J'ai soif

Preacher and author Andrew Murray once wrote, "Wherever there is life, there is a continual interchange of taking in and giving out...The one depends on the other - the giving out ever increases the power of taking in...It is only in the emptiness that comes from the parting with what we have, that the divine fullness can flow in."

Several colleagues have recently expressed concern to me about the common analogy of the Christian as a "conduit" of God's love - directed from God to us and then out into the world. Their concern, it seems, is that this idea reduces the Christian to very little as a person - reducing his/her identity to something like a pipe and no more. "Where," they argue, "is the affirmation of the Christian's identity as a beloved child of God?"

I admit that this is something I had not considered, and am currently wrestling with...this notion of individual identity and our loving interaction with others around us. The "conduit analogy" was common in my spiritual upbringing, and I have found it useful tool in both personal reflection and apologetic discourse at various points in my life. Reflexively, I'm simply not quite ready to give it up.

There seems to be tension in Scripture as to whether we find our identity "in Christ alone" (thus implicitly subsuming our identity or possibly losing it completely), or if it is precisely Christ's message of redemption and restoration is exactly what validates us as 'individuals' (in the theological, and not socio-political sense) and calls us to be 'priests' and 'children of God.' Both analogies are frequently employed and implicitly assumed and many points, and it's not immediately apparent how these ideas are to work together.

A recent sermon on the need to serve others reminded me again of this idea. It was brought home during a moment of prayer when I Corinthians 13:3 jumped out to me as clear as day: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." I want to think more about why we love, where love comes from, and what our reasons and obligations are as it regards this love. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, discusses whether or not earthly love is actually love only insofar as it participates in the divine Love (an admittedly Platonic idea, but one that bears considering) or if love is somehow independent in each of us, and therefore succeptible to perversion and decay while still properly remaining love.

Is love ultimately something we possess or something we merely channel? Can we (really) love others as God loves us, or rather because God loves us? Can we love someone with implicit or even explicitly selfish motives (..."but have not love, I gain nothing)?

to be continued...

Grace & Peace

The way we see it...

Embrace this right now life while it's dripping, while the flavors are excellently woesome. Take your bites with bravery and boldness since the learning and the growing are here in these times, these exact right nows. Capture these times. Hold and kiss them because it will soon be very different.

--Jill Scott

Currently Reading "Testimony" By Dana Glover

In other news...

According to a recent survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year.

Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.

The poll of 2,000 adults was conducted July 7-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Well, I'll be darned...

interesting...creationism is quite popular

In a poll conducted last month by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution altogether with creationism.

I will admit - this is a surprise...even to me.

Read the NYTimes article here.

das evangelische kirke?

Anyone who has studied American Religious History knows that defining "evangelical" is a particularly tricky business. Fortunately, Wheaton College's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals provides an especially useful way of delineating references to contemporary American Evangelicalism.

According to the ISAE, there are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today:

1. All Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. From British historian David Bebbington, a more concise (and probably accurate) rendering of Alister McGrath's six points: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
2. An organic group of movements denoting a "style" as much as a set of beliefs. Groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella.<
3. The self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separates and belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Carl Henry and Billy Graham), institutions (Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond "card-carrying" evangelicals.

As the coordinator for the YDS Evangelical Fellowship, I wonder which of these elements I am supposed to represent. Certainly there is some overlap, but our mission statement is heavy on definition one, and this seems to encourage certain people (particularly theological conservatives at odds with their denomiation) to get involved. However, midwestern and western evangelicals at YDS are often more interested in things like praise-and-worship nights, which seems to emphasize definition two. This, of course, makes all the evangelical Anglican's roll their eyes...it's a difficult balancing act.

Subscribe to 180colony
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Really? (Part II)

In the business of the summer, I never recounted the content of my conversation in which I noted a striking connection between Christianity and sex. Actually, in retrospect, I should note that the connection is more between the Christian Life and sex than with Christianity per se.

The controlling metaphor that links the two is the recognition that while both are beneficial/pleasurable for the individual, the moment that it becomes "all about you," you miss the best of what they have to offer.

The Christian life and sex are ultimately 'other centered' activities...at least, in their best moments. Both can (and often are) pursued for personal or selfish reasons, but doing so misses out on the true and lasting benefits inherent in each. The more other-focued we become, the more we recognize that extravagent love stems not from our own pleasure/benefit, but in the recognition of the other as a worthy participant in the same.

Grace & Peace

What is it all for?

The end of another summer - 2005 - and the start of yet another academic year, and I'm following the trend of 'taking stock of my life.' Not in the grand, existential sense, though I just realized that I have been preparing for school every Fall for the past 21 years of my life save 3 (Falls of '01, '03 and technically '04). I am simply thinking about what this blog is 'for,' and why I should keep it around.

I've been at this for nearly a year (with some admittedly extended gaps), and my life has changed pretty dramatically in that time (see posts here and here). Now, a few of my friends are considering dropping off the blog bandwagon (here), leaving our little corner of the blogosphere, but I don't think I am ready to do that just yet. Part of my determination to stick it out, as it were, is the desire to not be a "bandwagon" person. I don't need to enjoy the 'flavor of the month' because that is what everyone else is doing, and then move on the next month. I have no need for podcast and no interest in starting one...

Frankly, my blog has always been (or should have been) more about me than about readers (not that there ever were many). Blogs have many stiles, purposes and intended audiences. For some, it's all about the 'dialogue,' and success or interest is measured in the amount of comments and heated exchanges that a post generates. I'll admit I never get many comments. But as I stated in my very first post, this space is meant to be something of an 'intellectual diary' for me, a place to vent the thoughts in my head and see how they look on paper. Less personal than a diary, but requiring less editing than a 'paper.' In the end, this blog should serve as something of an intellectual timetable for the ideas that I wrestle with. Going back through it as I have this morning, it does a pretty good job of that.

