is it fair to put that on them?

I think perhaps not. Maybe we have taken too much emphasis off of spousal relations that relates to men and women giving one another precisely what cannot be had from the same-sex: fulfilling sexual relations, titillating physical affection, physical and emotional support, and the joint production and love of children.

I wonder when this language of the "best friend spouse" crept in? I'm sure a century ago that such poppycock was not as common. My guess is that it has to do with a more mobile society. Often the spouse is the only person that can be presumed to be willing to move for their other half. It would be deemed societally unacceptable for friends to plan their long-term living arrangements around one another. Imagine telling someone that you had recently moved in because your homies had moved, and so naturally you came along as well! Where it would be considered mildly abnormal for a spouse not to accommodate their other's moving needs. And the constant shifting of locations therefore means that the spouse is the only reliable friend. Whereas once, your relationships with others of your own sex was the primary basis of friendship and social connections. Each sex tended to the family prestige in certain "areas" of life.

Interesting story and a poem

2007-07-24T21:33:00.001-07:00

Last night Abood related something very interesting. Apparently in 4th grade he had read a little poem that I had written. Then, later in the day, I threw it away. He thought I'd probably thrown it away because I didn't think it was good enough. Who knows? I have no recollection of the event. In any case... apparently he felt that i'd judged it too harshly. I certainly have never had a high opinion of my poetry, and do not consider myself a poet by any stretch of the imagination. In spite of my opinion, he fished it out of the garbage can, and claims that he saved it for years thereafter. I suppose it's nice to know that someone has always loved you :)

Anyhow, I will entertain the notion that I have always judged my poetry, as well as all other of my endeavors, too harshly. in the spirit of things, I felt that it would be fitting for me to post a poem that I wrote more recently, about 6 months ago, that was going to accompany a blog post. Naturally I felt that the poem sucked, so I saved it to a word file, and it wasn't brought back out until a girl in my church school group needed a poem for her college creative writing class. I let her have this one and one other. I must say that my exegesis of the poem makes it more intersting (so say I), but I would be curious as to what others get out of it on a blank read. Does it kind of suck? Or am I, in fact, judging myself too harshly? Of course, even if I am, perhaps Abood was right. After all, it has been years and years that I have not bothered to cultivate the poetry proficiency. Perhaps it is still decent though... well, he you have it. Anyhow, it's about to be public domain, so feel free to comment:

The Ozarks in Summer (Red Muscadyne Wine):

Gumbo and crawfish,
In a hundred a six.
With Mayhaw jelly
And some biscuits to fix.

Shed the work,
Impossible in June.
The Ozarks are green,
With the flowers in bloom.

Our hills ain’t large,
Not a true mountain one,
But accessible hills,
And a smoldering bright sun.
Yet a true culture’s measured,
By the type of its drink,
The inebriation of the folks,
That soothes them to sleep.

Some need from life,
A classic Red or Merlot,
I say to them France!
And with baguette it should go!

Others need sweet White,
And a fine place to dine,
So go to the city,
stand in your line.

But for the quaintest hills
and the rustic at heart,
heaven has provided
a liquid more tart.

The table is set,
Come friend! Dine and unwind.
A toast to intoxicating angels,
For the bittersweet bite,
of Red Muscadyne Wine.

Gallery of Champions

2007-07-22T13:16:00.000-07:00

Gallery of Champions. It's the name of a card, role-playing, and board gaming shop, and never was a place more aptly named. I went in to look at board games and a card game while there was a regional Magic:The Gathering tournament going on. Oh my goodness. A friend of mine was recently feeling dorky that he pre-ordered the newest Harry Potter and couldn't wait for it to come out. Dan... have no fear my son. If Harry Potter was all these guys had to worry about, they would have exponentially more women than they have imagined thus far in their lives.

You have the big fat loud guy (mandatory), the five of six totally scrawny guys. and all dressed purely in black, often with metal shirts. Really pumped about whether or not the Lord of Atlantis could be tapped with enough manna to overcome the Rock Giant's Castle....sweet...

I have a high nerd quotient, but it's pretty clear that I'm not a champion worthy of the gallery. At least not yet.

PC police make another arrest

2007-07-16T21:49:00.000-07:00

Oh boy, this time a top founder of a law school is being totally disavowed because he used "the N word" in a meeting due to his frustration at finding quality black candidates. Apparently this single slip from an 80 year old man (who is funding their education) is far too much to bear for the incensed population of the law school:

“Several people e-mailed me that it will be a disgrace to have the Papitto name
on their resumes and their diplomas,” said student leader Matt Jerzyk in an
e-mailed statement.
Roberts also has called for Papitto’s name to be removed
from the law school.

Meanwhile, in other news, some rapper on BET just used to the same word 50 times in one song. I was, in the words of the head of this educational board, "shocked beyond belief and very angry" that such garbage was being publicly displayed for my young sisters which, incidentally, had far more affect on my day than Mr. Pepitto.

This post dedicated to Nathan

2007-07-13T09:26:00.001-07:00

Dumbing down American readers

By Harold Bloom, 9/24/2003

THE DECISION to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis.

The publishing industry has stooped terribly low to bestow on King a lifetime award that has previously gone to the novelists Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and to playwright Arthur Miller. By awarding it to King they recognize nothing but the commercial value of his books, which sell in the millions but do little more for humanity than keep the publishing world afloat. If this is going to be the criterion in the future, then perhaps next year the committee should give its award for distinguished contribution to Danielle Steel, and surely the Nobel Prize for literature should go to J.K. Rowling.

What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.

But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?

It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."

Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.

I began as a scholar of the romantic poets. In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was understood that the great English romantic poets were Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, John Keats, William Blake, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. But today they are Felicia Hemans, Charlotte Smith, Mary Tighe, Laetitia Landon, and others who just can't write. A fourth-rate playwright like Aphra Behn is being taught instead of Shakespeare in many curriculums across the country.

Recently I spoke at the funeral of my old friend Thomas M. Green of Yale, perhaps the most distinguished scholar of Renaissance literature of his generation. I said, "I fear that something of great value has ended forever."

Today there are four living American novelists I know of who are still at work and who deserve our praise. Thomas Pynchon is still writing. My friend Philip Roth, who will now share this "distinguished contribution" award with Stephen King, is a great comedian and would no doubt find something funny to say about it. There's Cormac McCarthy, whose novel "Blood Meridian" is worthy of Herman Melville's "Moby-Dick," and Don DeLillo, whose "Underworld" is a great book.

Instead, this year's award goes to King. It's a terrible mistake.

Harold Bloom is a professor at Yale University and author of "The Western Canon." He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Misandry and the popular perception of men

2007-07-11T07:09:00.000-07:00

Christine Whelan has written a nice article for Bustedhalo on the negative portrayal of men in popular culture, and the implications of that for our assumptions about maleness, namely that women dislike men. It's funny, I had a similar topical discussion with my mom in the car this past Monday. I basically said that I don't think, on average, that American women like men all that much. Sure, they like to sleep with them, and they fantasize about them, but outside of that I'm not sure if they would have any use for them. I attempted to codify these comments in the reader response letters of the article. Dr. Whelan's question as posed was this:

Guys: Do you feel like your wives or girlfriends aren't recognizing what
you bring to the relationship? Do you feel bossed around? What kind of advice do
other men give you about your relationships?

Ladies: Is this a problem in your relationship? How do you and your
boyfriend of spouse deal with issues of power and equality? Who wears the pants
in the relationship? Do you think this is a problem—or just something for
sit-com humor?