I know that I have not posted in a long time...but that's the way diaries are sometimes. This summer has been amazing and challenging and has blessed me in many ways. For those that actually read this or care, I hope to share that with you soon. But working at a camp 14 hours a day, 6 1/2 days a week with limited internet access made the time, energy and means for blogging difficult. Introspective and ongoing works are all about second chances. And third chances...and fourth. So, with a renewed sense of purpose...here I go again...

"It's never too late to be what you might. have been." —George Eliot, British novelist (1819-1880)

Really?

I just finished an hour-long conversation about why Christianity is a lot like sex. Now, I will note that this is not a typical conversation for me, although both topics hold a certain allure - as I'm sure they do for most of us. Actually...come to think of it, maybe this is a typical conversation after all.

I will not divulge all the interesting analogies that I found illuminating in the discussion, but suffice it to say that I will ponder their similarities and post later. I think I just need time now to let it all...percolate. Hmmmmm

Graced & Peace

Currently Reading "The Untamed God" By Jay Wesley Richards

Three Degrees to Kirk Cameron

The small size of the Christian community in the United States - particularly the evangelical community - never ceases to amaze me.

If you're a 20-something evangelical, chances are I know someone you know. I'd bet on it. I've had this conversation with several friends, and whether we are from Chicago, California, or Connecticut, it invariably takes less than three degrees to find someone we know in common. This is especially true when the smaller "Christian college network" is invoked. All you need is a friend who went to Wheaton, Gordon, Seattle Pacific, Messiah, or Westmont and you've got an interlaced evangelical network that stretches from sea to shining sea.

This wasn't as true as an undergrad, when most of us came straight from our family's homes to college. But as we have moved, started working or gone on to graduate school, it is becoming more frequent. This is increasingly true for the evangelical colleges as their academic rigor has increased, and they are now have graduates attending top schools all across the country.

A few pertinent (though continually surprising) examples:

• my good friend from Yale (who grew up in Chicago) has recently become quite close with a "friend of a friend" from my public high school in California. The connection? Princeton Seminary and Seattle Pacific.
  
• Another friend working in Washington, DC randomly met a girl I attended summer camp with in high school while both girls attended Westmont.
  
• In the past 3 months, I have become friends with a girl from Gordon, and another from Westmont, all through a connection at Yale Divinity School. Turns out that this Westmont girl TA'd my brother while he was there!
• I got an e-mail yesterday from a Wheaton girl getting ready to attend YDS. She is looking to take part in a group that I lead there, was directed to me by a close mutual friend.
  

Though these connections are becoming frequent, they never cease to amaze me! They are even more common as my social circle begins to narrow to the Seminary and Religious Studies types, who often come from this small network of schools, or from this close community.

I wish I had more insight into this strange phenomenon - something pithy to say or some great social observation to make. Instead I'm merely reporting what I see, and asking you for your comments. Do you have any stories like this? Why do you think this is happening? Am I merely on crack? (don't rule it out) As always, I await your response...

Grace & Peace

An Improper Relationship With God

Turmoil rocked Heaven this morning as allegations arose that God had an "improper relationship" with a former worshipper. The scandal broke when a 21 year old woman, known only as Mary, claimed that she had given birth to God's "only son" last week in a barn in the hamlet of Bethlehem. Sources close to Mary claim that she "had loved God for a long time", that she was constantly talking about her relationship with God and that she was "thrilled to have had his child".

In a press conference this morning, God issued a vehement denial, saying that "No sexual relationship existed", and that "the facts of this story will come out in time, verily". Independent counsel Beelzebub immediately filed a brief with the Justice Department to expand his investigation to cover questions of whether any commandments may have been broken and whether God had illegally funnelled laundered money to his illegitimate child through three foreign operatives know only as the "Wise Men". Beelzebub has issued subpoenas to several angels who are rumoured to have acted as go-betweens in the affair.

Critics have pointed out that these allegations have little to do with the charges that Beelzebub was originally appointed to investigate that God had created large-scale flooding in order to cover up evidence of a failed land deal. In recent months, Beelzebub's investigation has already been expanded to cover questions surrounding the large number of locusts that plagued God's political opponents in the last election, as well as to claims that the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was to divert attention away from a scandal involving whether the giveaway of a parcel of public land in Promised County to a Jewish special interest group was quid pro quo for political contributions.

If these allegations prove to be true, this will be a big blow to God's career, much of which has been spent crusading for stricter moral standards and harsher punishments for wrongdoers. Indeed, God recently outlined a "tough-on-crime" plan consisting of a series of 10 "Commandments", which has been introduced in Congress in a bill by Representative Moses. Critics of the bill have pointed out that it lacks any provisions for the rehabilitation of criminals, and lawyers for the ACLU are planning to fight the "Name in Vain" Commandment as being an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

pondering Sabbatical

While numerous thoughts plague my mind and urge me write, the weight of words bids me take time...to feel their weight and confirm their worth. And as logistics press forcefully on this inopportune time of year, and blossoms beckon after many dark days of fitful slumber, I contemplate a brief sabbatical from my dear weblog. To allow my ideas to percolate and distill, and to indulge my procrastination not in front of my computer but in front of creation. If I am temporarily silent, do not mistake my absence for lack of love. I shall return.

Grace & Peace

word

"The ascetic character of the person, derived as it is from the eucharistic form of the ecclesial hypostasis, expresses the authentic person precisely when it does not deny eros and the body but hypostasizes them in an ecclesial manner."

-John Zizioulas, 'Being as Communion' (pg. 63)

The Anti-blog

The Anti-blog has a new post, which happens rarely enough that it's worth mentioning. Not as profound (perhaps) as his last, but here's to him deciding to continue...

Grace & Peace

Non impediti ratione cogitationis?

(Or, It takes an Man to make a Woman feel like a Woman.)

On a recent transatlantic flight, a plane passes through a severe storm. The turbulence is awful, and things go from bad to worse when one wing is struck by lightning. One woman in particular loses it. Screaming, she stands up in the front of the plane. "I'm too young to die," she wails.

Then she yells, "Well, if I'm going to die, I want my last minutes on earth to be memorable! Is there ANYONE on this plane who can make me feel like a WOMAN?"