Also, be aware that at a certain point she was talking about the fact that the marriage vows in the Catholic church tell a couple to "honor and cherish each other, but not to 'obey'". Her point was the equality and not dominance was the ideal of relationships.

I have posted my response below, although you can read mine and the others here:

Why shouldn't women emasculate men? In order for emasculation to be a bad
thing there would have to be something unique and drawing about masculinity in
the first place. If you take away the fact that most people in our society still
prefer to have heterosexual sex lives, I don't think that there would be much
left in terms of either masculinity or femininity that we would cherish. If
anything, masculinity is confidence, being the primary provider and guardian,
and also being defered to in times of a tie. I know that's radically
counter-cultural nowadays, but men are programmed for such behavior. Stephen
Goldberg's work on the biological underpinnings of patriarchy are especially
good, and I would encourage anyone who's really interested in the truth of
sexual differences (and how they can be expected to play out in behavior) to put
their social conditioning aside and give his stuff a whirl.

It's an interesting point about the vows. The epistle of Ephesians, which
was once the standard reading in all churches, appears to indicate that women
are to obey the husband, whereas men are to honor and love the wife. The imagery
used is Christ and the Church. Of course, the part that is rarely emphasized is
that men are supposed to earn this respect and obedience through Christ-like
self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, it seems to indicate that relationships are
"equal," but it also seems to dismiss the idea of a democracy of two people. I
would bet that the old readings in the Latin church pre-Vatican II were more in
line with this scriptural verse.
- Ray

A conservative article on the rise of anal sex in popular culture

2007-07-05T08:18:00.000-07:00

What a necessary and poignant, article. I'm shocked that Slate news still allows conservatives to speak in print. Actually, it's such a candid and fact-based article on this topic. Amazing.

learn it, live it, love it

2007-07-01T22:45:00.001-07:00

All of you need to view, and inwardly digest, all of these photos. They convey the highest in human beauty - the bald man.

Excellent

2007-06-23T08:24:00.000-07:00

This review of Evan Almighty is hella good. The author, David Plotz says a lot of things in an indirect way that I really appreciate and wish would be said aloud. I hope that the author will not take exception to me quoting one section at length:

You might argue that making a comedy about Noah's ark—one of the Bible's
grimmest stories—is a bit like making a sex farce about the Rwandan genocide.
But the problem is not the comic aspiration. VeggieTales is proof that Bible comedy based on unpleasant
stories is possible. No, what's disturbing about Evan Almighty is its flaccid
approach to faith. All that is compelling, moving, and profound about the Noah
story has been systematically excised. In the Bible, God chooses Noah to survive
because Noah is a righteous man. But Evan is faithless and stupid, and comes to
believe in God only because God hammers him over the head with about 137
miracles. Any moron will believe when an omnipotent divine being appears in the
back seat of his car and starts sending him pairs of lions and giraffes. The
lesson of the Bible is that faith is hard, and unrewarding, and painful. Faith
is belief when there are no giraffes.

Shadyac told one early screening of religious leaders that he wants to
use the film "to spread the idea of the good news." But Evan Almighty also
strips away anything Christian (or Jewish) about the story and replaces it with
a message of universal hokum. God's entire instruction to his flock? Practice
"acts of random kindness." (Look at the initial letters of that phrase.) That's
not religion or even morality. It's a coffee mug slogan. The proof of Evan's
redemption is that he starts to like dogs.

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but Evan Almighty makes me
miss The Passion. It was a sadistic, horrifying movie, about a bloody and
terrifying book. But Mel Gibson captured the sense of the story, the ideas of
suffering and sacrifice that undergird Christianity. Evan Almighty is evidence
that Hollywood wants the trappings of faith in movies, but without the
substance.

A dying friend

2007-06-22T06:31:00.001-07:00

I got a call from the Pastoral Care office at the hospital where I did my training hours: Bryan, a friend of mine from JHS/HS, is dying from a stroke to the brain and a smashed skull (injury from falling during stroke). Absolutely random genetic malfunction.

For me last afternoon was taken up primarily by spending time with his family in the ICU waiting room. He was classified as "bear in a cage", which is what the hospital calls patients with circulatory or sedation issues who can't have visitors due to the fact that any shift in emotional state can cause increased blood flow that might interfere with treatment. But little matter, prayers work just as well outside of the glass.

Bryan's a very interesting character, and our relationship the past decade has been equally interesting. Although we never lost touch, it's no secret that beginning in mid-HS we took different paths. Yet, there is a convergence of roads, in a sense. When we visited last December there was none of the cocky egocentric boy that I had slowly parted company with for my own health. No, he was a real man, and had very different priorities. He'd basically rearranged his life around raising his daughter, holding down a steady job, and becoming serious about God.

Strangely, I felt that my lack of consistent contact never registered to him as something malicious or cowardly. He still treated me as a close friend, however distant, and in some respects closer than the thug pack he'd often chosen for his young adult peer group. I felt that he always knew deep down that it was those of us who knew him before a series of scarring decisions, that understood what he was all about; who he yearned to be. I must admit to being somewhat flattered that the family told pastoral care to contact me "if at all possible". Of all people I didn't deserve the request, nor did I deserve the priest-without-a-collar role that the family assigned to me.

Luckily (as I've mentioned previously) I could be of some use since death and suicides were always pastoral strong points for me. People in these situations are without fakeness. They're beyond the trivialities that govern most of our lives. They're given over either to emotiveness or silence, but in all cases seriousness; grappling with what lies beyond; understanding finally the frailty of the human condition. Never more so than in the death of a young person. But with Bryan i'll add one thing - he lived that way too. Especially in his last couple of years, the artificiality had worn off. He was sincere, devoted, and forward. I believe that these are all qualities that stem from knowledge of ourselves as living dead men, as Christ understood. We must all be in the tomb eventually. Can't fake it then. Why fake it now?

Of course as I write this, Bryan would probably be the first to tell me "INDY". It's a phrase we used when playing war games against each other way back in the day. It means "I'm not dead yet." Normally it was a way to tell the winner of a large battle that the war was not yet over, in spite of their (mandatory adolescent) bragging. But the doctors say less than 1%, and even if life is bestowed, likelyhood of serious damage is almost 100%. Miracles can and do happen. We've all got that story of the 1%'er who made it. But, miracles aside, everyone seems to be of the impression that it's all over but the shouting.

So now I begin to reflect on his life. Three things strike me about our friendship. I apologize for any repetativeness:

First, I will always count as friends those who, however distant they have become, were my companions when it wasn't the cool thing to do. Truth is, i'm usually a pretty well-liked guy these days, but it wasn't always so. There was a time when I was basically the chubby little introspective nerd. There was nothing to be gained by being my friend except me. I only had my companionship and friendly and imaginative (some would say delusional), if not socially awkward personality to offer in return. He took that deal.

Secondly, we spent a lot of time playing games, especially role-playing. This may seem trivial, but I would disagree with anyone who ventured that opinion. It was a central part of who we were as a group. We valued people, time with each other, and the creativity of other people more than girlfriends and beer parties. It was a way to get away from what we collectively viewed as the petty boredom that most mid-teenagers suffered through their obsession with irrelevant things things. Role-playing represented our youthful longing for something beyond the five senses. It's not accident that we have all five become religious people, two of us professionally. It was our way to deny what society valued and to express our difference not in self-effacing rebellion, but in a positive expression of the heroic life we longed to live.

Plus, role-playing became for my friend an icon of what he was and wished to return to; the path he retrospectively wished he'd taken. I still remember last December, his health already waning, the one thing he still wished was to role-play with "the old crew". It was his way to reach out and tell me that those were the days when he was proud of who he was, and of the company he kept. "I'm always down. Man I miss those days so much. Anytime if I'm not working just call me up." Eleven years after he last busted out the dice to play with us, he told me that he still possessed several of his character sheets, just in case.

Lastly, although he is expiring so young, he accomplished something that few in our society ever will: He became a real man. By this I mean firstly that he became a true child of God. It's when Christ was on the cross, crucified for our sins that Pilate told those around him: "Behold the Man." Not "a" man, but The Man. Bryan accomplished what I also want to say of myself one day - he stood at the foot of the cross and saw himself truly. Unabashed recognition of his own sinfulness, fully aware of his numerous self-inflicted wounds, never blaming anyone for leaving him, or for the burdens he was having to bear for others (and there were plenty). His concern was especially high for his younger siblings. His main wish was that they would be anything but him. On his myspace page, under his "Heroes" it reads: Jesus, our lord and savior.

Whatever his numerous shortcomings, he is passing away as a true friend, a totally devoted father, a surrogate provider for the family, a hard worker, and a child of God.

Wish he were with us now. Wes and I were looking for another player. It's just not the same role-playing with two. Ah well.

Keep the dice close amigo. We've got plenty of character sheets. The old crew will all be there soon enough, without the world to part us, without time to end the sleepover. There will again be wizards, warlocks, and starships. Forgive us when we forget you as we go about our lives. And until we're all together again: "Behold, The Man."

Team Fulmer ownz the court

2007-06-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

Today at the fitness center my 14-year old sisters and I took on all comers in b-ball. We came away 9-0. Team Fulmer ownz! So much fun to whip some cocky fools with family. I wonder if those high school boys will ever live down the shame of being beaten by younger girls and their old fart brother?

Overqualified, Undercertified

2007-06-20T09:19:00.000-07:00

One thing that has resulted from my job hunting this summer has been a frustration at the endless need for certification. No matter what job you apply for, it isn't enough to have 4 PhD's and an MD, nono, you need to also have attained, at some point, a three to five letter acronym that people outside of the field don't realize exists. And of course these are all on limited time budgets and require some kind of prospective investment. I believe that those who find themselves in my predicament should have their own acronym on the ready just in case. Besides my name, I think I will start putting OQUC (Over Qualified, Under Certified). It means that I'm certifiably intelligent via my educational achievements and in-person charisma, but that I probably do not have that one niche qulification that a causes any given employer to overlook all sins.

It wouldn't be quite so nerve racking except that qualification and certification do not parallel one another. What's more funny is that they're not expected to. Employers don't actually think that the certification does anything - and they tell you as much! No, everyone understands that it's a hoop to jump through, and that any positive value of the certification could be gleaned from less than a month of work experience.

The whole phenomenon has to do with the proliferation of degrees and specialties. Academics provides the perfect example: Three generations ago a Master's degree was required to teach at an institution of higher learning - hence the title. Then, to be competative, you really needed a supplemental degree. Now, three generations later, it has snowballed into 1-2 Master's, a PhD, at least four published articles plus one (usually dull) book, and of course post-doc experience. I dread the thought of what university instruction will demand of its intellectual slaves in another three decades.

Why does our entire society have to be one prolonged credential pissing contest? What happened to the notion that once you were qualified to do a job as-stated, and once you proved that you could, in fact, do it, then it was the employer's responsibility as an intelligent recruiter to hire the best? People will now turn down far better candidates for ones with the proper "certification". Annoying.

Diamonds are evil

2007-06-14T07:11:00.000-07:00

Yes I said it, diamonds are evil! Do not get your spouse-to-be a wedding ring.

This short rant has been brought on by three major things:

1. Diamonds are a dirty, dirty business. If you don't know this, read books. We, especially we Christians, should think long and hard before supporting such an industry.

2. I detest the expensive and meaningless pomp that goes into most weddings. I detest it more in communities where it's 10x bigger. We've replaced marriage with weddings. barf.

3. This article on Slate today. The author is clearly arguing from a feminist standpoint, and as such glosses over many key points (including my #1). She also assumes the semi-Marxist position that rings are just one part of "retrograde fantasies about gender roles." I obviously take issue with that rationale. Also, I find it funny that she refers with disgust to a social movement wherein rings replaced old contractual severance laws with regard to engaged persons, since people used to "need" virginity for marriage, but often slept together while engaged. Thus, bemoans the author:

Implicitly, it would seem, a woman's virginity was worth the price of a ring,
and varied according to the status of her groom-to-be.

Although I sympathize with her point, and in my own worldview a woman's extra-marital virginity is priceless (a notion that the author would doubtless disagree with me on), I can say with confidence that most women I know lost their virginity for far less than $3,200, be that direct prostitution, or just the total price for general girlfriend upkeep during their virginity-losing relationship. After all, the average age of first sexual experience in the US is 16.3... how much money do you think the boy has at 16.3?

Nevertheless, the author gives an excellent overview of how recent the tradition really is, how it developed socially, and why we might want to take a second look at it. As a bonus she gives a more cost-efficient and humane-sensitive way for people who really want to say "forever" to express themselves in today's world: tatoos!

SHOCKER!: Teens unrealistic about money

2007-06-13T07:13:00.000-07:00

What a superb article on MSN this morning. It also references five or six other msn articles that I have enjoyed as of late. The tie that binds is our fantasies and realities governing money. In this one, the particular issue at hand is teen expectations of money.

I constantly ask myself where these money grubbers come from? I mean sure, we all want to make a living. I'm far too bourgeois to pretend that I do not share this desire. But on the other hand, i'm also the product of an educational system that has reinforced to me time and again, in both religious and secular spheres, that money does not lead to happiness. And this isn't just pious drivel. Research bears out the basic truth, at least up to a point. To quote from the article:

Our whole society, and our economy, is built on the idea that "money will
make you happy," said attorney Jon Gallo, co-author with his wife, Eileen Gallo,
of the book "The
Financially Intelligent Parent." "It's part of our cultural ethos. . . .
These teenagers are just epitomizing that."
In reality, money doesn't add
much to people's happiness once they're raised above the subsistence or poverty
level.

"Money does make a huge difference when you're talking about going from
$8,000 a year to $30,000," said Gallo, citing the research of Harvard psychology
professor Daniel Gilbert, who wrote "Stumbling
on Happiness." "Between $50,000 and $500,000, though, the difference is
scarcely measurable."

Many of the things that do make us happy, such as a sense of purpose
and strong relationships with family and friends, don't necessarily add much to
our nation's gross domestic product. In fact, Gallo joked that our economy
"would grind to a halt" if people gave up the idea that happiness lies in more
money and more stuff.

Basically most of us know this - in theory. Most others in our society are products of the same educational process I am, so what's the disconnect?

I think it's that in practice money is linked to other tangible good that we often want, namely power, prestige, and sex. I would venture to say that once these passions are controlled, the truism that money doesn't buy happiness becomes more meaningful to the individual.

Perhaps also we should take to heart what the good researcher says - we will grind to an economic halt without greed. And maybe this is exactly what needs to happen. The more and more we laud the idea that happiness results from stuff accumulation, the more and more we have to seize resources to sustain the idea. Many changes that we could make to maximize our lilfestyle effeciency would barely be noticeable if they were collective efforts. We could easily switch all motor traffick to hybrids. We could easily have plans to maximize the heating and cooling efficiencies of old units. We could easily set up an organic crop system that would allow for fewer but fresher and slightly more expensive food goods. The water pressure of casual focets alone is a big waste. And yes, we could switch to one-income households! Don't believe me? Check out the post on the economic value of the average mother.