For a moment there is silence. Everyone has forgotten their own peril. They all stared, riveted, at the desperate woman in the front of the plane. Then an Italian man stands up in the rear of the plane. He is gorgeous--tall, well built, with dark brown hair and hazel eyes. He starts to walk slowly up the aisle, unbuttoning
his shirt.....one button at a time.

........No one moves.

He removes his shirt.

.......Muscles ripple across his chest.

.......She gasps...

.......He whispers:

"Iron this, and get me something to eat..."

Joyeuse Paques

Happy Easter everyone. For many reason, this is my favorite holiday of the year. May your time with friends and family be blessed by the knowledge that Christ is alive, and that the power of the cross is that it is empty.

He is risen. He is risen indeed.

Grace & Peace

Ready, Fire, Aim...

Taking inspiration from a friend (whom I recently discovered is a fantastic narrative writer), I have become enamored with the idea of serial posts - periodic thoughts in a related vein addressed under a common title. These are not to be confused with posts that take a few iterations to complete (like our community's thoughts on worship), or mutiple posts in a similar theme that lack the conscious coherence of a serial post (e.g. many politically oriented posts close to last year's election).

I currently have two serial posts: "who's your grandma?!" a serial including random thoughts and fun news items, and "Non impediti ratione cogitationis?" a new serial of my thoughts on the fairer sex.

At the risk of overkill, I'd like to kick-start another serial entitled "who we are" (no linkage yet for obvious reasons), that examines and reveals things about myself that I often find surprising. I consider this post to be a proto-iteration of this serial.

As with all serials, I will link the current post to its previous iteration, and welcome your thoughts and comments, especially stream-of-consciousness thoughts that will inevitably spark me to look deeper at my reflections.

Grace & Peace

Currently Spinning "Kind of Blue" By Miles Davis

Non impediti ratione cogitationis?

(or, my thoughts on women)

A post of this magnitude certainly entails more layers than I can ever imagine uncovering. Plus, I have precious few thoughts I dare categorize as "conclusions." But in a spirit of profound humility (dare I say reverance?), I would like to make this a periodic post of my thoughts on the fairer sex.

The following poem you may find distressing, humorous, profoundly beautiful, or perhaps deserved, depending on your perspective. I hold these in tension:

I, being born a woman and distressed
By all the needs and notions of my kind,
Am urged by your propinquity to find
Your person fair, and feel a certain zest
To bear your body's weight upon my breast:
So subtly is the fume of life designed,
To clarify the pulse and cloud the mind,
And leave me once again undone, possessed.
Think not for this, however, the poor treason
Of my stout blood against my staggering brain,
I shall remember you with love, or season
My scorn with pity, --let me make it plain:
I find this frenzy insufficient reason
For conversation when we meet again.
Edna St. Vincent Millay

In a complimentary, or perhaps contradictory spirit, to what degree do we think that men and women need each other? This may be taken in many ways, and I consciously imply all of them, but anticipate a response predicated on the likely impression of one element over the others.

Don't second guess yourself too much. We're all smart enough to play devil's advocate with ourselves. But stream of consciousness is far more enlightening...my answer to follow.
Grace & Peace

The Tale of Ernest Christian (Explained)

Several people have wondered at my posting The Tale of Ernest Christian. Given its relevance, I think it is worth returning (in brief) to this story, and what I find powerful about the questions it raises: Why does this happen? Is this inevitable? How might it be prevented?

The Tale of Ernest Christian is not about me per se. The strength of this story is the degree to which it reflects every divinity student after a time. I have been back at YDS only a few months, but I sense the cynicism and rigor mortis all around me. Given the variety of people that I know, we are certainly not alone. While some aspects of the Tale will resonate more with some than with others, each of us sees a reflection of our unique spiritual struggle in this simple story.

Like our reflection in the story itself, the answers we glean are unique to each individual. This is why I posted the Tale. Not merely to reveal something about me, but to reveal something about you. That's not to say that thinking about these questions resists systematic analysis completely, but that the power of reflection is greatest when each person encounters him/herself in the story, and wrestles with the answers that are unique to the individual. A long hard look in the mirror is rarely a fruitless endeavor.

For myself, I anticipate the approaching storm, and would like to ensure (to the best of my ability) that I am attached firmly to the Rock, no matter now strong the winds may blow.
Grace & Peace

heard on the trail

During a weeklong excursion on the AT, the following quotes became anthems for our merry band of YDS travelers:

• "Bring the motherfuckin ruckus!"
• "Bitches best believe that hype!"
• "Zero degrees? Ten inches of snow? Ha, ha bitches!"

You just gotta love divinity students...

The Tale of Ernest Christian

"Ernest Christian was converted as a high school senior. He went to college and studied computer science; but he also worked hard at his church and enjoyed effective ministry in the local Inter-Varsity group. His prayer times were warm and frequent. Despite occasional dearth, he often felt when he read his Bible as if the Lord were speaking to him directly. Still, there was so much of the Bible that he did not understand. As he began to reach the settled conviction that he should pursue full-time Christian ministry, his local congregation confirmed him in his sense of gifts and calling. Deeply aware of his limitations, he headed off to seminary with all the eagerness of a new recruit.

After Ernest has been six months at seminary, the picture is very different. Ernest is spending many hours a day memorizing Greek morphology and learning the details of the itinerary of Paul's second missionary journey. Ernest has also begun to write exegetical papers; but by the time he has finished his lexical study, his syntactical diagram, his survey of critical opinions, and his evaluation of conflicting evidence, somehow the Bible does not feel as alive to him as it once did. Ernest is troubled by this; he finds it more difficult to pray and witness than he did before he came to seminary. He is not sure why this is so: he does not sense the fault to be in the lecturers, most of whom seem to be godly, knowledgeable, and mature believers.

More time elapses. Ernest Christian may do one of several things. He may retreat into a defensive pietism that boisterously denounces the arid intellectualism he sees all around him; or he may be sucked into the vortex of a kind of intellectual commitment that squeezes out worship, prayer, witness, and meditative reading of Scripture; or he may stagger along until he is rescued by graduation and returns to the real world. But is there a better way? And are such experiences a necessary component of seminary life?"