Why must secular Europeans be the only ones that make these practical switches?

Uh oh... I like an Indie film...

2007-06-12T13:46:00.000-07:00

okok, I just accidentally saw an indie film that I really enjoyed.

Now sure, we all like that occasional "thinking" movie, some of us more than others. But this wasn't just a thinking movie. No, this was indie like Cartman talks about - black and white flicks about gay cowboys sitting around and eating pudding.

The particular cowboy flick in question was a tale of lesbian boarding school girls and the ties and dissolutions of eroticism and friendship.

I know, it sounds lame.

But the story is a very humanizing one. That's what I dug. Aside from the gay community porpaganda that may or may not have underwritten its making, it stands alone as a beautiful story of characters that are in contact with a different, and at varying times more and less sane view into life and the human condition. Although I disagree with their particular expression of that dimension, I still appreciate a movie that goes there.

Unforutnately, the gay content of the movie inevitably pegs it. On IMDB the topics listed are all sex and rebellion, which does the movie a grave disservice.

All that said, it's not the kind you watch with a lot of people. Even one blithering idiot trying to be funny at the films' expense would destroy the power of it. Nono, watch this one alone in your home.

In fact, I think the movie might not translate outside of me, because it was my personal take on the film that made it interesting to me, although I'm guessing that mine was a solitary exegesis. The way I read it, the film revolved around the duality of main characters: there were two that seemed to live their lives as a reflection of deeper metaphors and one that, while perhaps just as "good", and possibly a deal more sane, didn't. Her motivations were straight forward. The crux of the story, in my reading, is whether or not to pay the price for passion. At what point do you pull back? Do you ever pull back? What if it destroys you and you cannot achieve victory?

Kirk Cameron online ministries

2007-06-11T07:23:00.000-07:00

Kirk Cameron, former boy star on "Who's the Boss", is now a successful online preacher on behalf of the hardline evangelical movement. He's an interesting case study in terms of why people convert, how they can balance the transition between lives, the price to be paid for that conversion, and also how one can maintain a degree of the old person without being that old person any longer. It's heartwarming in terms of his transition towards a life of guidance, God, and personal priorities. At the same time, I retain my typical reticence regarding the content and implications of the party-line evangelical message including how it picks fights with intellectual fields of study (namely evolution) and its emphasis on a physically dualistic afterlife brought on by a hopelessly literalized Rapture. Take a look here

Evangelical Teens Do It Too

2007-05-31T08:18:00.000-07:00

This is a really good article on Slate about the sexual beliefs and practices of religious people in America. It's actually the result of a book by UT Austin sociologist Mark Regnerus called Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers.

There are of course the depressing facts in the book, which are all-too-well-known:

Teenagers who identify as "evangelical" or "born again" are highly likely
to sound like the girl at the bar; 80 percent think sex should be saved for
marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually
more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or
Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3,
compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to
have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7
percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline
Protestants.

The fate of the True Love Waits movement, which began with the Southern
Baptist Convention in the '90s, is a perfect example. Teenagers who signed the
abstinence pledge belong to a subgroup of highly motivated virgins. But even
they succumb. Follow-up surveys show that at best, pledges delayed premarital
sex by 18 months—a success by statistical standards but a disaster for Southern
Baptist pastors..."It just sort of happened," one girl told the researchers, in
what could be a motto for this generation of evangelical teens.

However, the sociologist is a solid researcher, and bothers to go one helpful step further by differentiating between people who are truly dedicated to their faith and those who are marginal:

Regnerus' ultimate conclusion is not all that surprising. What really matters is
not which religion teenagers identify with but how strongly they identify. After
controlling for all factors (family satisfaction, popularity, income), religion
matters much less than religiosity. Among the mass of typically promiscuous
teenagers in the book, one group stands out: the 16 percent of American teens
who describe religion as "extremely important" in their lives. When these guys
pledge, they mean it. One study found that the pledge works better if not
everyone in school takes it. The ideal conditions are a group of pledgers who
form a self-conscious minority that perceives itself as special, even embattled.

Hmm... chalk one up for Dr. Stark and Nate - looks like the "lean and mean" Church wins another one.

Big Oil defense

2007-05-24T10:43:00.000-07:00

Who's to blame for oil prices? See a reasonable defense of Big Oil's innocence in this article by Jon Meachum. He suggests that the joke may be, in fact, on us :-p

Class of 2007 awards

2007-05-22T06:12:00.001-07:00

Now time for the Ray presentation of the Class of 2007 Awards that Really Matter:

Overall MVP: Nathan

Most Intelligent: Nathan

Best Humor: tie - Shoji and Abi

Commendation for Community Service: Nathan

Most Endearing: Shoji

Most Entertaining: Abi

Most Handy: Abi

Most Hospitable: Garklavs

Best Massage: Rocknage

Most Liturgical: Phil M.

Best Ordination: Fr. Phil Rogers

Hardest Music: tie - Royer and Ian

Underclassman MVP: tie between B-rock and Rivers

BBC coverage of a US 'surge' outpost

2007-05-22T05:45:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent coverage of a US 'surge' outpost from the BBC. Balanced and sane coverage.

You Reach, I Teach

2007-05-16T08:48:00.000-07:00

Many years ago, playing basketball with my next door neighbor Creed, he had a favorite saying: "You reach, I teach." He was referring to my tendency to reach and try to slap his dribble away. Now he didn't always succeed in showing me up every time I tried it, but he did make a lasting impression on my defense; there is something to be said for physical and close-body defending, rather than going for the quick slap away.

Also, I've found that as I evolve academically, the same basic principle applies. Many authors are doing quite well in explaining their theory, and then suddenly they "reach." Some kind of mildly good point is suddenly extended into an immaculate meta-narrative of the entire field, and simply begs for a good drubbing. For example, the Historical Jesus people made many good contributions to biblical studies over the years, but when they tried to completely rewrite the canon of Scripture and faith itself by applying their principles in a totalizing manner, Luke Johnson had to teach. Likewise, many feminist have made good points about the disparity of sex roles in certain cultural constructs, but as they've gradually had to extend their ideas into the mainstream, some teaching has been necessary.

Such very good lessons were learned early in life, and I certainly have to include "you reach, I teach" among their number. Nice work Creed.

BBQ in the 4 corners described

2007-05-15T08:58:00.000-07:00

Here is a Bar-B-Que guide for all BBQ-challenged-northerners (sorry about the redundancy of that statement). Also, in addition to giving you ideas of how to BBQ right, this article might also allow for more meaningful conversations regarding what kind of BBQ we're sitting down to enjoy.

Enya pities the foo!

2007-05-02T15:40:00.000-07:00

So I'm going out for a frosty, my choice way of breaking the thesis monotony. I'm listening to Enya. This guy pulls up next to me in the other lane at a red light: his car is massive, his shades are on, his windows are rolled down, his rap is blaring.

All I can hear is something about ho's, something else degrading about women, something angry, all along with a steady thump...thump... thu-thump-thump-thump....thump. So, I do all that is in my power.

Soon his loud music is met by a foe of equal volume. If every man, says all he can, if every man is truuuuuuuueeee! Do I believe, the sky above, is Carribbean bluuuueeeeee....AAAAAAAAAAAAAA OOOOOOOOOOO

He looks at me in disgust. I calmly return the stare with a slight left-eyebrow raise as if to say "That's right. What now dawg? Enya ownz you."