D.A. Carson, "Exegetical Fallacies." Pg. 23.

μενοῦμαι, Article I

(in which I am simultaneously intellectually pompous and existentially alienated)

μενῶ, ὦ φίλε μου, μενῶ....

Currently Playing "O" By Damien Rice

waiting for the light to shine

Because I am opposed to the idea of "Blog as journal" (for myself), I tend to wait for inspiration to strike. But it has not done so for over a week, and I'm not sure why. Like many people, I tend to work in creative bursts, and all my creative juices have apparently been flowing toward scholarly projects due this week.

I did, however, run across the following quote which I think is quite brilliant (in a dry, British sort of way):

"You do not have to be a fundamentalist to admit that it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit supports guiding the Church into denying His existence." --Prudence Dailey, of the Oxford diocese

feels like home

just when you thought it was safe...

Soooo...for those of you who thought that Iraq might not be GWB's Vietnam after all, there's this reminder of President Johnson's response to the 1967 South Vietnamese elections. It could have been pulled from the the front page of Monday's national newspapers.
Spooky, indeed.

(Edited to add) You can purchase the entire article from the NYTimes here.

thinking out loud

I do a great amount of my intellectual processing and "working out" my thoughts out loud, espeically in dialogue with others. This is my latest stab at the same:

In a recent conversation, M reiterated his belief that there is little in the way of "Truth claims" that we can firmly stand on in the context of the Biblical text by itself. (See this post for a more comprehensive articulation). He has also expressed support for the well-worn - though often not properly analyzed - assumption that people do not come to faith on the basis of the historical truth of the Bible, or words on a page, but on the basis of a heart transformation as the result of such a God encounter. Taken together, I believe these conclusions amount to something of an intellectual copout and leave Christians vulernable to the critiques of several groups we ought to be evangelizing with confidence. Thus I offer the following observations/critiques:

1. If an "encounter with the divine" is both the telos of Scripture and it's illuminating light, then the encounter preceeds Scripture in importance and becomes it's Judge. This model has no independant resource to judge those who claim to have "experienced God" and then set out to interpret Scripture in an entirely unbiblical manner (think Heaven's Gate or Jonestown here). Since human experience of the divine is undeniably unreliable, Scripture must act as the foundation and judge of our experience of the divine. We must seek Truth in Scripture so that we are not led astray by our own interpretation or the faulty interpretations of others, and more importatly, set limits on what is an acceptable reading with a clear understanding of what the text says.
   
2. On a similar note, we become impotent to articulate the Gospel to members of other religions (think Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, etc). Each tradition claims to have encounters with the divine, and without an appeal to a verifiable Scripture, we can only counter by somehow claiming that our experiences are "more true," or by lamely restating that Christ is somehow unique in a way that can only be "experienced" and not verified.
3. While it may be true that people will not believe on the basis of rational, historical or logical arguments, I think it is often true that people will disbelieve on the basis of such arguments (think atheist/agnostic here). I personally know several people for whom this is true. If Scripture can't stand up to intellecutal scrutiny, they won't give it a second look. While we may not win converts with articulations of historical truth, by doing so we remove obstacles for the skeptic and allow the Spirit to soften the hearts of those that would otherwise disbelieve. If the truth of Scripture is not itself sufficient, neither should it be proven false.
4. Lastly, simply claiming that the truth of Scripture is unknowable and appealing to a subjective encounter with the divine amounts to an intellectual copout. I realize this is a controversial point, but if the material cannot stand up to tough scrutiny, then we should honestly recognize that and reject it. We would expect the same of members of other religions (the Mormons, for example) or in any other area of life (science, politics, history). Our desire to hold on to what we cannot understand on the basis of subjective experience is admirable, but foolhardy. We feebly claim that this Christianity cannot make sense, or it would lose the mysterious or we try to hold on to the trappings and symbols of Christianity for the sake of our heritage or personal comfort, but we have lost the foundation on which all else is built.

I invite your response - loud and angry denial though it may be.
Grace & Peace

You ain't seen nothing yet

Crap.

It is the dreaded "4th week of semester," when all of my lofty academic goals start falling apart and inevitably collapse into the chaos that defines academic life. This is when I start just trying to keep my head above water.

And I brought this on myself?? Wow, I can't wait till finals week. If I'm more than a lump of quivering flesh on the last day of finals, I'll consider it a victory.

getting it on?

definitely rated PG-13. Proceed with caution.

In a special with Katie Couric, NBC reported tonite on "Teens & Sex." Focusing on teens from age 13-16, they reported that while teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs are statistically declining (complete results here), the amount of variant forms of sexual activity (specifically "hooking up," oral sex, and "friends with benefits") are increasingly common even in this young group.

One interesting connection? Young teens who wish to avoid "having sex" will increasingly compromise with oral sex, because (duh!) teens don't consider oral sex on par with intercourse. If you're not ready to have sex, you can appease your boyfriend/girlfriend by agreeing to oral sex. Loveline hosts Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew often note that 30 years ago oral sex was "more than sex," while most teens today consider it a standard "third base."

With such a hyper-sexual society, constantly bombarded by sexual images from tv, film, radio and print advertising, why are these countervailing trends seemingly at odds? What's going on here?
Grace & Peace

Call them on it (Part II)

Note: this will make no sense if you have not read Part I, below:

Reflecting on my earlier post, I have come up with what I think might be an example of an acceptable answer (though certainly not a sufficient one), for those that are unclear exactly what I'm hoping for. I'm sure I am opening myself up to all kinds of criticism now:

The type of response we need developed is similar to the Catholic Church's understanding of the celibate priesthood. Centuries of wrestling with this issue has lead the Catholic Church to a complex theological understanding of celibacy that does not simply deny the sexuality of the priest as a human being. Though the Catholic Church has not abdicated its moral authority, (remaining firm on extra-marital intercourse) they have developed a well-articulated recognition by priests that they are, in fact, married to Christ and to His Church in a unique manner more real than a traditional male/female marriage. This special union necessitates the abdication of the right of the purely physical expression of sexual love, but focuses that energy toward the love of Christ and of the parish, instead of simply ignoring or denying it. This unique union provides special benefits of authority and uninterrupted communion with God not enjoyed by those partaking in marriage, and each diocese works to mentor and support the priest in his tasks and in this difficult calling. (See, for example, several scenes on this topic in "Keeping the Faith.")