Green light.

It's the size of the fight in the dog

2007-05-02T11:52:00.000-07:00

Give a terrier a chance and they'll be heroic. This terrier died the way all these little sparkplug dogs dream of - going toe-to-toe with two substantially larger opponents, saving five human children, and living long enough to bask in the glory of their warrior spirit before the valkyries have to take them to doggy Valhalla. This is why my family only raises terriers (and Ace).

It's all there folks, check it out.

Good BBC thread on anti-Americanism

2007-04-21T17:28:00.000-07:00

BBC correspondent Justin Webb has started a multi-part series on anti-Americanism around the globe. It's a very nice take on the issue from an unusually sympathetic European voice. Webb does a decent job, given the format, of parsing what are legitimate and illegitimate anti-Americanism mindsets.

I would like to add here my own little blurb. While I realize that we probably deserve a lot of what we get, I'd also like to suggest that the 'pride' in the USA which many Europeans find repugnate hides a somewhat positive quality - we believe in our mythology.

Now we all have our own mythology, and it's my contention that where the mythology is more deeply ingrained into the public psyche... where there's true pride in the mythological values of a culture or community, there is also the most antipathy when another, similar group with a different but equally strong mythological adherence is encountered. I posit that this is the issue between the US and France. We both have strong mythologies that civilians basically believe in, but our myths have diverged more and more over the past 200 years, and especially in the past 50.

I really want this to make it into the final draft...

2007-04-18T08:45:00.000-07:00

"The works proscribed by the Law of Moses are too many to remember, much less to perform." - Rudolff Bultmann (noted German New Testament scholar, 1950's-70's)

"The body of contradictory positions [regarding Paul's understanding of Righteousness and the Law] is too vast to skim, much less to evaluate."
-Ray Fulmer (Master's thesis footnote)

German military under scrutiny for racism

2007-04-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

What an interesting article on MSN today. The gist of it is that a German boot camp instructor was teaching machine gun use by urging the cadets to imagine they're shooting at African Americans in the Bronx. Or, as the article quotes:

The clip shows an instructor and a soldier in camouflage uniforms in a forest.
The instructor tells the soldier, “You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping
in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting
your mother in the worst ways. ... Act.”
The soldier fires his machine gun
several times and yells an obscenity several times in English. The instructor
then tells the soldier to curse even louder.

Now if you've been to Germany recently you know (and if you haven't let me save you the trouble of investigating) that there is a lot of racism there, some of which is below the surface. I can certainly see this kind of thing occurring, although I think that the links with the soldiers posing with skulls in Afghanistan and some abuses in training facilites is a bit of a stretch. Honestly... soldiering often dehumanizes people, especially in testy situations, and most especially in conscript armies such as the Bundeswier.

But the curious part of this article is the internationality of it. There are people from the Bronx wanting a formal apology from the German military. Al Sharpton has even hopped on the issue saying that the German military is "depicting blacks as target practice" and therefore "I think this is an incredibly racist kind of insult to African-Americans and it speaks to the kind of institutional racism that people think we are hallucinating about."

Now of course, this is a stretch on REv. Sharpton's part. Most people don't talk about racism in Germany on any regular basis. People who think Sharpton is making things up are those who are addressing primarily his thought that there is massive institutional racism in the US, which is a view that I also do not hold. I seriously doubt that this kind of thing is happening at Fort Bragg. Besides, giving American army recruits an order to shoot at black people from the Bronx is libel to cause a 50/50 gun battle among the boot camp trainees and instructors. My guess is that African-Americans from the Bronx are well represented in our armed forces, likely out of proportion to their numbers.

Musings on one journalists take of the Imus firing

2007-04-14T04:59:00.000-07:00

I don't listen to Don Imus. In fact I've never heard of him. I suppose that if he overstepped his shock-jock bounds by making a poor racist comment about the Rutgers basketball team and it affected his stock value then he deserves to be pitched to the dogs. No disagreement on that one.

Yet I must take exception to the double standard. I realize that I'm supposed to be all good with the fact that rappers can say what they want about black women while white males in particular have to tip-toe on eggshells not to offend, but I admit that i'm not fine with it.

NEWSWEEK columnist Eleanor Clift says in her article that the real issue here is that Imus said what he said on public airwaves, as opposed to rappers:

The only thing worse than what the rappers say would be government regulation of
their right to say it. The difference with Imus is that he’s on the public
airwaves. It’s not a question of whether he can say all the outrageous things he
says--it’s where he says them. The marketplace has spoken.

Now, perhaps it's my imagination, but this argument seems to be lacking in credibility. I, for example, know where MTV is located. I can find BET if given enough time witht he remote. That's a lot of rappers with a lot of "ho's" getting a lot of playtime, all at the touch of my fingertips, and in known venues. Furthermore, it's MTV and BET, not Don Imus, who are really lifestyle trendsetters for the young and impressionable masses.

Truth is, I'd never heard of Don Imus before a week ago. If people choose to get their opinions from shock jocks then so be it, but I think more frequently the listeners agree with or hate on the host depending on what they thought going in. Shock Jock radio has always been more monologue than dialogue.

But Clift has another point. Basically Imus, she concludes, was pulled because of advertising backlash. Now that's really the heart of the matter. The consistent reinforcement of a double standard, coupled with a population that is almost entirely desensitized to public displays of trashiness has combined with an education that has panzied an entire generation who are now the primary consumers.

Abstinence education programs unsuccessful

2007-04-13T19:07:00.000-07:00

Well, after the 5-year study conducted by a congressional mandate on Title V Abstinence programs it's official - no differences positive or negative. you can read about it here

Now this really shouldn't surprise anyone for two reasons:

1. You can't fight and entire culture with a couple of classes.

2. The 'safety' argument doesn't really work with youth, however sound it might be. They think of themselves as immortal. Rather, you have to appeal to some kind of higher standard. On Maslow's hierarchy it's essentially a self-actualization argument more than a phsyical safety one, at least in the eyes of youth. This requires some sort of theological/philosophical upbringing which can't be accommodated in public schools.

The Chesterton/Lewis quote for the day

2007-04-13T05:34:00.000-07:00

Man, GK Chesterton is arguably just as quotable as CS Lewis. What a man!

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.

This quote is so dead on. It's amazing how Christ centralizes the nature of one's enemies. For Christ it's his tribesmen... the elders and neighbors from within his own people who seek his life. It's the king of Jerusalem who kills the children in Bethlehem. It's the Egyptians who shelter. The Romans have no particular gripe with him, but the Jewish people want him dead. Joseph's brothers actually trade him in primarily because they are jealous of his skills, but the foreigners make him a prince when they realize his gifts. And hey, Jesus was blunt about the fact that a prophet has honor except in his home town. Ever tried to evangelize a parents or sibling? Yeah...

As with so many other points in the Scriptures, it's not just about the Jews or the specific characters mentioned. The point, once we accept that we're reading God's stories, is that we all fit into the pericopes. Rivalry is most often internal.

Even within our faith communities the dichotomy can be intersting. I've rarely heard a Protestant or Muslim say anything against me going to seminary, or looked at me askance for prioritizing the spiritual path. They also tend to be very supportive of the benefits of a formal theological education. "How good for you to take time out and learn your faith!". My own people, on the other hand, frequently fear trained theologians. They crucify their best as being "liberals" or "not pastoral". It's an odd gun-pointed-at-foot complex that this church has at times. Perhaps we're not the only one. Chesterton and the Scripture would both seem to indicate that it's more of a human religious phenomenon.