How well this particular ethic plays out in real life is beside the point. What is significant is that this is a comprehensive understanding human sexuality outside of the context of marriage. Any comprehensive ECSS (Ethic of Christian Single Sexuality) would need to be formulated for a completely different constituency . But the possibility exists, and the theological tools are there to begin such a project. It's time to step up to the plate...
Grace & Peace

Call them on it

NOTE: this is taken from a journal entry on 15 March 2004. Rated PG

I was listening recently to a Christian radio station in my area broadcast a program that was dealing with the issue of Christian teen sexuality. The hosts, a man and a woman, ended the program by nothing that the woman's daughter had pledged not to kiss any man until she was engaged. The finished the show by revealing conspiratorially that "many girls today are waiting to kiss until they get married," and exclaiming, "wouldn't that be great?!"

I turned off the radio, scoffing to myself and more that a little upset. Beside the fact that there are few statistics supporting the claim that "many girls" are waiting till they are engaged to kiss anyone, I found myself - a devout Christian and supporter of much of this radio station's content - angry at these commentators enthusiasm for something I considered absurd. Why was I so mad? Obviously, the route advocated by these commentators was not one I pursued myself, though sex was certainly not on my dating agenda. But I believe that my reaction was more than a case of self-righteous jealousy or indignation. In fact, I understood and even empathized with the commentator's "slippery slope" argument - each new sexual experience satisfies us, but leaves us wanting more. What I found so disturbing the complete lack of an understanding of what it means to be a sexual creature outside of the context of marriage. This is displayed by so many (married) Christian commentators that I've lost count.

In "The Most Important Year of a Woman's Life," the authors note that many people, but especially girls, find it hard to go from saying "no, no, no" with regard to their sexuality to "yes..yes...yes!" as soon as they're married. Although with the best of intentions, and important Biblical principles at hand, too many Christian leaders are, at best, simply unaware of how to articulate an ethic of healthy Christian sexuality out of the marriage context , and at worst, contributing to the sexual dysfunction of that new generation of Christian young people by refusing to develop a thoughtful model to articulate.

In their defense, this is a relatively new problem for many church leaders. For centuries, the American church tradition kept all manner of sexual discussion firmly pent up in private, reflecting their Victorian, and yes, Puritanical heritage. (Puritans were known for having sex with their clothes on in order to prevent immodesty and discourage lust.) Prior to the European Reformation, celibate Catholic priests/theologians hardly had the resources to articulate any vision of healthy sexuality, much less in the lives of today's young and single. (though I do believe that Catholic celibacy to be a viable, healthy sexual option that affords celibate priests resources of time and energy not possessed by married clergy).

It was the traumatic cultural upheavals of the 1960's and 1970's that actually encouraged Christian leaders to begin to speak openly about healthy sexuality. Thought they almost universally criticized the excesses of this era, it was the pressures of a rapidly evolving sexual society that forced many pastors to begin to talk openly about healthy sexuality at home. Today, many churches offer some form of "marriage retreat," a combination weekend-long counseling session and romantic getaway, where couples are encouraged to re-ignite passion in the bedroom as an essential key to a healthy marriage partnership. But when the subject switches to the unmarried (including, I might add, those who are engaged), these same pastors have nothing to say - preaching either implicitly or explicitly a complete "hands-off" (literally) approach to sexuality. This lack of a coherent vision is becoming an increasing problem in churches that regularly have 50-80% of their "twenty-somethings" unmarried. In a society that is maturing (physically) earlier and earlier, and marrying later and later, the Church has no comprehensive approach for dealing with often 15 years of sexual maturity and frustration beyond simplistic quips about lust and self-control.

What does it mean to be a sexual being in God's eyes, and why does this Bible seem to present a limited number of examples for dealing with these questions? This has more to do with the structure of ancient societies than it does with Biblical insufficiencies. Ancient societies, almost universally, have two things in common: a patriarchal structure and a low life-expectancy. The patriarchal norms means that women usually had little choice of when/who to marry, and girls - especially post-pubescent women - were often kept strictly separated from men. The low life expectancy, combined with a high mortality rate, means that women were married young, and forced quickly into childbearing and child rearing. Many girls might have been physically mature less than three years before they were "safely" married off. Much of this tradition continued right up to the recent past, when women's liberation and sexual revolution (especially the development of simple and effective birth control) finally meant that women and men can now interact together freely in the public sphere, without social pressure, and marriage and childbearing is delayed later and later for the pressures of education and career. Given these recent and dramatic changes, it is perhaps commendable that the Church has come as far as it has. Yet we are still left with a seemingly intractable problem: while previous century's theologians did not need to develop a "Christian single" sexual ethic because so few Christian singles existed, today's Christian single must wrestle through 10-15 years of sexual maturity, with little in the way of guidance from Church leaders, and virtually no understanding of what it might mean in God's eyes to be a sexual being, mentally and emotionally mature, looking for that special someone, but increasingly, not there yet.
Grace & Peace

a burning bush

or, "thinking about God"

God wakes you up during the night to tell you that he has a very important message for you. He wants to deliver it next Thursday from a burning bush near your house. Assuming that this message is from God and not last night's left-over sushi (never a good idea), you arrive at said bush and, sure enough, God delivers to you a powerful message.

Since God has promised to be there, to what degree is your encounter with the bush an encounter with God, and to what degree is your encounter with God simply an encounter with a bush?