The moon will whoop you!

2007-04-03T14:35:00.000-07:00

Ok, sometimes I pay a little too much attention to the wording of the psalmnody, prefering to try and exegete as I chant along rather than just letting it wash over me. Today after Typika I had a particularly special treat for my efforts. Check out the lyrics to Psalm 121 verse 6:

"The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night."

Now the sun, on occasion, is a little intimidating, but I guess I never really thought of the moon whipping up on me. It is a little scary though. I can see it. You blaspheme a little... one too many idols.. maybe mix some meat and cheese on the same platter and over walks the moon on Yahweh's behalf to give you a once over. Lunar beatdown.

Speaking of which, this all raises a neat canonical question: Does the moon count as "barbarian lands"? It's important if we ever set up colonies. Is the Ecumenical Patriarchate over it? Moscow? Is there a self-ruling, autonomous Lunar Patriarchate?

That's plain sweet. the Lunar Patriarchate.

unspoken priorities

2007-04-01T21:34:00.000-07:00

CS Lewis once said that the most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.

I find that his wisdom holds true not only for public arguments, but also personal priorities. It's amazing what's said without really telling anyone anything, and often without even intending to make the point which our omissions make for us.

Today after church was a golden example. Palm Sunday ends up bringing out everyone, usually dressed in their best, and culminating in a vast array of picture taking. It's interesting who's in and out of the pictures at that point. It's most interesting because people aren't thinking about it. They're congregating around whoever they "need" their picture with.

I enjoy little bouts of festivity. You get a much better sense of where you stand in a group. Many times we feel well liked by a group, but in fact we're mostly a tool. Not in a bad way, a tool as in someone who is useful; someone who fulfills a task. But that's different from someone who's truly wanted. I've always fancied myself the useful one, but less often the one who's wanted.

Sometimes i'm the wanted one. I dare say that if the pics had been at Vlad's I would have been among the more wanted variety. Same at the outdoor parties in college. But in general I'm always the tool. Not to say that I'm not welcome, I usually am, but that's the extent of it. It's like when you're on a date, and when the music starts playing and your dates' friends arrive and you become optional (at best) on the dance floor. You realize that you're the accompaniment, and you're as wanted or unwanted as you make yourself, but you're certainly not "the point" of the date.

When our guards are down we tend to play our hand. Such is the root of the old Roman saying en vino veritas - "in wine is truth". When those social disinhibitors are gone then you can see what people think unfiltered. Group think is like that, as is staying in contact. No matter how close I feel to someone, distance is the ultimate litmus test. If we stay in contact across stretches of land, then there's substance there. If not... well.

Turn the Page

2007-03-29T06:54:00.000-07:00

My longest standing homette got married just a little while ago and recently returned from her honeymoon. I decided to give her a call to chat. She wasn't there so the answering machine picked up. Her voice came on and announced her first and last name for the person leaving the message. That last name... possibly the last time I'll hear it.

Her myspace photo is now of her looking whipped in the wee hours, drinking from two fruity drinks at once in a dimly lit room wearing jogging clothes. She always was casual. Brought to mind years ago. All of our friends rolling out at 4am or so, heading over to IHOP so that we could crash on full stomachs. I suppose that can still happen, but not really. At some level I've never been willing to let go of that moment. We're all laughing. Everyone else is asleep. Benny's house has been eaten clean. Monster ball has been played. Movies have been watched. IHOP will let us see each other a little while longer. Tell a couple more jokes. Just enjoy all of my blood friends until the sun shines in, the world wakes up, and we go slumber to avoid them until out time, when the masquerade of the night creatures can begin again.

I was a little bit offended that she didn't invite me on her honeymoon! It'd be like old times. Her, her boy, and me. Naturally we'd need to call up Dooba. Doesn't this punk remember the drill?

Oh yeah, he doesn't remember. He never even knew it to forget it. It wasn't their drill. It was our drill. They have their own ways, and I don't know them. We've become so disattached that I can't even relate to the person who she's married to. I knew when I gave her a hug last time we chilled that our time was limited.

I can remember having to tell her, honestly, that she and her b/f of four years, one of my closest friends (and still close), should probably be apart. We were alone on the front steps of my house. It was a little after midnight. I had taken her side over and against him. Now he's still like family while she and I rarely speak. There was no other way for it to turn out. I knew them as a unit and it's still bloody weird to think of them otherwise, even after so much time has elapsed. Even after I blessed the division.

Besides, we both knew it wasn't just a breakup. She was leaving the tribe. I knew what I was saying to her. The tribe wasn't healthy for her. It was dissolving into parts anyway, more through circumstance than bad blood. We were close that night, and we would be once again, but she'd grown distant.

I went to IHOP last Saturday morning to try and live in the afterglow of my thoughts. They weren't there. I was there. New Yorkers were there. The line was long, the food was fast, I sat alone, I got the check in minutes. It was 10am, not 4. The yuppie colony was already scurrying about, whining, driving nice cars.

Don't know that it would matter if we were there anyway. A couple of us are professional religious folks now, some are doctors, a lawyer, professor or two, pair of teachers, building contractor, a cop. It's not that we don't still have a latent affection for one another, but you can't just recapture the scenario through force of will. We can't be sitting there, scholarship university careers in front of us, revving to go. That's gone, and it isn't just profession. We've become different sorts of people with radically divergent views on life, God, politics, family, and all of those things that define us deeply.

Oddly enough I think we've diverged more than most groups precisely because we were so similar in one sense - we were very open-minded. We each evaluated the entire spectrum of options before coming to our conclusions, and were then dedicated to the rightness of the conclusions we'd reached. Some of us eventually decided that only God held the answers to life and its mysteries. Others came to the conclusion that we must yell carpe diem! and ring what sap we could from the tree of life before we became its fertilizer. It was the same character that led both ways, and to a number of gradations in between.

But you know, perhaps the bottom line is that we'd wuss out way before 4 these days.

4am bedtime priorities are different than 11pm bedtime priorites.

Another chapter closes. Like Seger said, 'here I go, turn the page'. I guess I'm behind the times. So many pages have turned. I should have bought a new book by now.

What a man

2007-03-28T05:58:00.000-07:00

"I'm showing I'm in solid shape now. I had a really good swim earlier in the season where I broke the world record." - Michael Phelps (American Swimmer)

Yes Michael. It's generally a solid sort of day when you break a world record. Then again... he was speaking in the context of having broken that same record again yesterday in Melbourne.

kid's books

2007-03-24T21:02:00.000-07:00

I just got finished viewing the newest film rendition of Katherine Paterson's classic The Bridge to Terabithia. Although I'm perfectly aware of the story and the ending, it never ceases to catch me.

A lot of draw to the film comes from a corresponding tragedy in my own life at the same age of the story's characters. In 5th grade I lost a friend, Daniel Galooley, suddenly. I'm not sure if I ever got over the feelings of pity. He'd never grow up, never fall in love, he's not be there for high school with me, never make a print on the world, etc. Reflecting on such things also made me wonder about my own finitude. So many beautiful stories blow in the winds from place to place. Shared between people who are dead now, or grown up. Beautiful people we'll never have the chance to know. It's sad to know that most of our lives in the long run won't have much more corporate significance than Daniel's. We'll live 60-70 years longer, but the difference to the rest of the world will be a few entries on Google, and only until the links become defunct.

I have found, being an avid reader for many years, that children's stories still touch me the most deeply. The innocence of the characters makes them a perfect foil for sympathetic and touching treatment of issues that affect us all throughout our lives. We learn from them much more in the vein of how we once learned from myths than how we learn from the typical Hollywood content. We learn to value innocence, friendship, fairness, compassion, and individual discernment.

Yet I think of all the best parts of these stories the thing I always come back to is the nostalgia.

Despite so many years without, I am still smarting from my own innocence being removed. I envy the young. Of course it's an unworkable paradox. The same innocence and true belief in the fantastic that makes childhood such a beautiful thing to see is inextricable from its fleeting nature and our inability to return to it.

I've often wondered if it's not the story-left-untold that draws me to the characters, or is it that I see in them my own growth pains as they unfold. I always wonder what happens after the book. What do the characters grow up to be like?

With so much magic in their lives, I always hope again for the first time...please, please don't let them lose the magic. I yearn for the impossible. Lifelong youth I do not envy and find rather obnoxious, but lifelong childhood is different. To think that the characters may one day be unable to see Terabithia is more than I, as a reader/watcher can bear. So much magic once filled the very air we breathed, only to be replaced by raging hormones, dating rituals, and the accumulation of wealth.

In Bridge to Terabithia I find myself harkening back to the time when boys and girls could truly just be friends. When there were magic kingdoms we created to make life what we wanted it to be. How many worlds I lived in. so many lives that were possible. I wanted to be a jedi, then a Zulu warrior, to fight with Heman, then become a Transformer. Why not?

At times when the slightly cool wind blow on a greying November I can remember the bliss of the changing seasons. The leaves rustling. The gentle wind giving off the first hint of chill. I could drink in that smell. Cocoa time would be soon. My pants were a little too big on me. The wind could get under my sleaves. I was darker skinned back then. My hair was moppish and unkept, all the more by my ruffling it in the wind. Pepper waited for me inside. The breeze bathed me in crisp, crunchy leaves of all colors in the Ozarks. It was perfection.

But the Terabithians die off eventually. Even the most ardent of us eventually become policemen, professors, lawyers, husbands, wives. Our lightsabers are put into the attic and the plastic army men never seen to have miraculously changed stances when we weren't looking. They're just plastic. Just what they are and the spirit cannot touch move through them again.

And there's the beauty we read into childhood. Things that now seem so ordinary were greater. Mom and dad were the kings and queens of the world, and we were the young nobles who would one day take their place. The world awaited us. The death of a grandparent or even a dog was an earth shattering event. We prayed with the conviction that it worked. We were heroes in a very small story.

So much just passed by then, seeming so ordinary. Nothing registered for the significance it had. Nostalgia has immortalized what was daily.

I wonder how many vows were made when we were still heroes? How many girls did I tell that I would marry them before other factors complicated the situation? How many friends did I "shake" with that we'd never be apart.

I'm reminded of Christ's words that it's to such as children that the kingdom of God belongs. We're tempted to see this as a statement of faith-type, and to a degree it is. But more is going on here.

It's also about wonder and the mystery of living. It's about how children see the entire world as a vast vast mystery in need of unlocking. Every day is new information. Whole mental constructs are destroyed and rebuilt regularly. New friends are made and it's a big deal. We learn to enjoy things and we experience aspects of life as brand new and not just variations on a theme.

Perhaps heaven is nothing other than continual pedagogy. There's so much to this vast universe and we can forever learn. All worlds are opened to us. God allows us finally to see the full splendor of His creation. Worlds collide and life rises from a small pool. Relationships are renewed. We are no longer "given in marriage". We're like the angels. We're like the children. We can again love fully.

It's all about the children's books. If being a child is the one to whom the kingdom is given, then children's books are our myths. They're like our apocrypha after the Scriptures. After so much reading and watching, the stories that move me the most deeply are obvious, somewhat cliche, but eveunique kid's books.

blood and water

2007-03-23T10:57:00.000-07:00

You know how some people say that blood is thicker than water? The Gospel says just the opposite. :)

The Last Exit in New York

2007-03-21T10:04:00.000-07:00

I woke up on the adventurous side of the bed this morning. Not burdened by classes or breakfast crew and having not having to hurry and get to work (I only have to put in 2 more hours this week) I took the morning to loung around, make some future planning phone calls, have an early lunch at a Chinese resteraunt, and gingerly drive into the city.

When you come off the 87 and onto the 95 headed towards Riverside/Hudson S., there's the exit to 187 (I think?). On a big yellow sign with black lettering drivers are warned "Last Exit in NY".

Now of course the reality is that this only means that if you bypass this chance it's $6 and New Jersey, but that's besides the point. The real gift of this sign on such a beautiful Wednesday sun thawing morning was that it got my imagination juices flowing. The sign sounded less like a toll road warning and more like a post-apocalyptic or fantastic adventure. It's like staring at an ancient map of the world. After all the charted lands they would draw a sea monster in the blank space and it would read hic sunt dracones, or in English "Here be Dragons".

I felt less like the Roland trapped in this lameness and more like my counterpart in Stephen King's Gunslinger series as he crossed into the badlands and prepared to face the green goblin hordes, or my namesake, Charlemagne's nephew who single-handedly help the Pyrenees pass against an entire army of Moorish invaders.

Of course there are some differences, not the least of which is that while the character Roland and the medeaval Frankish mythic hero Roland are both bad to the bone, I'm a poser. But I think it was close enough.

When I finally parked I could see the Hudson river to my right and Ulysses Grant's tomb atop the hill to my left flank. Fallen warriors and majestic rivers; the perfect setting for a heroic exploit.

Between Grant's tomb and my car lay a steep hill, tree-shielded from the sun, still frozen solid with ice that was once slush and snow. I tried to plant my heel in the ground to no avail, the ice was rock hard. With an Off-duty cabby looking onward I tried my first push up the hill. While I made some initial progress by utilizing two footholds formed by the shoeprints of walkers from a time when the ice hadn't totally hardened, I finally came to the end of my leverage. Now was a steep hill with a thin, branchy tree a few feet from the last shoe print. Leaning forward I tried to explode out of the shoeprints like a canon and use momentum to gain enough ground to grab the branches and pull myself up.

While the attempt itself was successful, the branches were too thin to hold me. Now, without a toe hold of significant I fell, cushioning my fall with my hands and skidding straight down the ice to the bottom of the hill. The grainy ice chaffed my hands pretty well, like sliding down concrete. The trip was not pleasant. The cabby laughed. Godless NY cabbies! They've got a special place in Hades next to people who talk in movie theaters. I vowed to redouble my efforts.

The next ascent went smoothly for a while, much like the first time, and again I was soon faced with the same challenge of no footholds, and now I knew that a mere branch would not do. I needed the branchy bushes' thin trunk. I braced myself, knowing that is was grab or bust on my first lunge. Failure would mean not only bringing shame to the name of Roland, but also hysterical laughter from the cab driver.

I leaned forward into the shoe prints, left leg in the higher imprint. Springing from the back leg I shifted my weight forward and then out- 'bioioioioioioing'! Now I'm not exactly a graceful jumper at the best of time, and especially not when I have awkward footing on sheer ice, going uphill, and having to break through protruding branches. I decided it wouldn't do to win style points, so I lowered my head and crashed through the branches with the top of my shaven skull and my bulky shoulders. I grabbed blindly with one arm for where I thought the thin trunk of the bush lay... I felt nothing until my hands came together and brushed against the bark, further roughing them up. BLAM! I plopped to the ground forcefully, stomach first. It would have knocked the breath out had I not prepared by using the boxing technique of breathing out quickly. I could still breath and wasn't cut anywhere.