ACHTUNG: This quetion contains epistemological overtones. Passengers should be warned that you may experience epistemological angst if you proceed.
-------------------
I was speaking recently with my good friend M about the importance of Scripture. His take, grossly oversimplified, is that it is not so much the "words on the page" that are important in Scripture, but that these words lead us to an encounter with the divine. What makes the Bible so unique, in M's understanding, is the degree to which it is able to perform this function among all other elements in creation. Thus the Bible is essentially a vehicle that leads us (better than all other vehicles) to God. It's a fine distinction to make, but M iterated quite clearly that the Bible is not God, and God is not the Bible.

I believe that M is making an important observation about the nature of Scripture, and is quite right to resist the (all-too-common) urge to "deify" the Bible. Only God is God (spoken like a true theologian).

But God has also promised to animate the text of Scripture, to "breathe life" into it, and in some sense, to call these words "His Word." We are reminded in II Timothy that "All Scripture is God-breathed..."

Since God has promised to be there, to what degree is our encounter with Scripture an actual encounter with God, and to what degree is our encounter with God simply an encounter with words on a page?
-------------------
There is a troubling extension here that I freely recognize, in the spirit of open dialogue on this issue; God has also promised, in some (analogous?) sense, to inhabit each of us (cf. Revelation 3:20). Yet we do not believe that an encounter with any Christian is a literal encounter with the divine - though we are adoptees into God's family, we are in no sense God. So there is a distinction to be made here, and I am legitimately curious where you think that distinction is.
-------------------
Grace & Peace

let's be honest...

a.k.a The Jimmy Carter syndrome

A recent expose on the Presidency of Jimmy Carter reminds me that George W. Bush is not the first President to wear his evangelical faith "on his sleeve," nor the first to justify difficult and controversial decisions in religious terms.

Democrats love to hate our current President - vilifying him is not only en vogue, it's practically assumed among the people I meet in my new residence. Democratic Christians especially seem to bristle under the religious language regularly invoked by the administration and its well-meaning supporters. Yet this was something Jimmy Carter did at least as much as the current administration, if not more so.

Interestingly, these very same Christians will not hesitate to state their own politics in decidedly religious terms! I have heard several progressive evangelicals speak of Jimmy Carter as if he were the answer to merging Liberal politics and evangelical faith - this from a Presidency considered by politicans and historians (on all sides) to be an unmitigated failure.

This type of double-speak drives me crazy, and implies to me that Christians of both political stripes have a very nasty habit of deriving political views, and then bending religion to fit politics, and not the other way around. I'm sure that I am as guilty of this as the next person, and I don't see any easy way around it. But I am highly uncomfortable with the idea that I do this...perhaps a certain self-consciousness of this habit is a step in the right (though not perhaps liberal) direction.

I also sense a lot more venom from my Liberal colleagues, though this is perhaps to be expected given the resounding losses they recently suffered. Most Republicans I know consider Democrats to be simply misinformed - "if they only understood the way things really work they would realize that Liberal policies are ineffectual." My Democratic friends, meanwhile, quite literally assume that Republican leaders get up in the morning and plan ways of decisively ruining our country and stomping on anyone they can in the process. This "assumption divide" has big implications for the possibility of productive dialog across the political aisle.

Here are a few instances of President Bush's Christian faith affecting his politics in ways in positive ways I think are worth considering:

• A commitment to human rights abroad - especially efforts to stop sex trafficking.
• Strong support for fighting AIDS worldwide.
• A practical committment to securing the rights of pre-born infants.
  
• The desire to see religious liberties spread to areas of the world not currently experiencing such freedoms.
• A belief that religious charities applying for social-service grants shouldn't be discriminated against simply because they are religious.
• White House's support for a college student who was denied a state grant because he planned to major in theology (that could have been me!).
• The Cleveland school-choice case, defending the rights of parents to choose which school their children attend with voucher support, whether religious or secular.
  

I don't know. It's not an easy issue no matter how you look at it. But at least think about it.
Grace & Peace...

spinning my wheels

As a tribute to my good friend "B," I am currently spinning the following tracks:

Radiohead - Climbing up the Walls
Hendrix - Purple Haze
Beatles - Strawberry Fields
R.E.M. - What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
Led Zepplin - Ramble On
The Who - You Better, You Bet
Pearl Jam - Even Flow
Pink Floyd - Hey you
Grateful Dead - Casey Jones...?
Led Zepplin - When the Levy Breaks
Nirvana - All apologies.

Missed you this weekend, B.

With this level of inspiration, expect more profound posts to follow swiftly. I'm back home, people! Look out!
Grace & Peace...

(re)starting it up

After a long and ridiculously ardous journey, I have found myself in a new haven that will be my home for at least the next semester. Given the difficulty I seem to have relocating, I may very well stay here indefinately. I apologize for my extended absence.

I hope to have much to say in the future, including the extended remix of my trip (suffice it to say that I don't move well). I'm excited about everything in store for me this next semester, and I'm glad you will along for the ride.
Grace & Peace

oxidized

It's funny what catches my heart, and when, and how:

I had a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving...

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I'm living
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.
A song. (Anyone know where this is from?)

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life." Proverbs 13:12

here's to the end

For those who know (or care), 2004 has been, without question, the worst year of my life, and recently included the worst day ever.

Here's to another year rapidly approaching - may 2005 be NOTHING like 2004.

Grace & Peace

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?!

“It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)

funny, that

Funny how when someone pisses you off, they are wrong for pissing you off, and when you piss someone else off, they are wrong for interpreting it wrong and are being stupid for being mad about it.
(from a nascent friend.)


(thanks to StaciMichelle for posting this cartoon.)

that's not normal

I recently watched a film in which, during a dramatic scene, a young boy of 9 or 10 witnesses his uncle (and several bad guys) get killed. My first thought was, "Wow. That kid's going to need a lot of therapy." This got me thinking, because in the vast scope of human history, it is only recently that this level of violence has not been witnessed by a large number of us, children included. Now, I'm not saying that witnessing the death of a loved one is somehow "good," or is part of the "natural order" of growing up, but you have to admit that it puts certain things in perspective.