Victory.

From there it was a small matter to stand up, hop to a series of connected rocks, look at the cabby (who was still laughing) in triumph, and plant an air-flag on the top of the hill. I'd done my dity. Flag or no, Roland's once again stood victorious. Yeah that's right, Roland Pride!

TMNT

2007-03-21T09:51:00.000-07:00

Is there a question as to what my most anticipated movie of the year so far has been? Allow me to answer... in song

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Heroes in a half shell
turtle power!

They're the world's most fearsome fighting team (teenage mutant ninja turtles)
They're heroes in a half-shell, and they're green! (teenage mutant ninja turtles)
When the evil Shredder attacks,
these turtle boys,
don't cut him no slack

He's a cen-atari!

2007-03-19T20:11:00.000-07:00

haha... okok, so check it

Tonight i'm at the gym. This young stud is doing his roid-special workout complete with 3 sets of this, 4 sets of looking at himself flex in the mirror, 2 more sets of weights, another couple sets of mirror flexing... you get the idea.

I see in the mirror that his shirt says "Half Man... Half Horse".

Finally I'd simply had too much. My inner nerd could no longer keep silent in the face of such overblown, self-important, Ayn Rand inspired, testosterone-pumping absurdity. So I did the only thing I could think of: I maneuvered close to him, and in between sets asked as nicely as I could "So, are you trying to say that you're a centaur?"

LOL. Oh man. The look was priceless. It was part shock that someone spoke to him, part awe that I described him as a mythic creature that he could not possibly know about, and part sheer terror at realizing that at any given time there is a person even in a low brow locale such as a gym who can mind blast him faster than Professor X.

Finally, recovering his stance and shaking of the dizzyness he responds "what's that?"

"It's a creature from mythology. It's a half-man, half-horse."

..........silence.........

...................stillness.................

OH! Yeah dawg, that's right. I'm a cen-atari!*

heheh, werd

* This misspelling accurately reflects what he said. The author suspects that the words "sin" and "atari" might have independently registered.

All the difference...

2007-03-16T06:24:00.000-07:00

You know, it makes all the difference in the world whether you serve a bishop because he's a bishop or if you serve him because he is truly your leader in humility and love for God.

Thoughts on turning 27

2007-03-14T21:46:00.000-07:00

Most people would consider 27 a rather uneventful birthday. Nothing much happens. Insurance begins to laxen in some states, that's a plus. Otherwise no major milestones.

I suppose that my own perspective is heavily influenced by the fact that I'm also finishing my Master's degree soon. It makes me take a more conscious account of where I am, where I thought that I would be, and where I plan to be going.

The seminarians have really done everything and then a bit to make this feel like a real birthday. It's hard though. Once upon a time my birthday was a major event. Normally it was right before or at the beginning of Spring Break. Usually the festivities would kick off with a Barkley Invitational, named after Sir Charles, which was a no fouls basketball game. Quite entertaining, especially as my friends and I got old enough to really rough up dad and uncle Tim. We would always have a big fish fry followed by a game of RISK with the owner of the Middle East controlling to hookah. Dad and Tim, now sore beyond any fast or painless movement would drink copious amounts of Heineken and Busch as to chase their Jagermeister while doing up the fish fry. The coolers were also stocked with mountains of Dr. Pepper and IBC root beer out of the bottles and instead of cake I always requested King Sized candy bars by the dozens...

oh yeah.

Typically I wouldn't even pay much attention to the RISK game. It was fun playing with the RISK council (my homies), but it wasn't actually "the point". I can still see them all now, in the blossom of their youths. Dooba, Jereme "Cowboy" Cowan with his snake-hiss laugh, Oz entertained by our antics, big Jeff Norrid providing sthe antics as he and Dooba traded sounds when throwing each other's dead armies off the map (Dooba would say "bzzz" and wave his hands like Ruby Rod while big Jeff would say "gee" and toss the dead little soldier off the map and at you). Massey was laughing and blowing on the IBC bottle tops to make the deep whistling sound. Gathercole would be trying to slip in a sly move while emotions were tied up elsewhere. Benny carefully plotted in the corner while we waited on Berumen to get a move on and come over. Hedrick slacked in the papsan chair eating and drinking, intoxicated by the potential for sloth provided at the Fulmer estate. Paul and Charlies would call. My sisters were so young then. They'd watch us all with their beautiful big, brown 1st grade eyes like we were heroes out of the old myths. They couldn't wait for the day when there were college aged and finally old enough to join the RISK Council. And well, I guess too young to really think about the fact that we would all be long gone by then.

I sat there and took it all in. I felt euphoria back then, such that I haven't felt in so long. The overall sensation of peace. I had my place. I was among friends. We had our whole lives in front of us. We were all there... scholarships in tow, athletic, worn out from a hard day of Barkley, vibrant, not preoccupied. No broken hearts. We just played. The world was so much smaller and we were important to it. I washed down a bite of King Snickers with a swig of root beer. Sugar blended with sugar but no matter, I was cut from running and weight lifting. I looked at my friends. They were so beautiful. The world around me blended into a harmonious silence, and I belonged to it, drinking in and flowing with the quiet amidst all of the ruckus.

I went to bed that night. I was 19. I woke up the next morning and I was 27. I assume there were days in between, but I can't be sure now. It all blurs together like a movie viewed in fast foward. If I hit the button again I'll be 37. Wonder what that'll look like? I wonder if the RISK council still thinks of those times? I'm all wonder, and last of all I wonder what the 19-year old who went to bed that night thinks of the person typing this now. Eight years older and I wonder what I have to show. It's like a one-third life crisis. Why wait for midlife?

Say it ain't so!

2007-03-13T15:52:00.000-07:00

I just couldn't believe that a sorority kicked out its less attractive members in order to get a membership boost. Oh wait... yes I can. :-p

Washed

2007-03-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

Washing was then,
but cleansing is now.
Retrospectively the sacred
is manifestly real
and become what it is.

Another way here is an illusion.
Choices were never chosen,
the schemas were limited
and there is no blame.

The disease was not your own.

But water has another aspect.

It will deal with its own and return to its purpose.

Poison was in the blood,
Sickness in corrupted veins
from the first,
but born to it.

No syringe can swap the liquids
but take the antidote anyway.

Young Recruits take notes

2007-03-10T18:10:00.000-08:00

Attention! All 17-year old athletes take notes - this is how you're supposed to committ to a school!

Some Reader's Digest highlights

Youngblood, 6-3 1 / 2, 216, 4. 69 seconds in the 40-yard dash, was at Arkansas last weekend for Junior Day and decided that was enough to convince him.
“I talked to Coach [David ] Lee and Coach [Houston ] Nutt last weekend,” Youngblood said. “They told me what they plan to do with the offense, and I was impressed. The main thing Coach Lee told me is they want to get the offense back like it was when Clint Stoerner was there.”

“ There is no chance I won’t go to Arkansas. I’m a Razorback, and professional sports will be there for me when I’m finished at Arkansas.”

While Arkansas is getting a talented quarterback in Youngblood, they’re also getting an in-state player who bleeds Razorbacks red. The same day Youngblood orally committed to Arkansas, he started working the cell phones trying to get others to join him at Arkansas.
“I called the two kids at Warren, I called [Texarkana running back ] Dennis Johnson and [Pulaski Academy wide receiver ] Cruz Williams that very day,” Youngblood said.

Chalk one up for religious charity

2007-03-08T04:42:00.000-08:00

Luckily for this Kenyan woman organized religion was there to help out. :)