I don't know what it is about modern America, but we seem ready to send ourselves and our children to therapy, onto medication or into clinics and hospitals for the strangest of reasons. Perhaps we sucked our thumb for too long time as a child or were ridiculed by our peers as adolecents. Parents, educators and psychologists seem to believe that children are so fragile that not enough affirmation as a child is enough to drive every one of us to psychosis. Even serious events like the death of a classmate or the serious illness of a relative warrant "code-red" emotional triage. And that's probably a good thing. I'm sure every school district in the nation has a plan to respond to the psychological needs of students in the event of a serious campus event.

But what did we do for all those years of human history when those responses weren't available? When men routinely went off to battle and didn't come home? When women and children directly witnessed wars, famines and plagues? Those that survived managed to make it to adulthood and become contributing members to society, with families and careers despite the devastation of their childhoods. We can't be as emotionally fragile and we're sometimes made to appear

So, what is "normal"?

If normal is defined by what is most common, then from the standpoint of human history, it is much more normal to experience tragedy than to avoid it. And more than history, this type of evil continues today around the world with famine, genocide, rape and more. From an evolutionary perspective, humanity must have adaptations that allow us to deal with tragedy at this level, or we never would have survived as a species.

If normal is defined by what is most healthy, then it becomes a bit trickier. From a Biblical perspective, God obviously didn't create us (in the Garden) to experience tragedies of this magnitude. So perhaps tragedy is not normal. On the other hand, humanity fell with Adam, and God has sustained and healed us throughout generations without the help of professional psychology or a cocktail of SSRIs. Some people might simply argue that evidently every generation before us really was messed up, and no one could have been truly happy. I'm not buying that so easily. And let's be honest, although depression and suicide have been around forever, growing up in a less violent culture doesn't seem to help much. The Swedes haven't fought a war in years, and they have among the highest depression rates worldwide.

[Note: This is the part of this blog where I will likely get myself into trouble]
Part of me thinks that we've become a society of pansies, who scream at the first sight of blood and have become so sensitized to pain that we freak out when we encounter it. We believe we have a right to lead a pain-free life, and feel put-upon when tragedy occurs. We've come to believe that we're so fragile that we can no longer handle the tragedies that every generation before us in history considered a natural part of life.

Another part of me thinks something more insidious is going on. Psychologists and psychiatrists have an incentive to make us believe that we're irreperably messed up, because it benefits their bottom line. So they continually feed us this line, no matter what we say about our childhood or past. But more than that, if we can convince ourselves that everyone is "messed up," then no one needs to feel inferior to anyone else, because really, we all need counseling. Anyone who doesn't admit this is seen as even more messed up with their delusions of invincibility. We make ourselves feel normal by assuming that, in fact, no one is. (this is similar to the argument made in "The Incredibles." If everyone is "special," then no one is). We're told that any little character flaw reveals our deeply held neurosis - that we can't even recognize our issues because we've become so blinded by our pain or bottled it up so tight. The strength of this arument is that it is impossible to escape. Once it is proferred, any denials only reinforce its truth! It's the Salem Witch Trial argument in a modern form.

So on Pearl Harbor Day, take a minute and remember the real tragedies we experience. The brave men and women at Pearl Harbor that not only survived, but in many cases became heros, and I bet most of them made it through without large doses of Paxil or years in a counselors chair.
Grace & Peace

These hallowed halls?

The following quote comes from a thought provoking article featured in this week's Economist (linked above):

"Academia is simultaneously both the part of America that is most obsessed with diversity, and the least diverse part of the country. On the one hand, colleges bend over backwards to hire minority professors and recruit minority students, aided by an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy of “diversity officers”. Yet, when it comes to politics, they are not just indifferent to diversity, but downright allergic to it."

As someone who recently graduated from a prestigious, and reflexively socialist, university, this type of analysis smacks of the obvious. But it might not be as clear to many of my culturally enlightened illuminati (new word for this ad hoc intellectual posse that seems to have developed), even though many of us left college much more liberal than we entered it. It's as difficult to be conservative in an agressively liberal institution as it is to be an evangelical in an atheistic one (perhaps more difficult, especially if you happen to be a conservative evangelical instead of a liberal one, as is the unlikely norm among Christians in these places).

It's hard to explain if you're not used to seeing it. A quick read of the article might give you a glimpse. I imagine that it's a varient of good ol' fashioned prejudice. And prejudice of any stripe is concerning.

I realize, of course, that it's bizarre to consider myself an "oppressed minority" as a "conservative Christian white male." But in reality, that definition puts me on par with the likes of Satan, Karl Rove, and Hitler as far as most Yalies are concerned. Even Stalin gets a better rap. Think about it...
Grace & Peace

Recently Reading I am Charlotte Simmons By Tom Wolfe

who knows why?

I am currently spinning what is likely the most random mix collection ever assembled. There's only one thread tying all these songs together, and I'm not telling...

1. Changes - 2pac
2. The Luckiest - Ben Folds
3. Color Blind - Counting Crows
4. Blue in Green - Miles Davis
5. Out of the Woods - Nickel Creek
6. Hold Me Now - Jennifer Knapp
7. Goodbye to You - Michelle Branch
8. It Takes Love - Grits
9. Your Love is Extravagant - Darrel Evans
10. Your Body is a Wonderland - John Mayer
11. If You Could Only See - Tonic
12. I'm Sensitive - Jewel
13. Song for a Winter's Night - Sarah McLaughlin & Jewel
14. Somewhere in Between - Lifehouse
15. In Your Eyes - Peter Gabriel
16. Everybody Hurts - R.E.M.
17. Fire and Rain - James Taylor
18. Never Fit - Gandalf Murphey
19. Light up my Room - Barenaked Ladies
20. I'll Be - Edwin McCain

Take care of yourselves, and each other...
Grace & Peace

a weltanschauung apparatchik

I am a moderate grammer nazi - if "moderate" and "nazi" can be used in the same sentence. [Edited to add: correction by the spelling nazi, "grammar." Whatever.]

I distinguish this specifically from a spelling nazi, becuase I tend to use words like "tonite" with a certain gleeful abandon. I also consider myself moderate, because I am sensitive to the conventions of style (form following function) and open to convincing on most points. I am also highly permissive of elipses, parenthesis, and many of the overused iterations of modern communication, especially in instant messages, mostly because I consider them effective communicators of emotion, and more accurately represetative of verbal communication. I'll admit to overusing them myself from time to time, and of being afraid to be the man who "throws the first stone," as if I don't have regular grammer slip-ups myself.

The issues that bring out my inner nazi tend to be noun-verb agreement, singular-plural agreement, and certain, more archaic conventions like the correct use of the subjunctive in phrases like "If I were..." (I must give credit to Brilau for driving this point home in college.)

But for sheer fastidiousness, few people beat this man, who has written several volumes on the correct and modern uses of the English language (dare I say, the "American" language?) But in the article referenced above (NOTE: NYTimes articles require free registration) the author uses several foreign words to convey his point, and also, I believe, to indicate his linguistic superiority over his subject and readers.

When are foreign words appropriate in an English language composition?

Is it acceptable for someone to critique another's use of the English language using several prominent foreign language words? I know that the philosophy/theology world tends to use foreign words (biggest culprits here: Latin, Greek, German and French) to express particular theological concepts that have no English equivalent. However, I have noticed a certain "creeping" of these words into the regular parlance of our small band of illuminati. I'm distressed, because I feel that this not only makes us look like intellectual snobs, but huge dorks as well! There's a grey area as well, because the words listed in the title of this post are in the dictionary, though most of us have no idea what they mean.

So what do you think? Am I right to be skeptical of so much creeping "polyglottalism" in my own vocabulary and in others? Or is it simply a fait accompli as folks move up the educational ladder? I await your thoughts...
Grace & Peace

A few thoughts I am happy to share:

-------------------------------------
"The Incredibles." SUCH A GOOD MOVIE! Smart, witty, philosophical, with clean animation lines and a great story. Definitely geared toward the adult audience. If Ayn Rand did Disney cartoons, it would look something like this. (I may have to blog more on this later.)
(The link above is the NYTimes excellent review. Note: NYTimes articles require free registration).
-----------------------------------
Is anyone else as psyched as I am about Up, Lummox!'s return to the blogosphere? After a three week hiatus back in October, my buddy DOB has been blogging with a vengence for the past three weeks, and I'm simply left in awe. During his absence, several friends of mine (that DOB has never met) contacted me to ask when he was getting back to delivering his opiate to the masses. Ahhhh....
-----------------------------------
If you enjoy a good laugh and are amused by the inane back and forth of what passes for today's "dating scene," you really must check out 50 Bad Dates. The author's witty and sarcastic observations make me grin and snicker (yes, grin and snicker) every time. I look forward to her thoughts all week (which reflect, at turns, both Bridget Jones and Sex & The City, but with a decidely fresh flair).
-----------------------------------
Speaking of Bridget Jones, Kristin Gore's book (yes, the daughter of the "Internet Inventor who would be President"), Sammy's Hill, is surprisingly amusing. I almost never read fiction, especially popular fiction, particularly by obviously partisan Democrats...and certainly nothing in a genre disturbingly labeled "chic lit." However, I stumbled across it in Barnes & Noble at Newport on the Levee, and perused the first chapter over a Grande Mocha Valencia (my indulgence beverage of choice, with more calories than most Thanksgiving dinners). It was one of the only times in my life that I can ever remember laughing out loud at a book! The other customers were eyeing me warily, and one even came over to see what I was reading. The "Bridget Jones goes to Washington" feel is certainly cliche, but the exaggerated life of the novel's protagonist is so dead-on that I just couldn't stop laughing. If you've ever worked in DC or know someone who has, chances are this will the strike your funny bone. Unfortunately, by the last third of the novel, the witty and eccentric story line degenerates into predictable mushy romanticism and too much big-picture politics, while it was the funny close ups of the lead character, Samantha Joyce, that really made the book so worth while. In the end, I couldn't bring myself to buy it, but I've been reading one chapter each week (or two or three) over my Saturday cup of coffee. Pick it up if you're looking for some light reading, but don't feel like you have to buy it, and for goodness sakes don't tell anyone I've read it!
-----------------------------------
Finally, I would like to re-clarify (for those that are unaware or have simply forgotten) that my nom de plume is taken from a character I once played in a high school musical, and not from any delusions of grandeur that I may have about my status or authority. I re-iterate; I have no advanced degree, no teaching positon of any kind, and generally know little about much.

Assumptions to the contrary on your part are both foolhardy and likely dangerous to your health and well being. Proceed with caution!
-----------------------------------

Recently Reading Sammy's Hill By Kristin Gore

voter fraud?

At the risk of opening up Pandora's Box, the above link connects to an interesting article in today's NYTimes (not exactly a longtime friend of the Republican Party) about the "voting fraud" rumor mill. (Note: NYTimes articles require free registration).

I will excerpt only three short (and revealing) quotes:

• "Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor in the interactive telecommunications program at New York University, suggests that the online fact-finding machine has come unmoored, and that some bloggers simply "can't imagine any universe in which a fair count of the votes would result in George Bush being re-elected president."
• "We know this was an emotional election, and the losing side is very upset," said Daniel Hoffheimer, the lead lawyer for the Kerry campaign in Ohio. But, he said, "I have not seen anything to indicate intentional fraud or tampering."
• "A preliminary study produced by the Voting Technology Project, a cooperative effort between the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...found "no particular patterns" relating to voting systems and the final results of the election. "

Well, that sounds pretty definitive to me. But hey, what do I know?

Currently Reading A Grief Observed By C. S. Lewis

This is not rocket science

Okay folks, this is not rocket science. As any gas station attendant can tell you, a receipt is necessary for a credit card purchase. You sign the receipt, and you get a carbon copy to keep.

Why can't we do the same thing for electronic voting? You make your vote, the machine prints out a receipt. You reveiw the receipt and sign it. You get a carbon copy for yourself. This is decades-old technology that would eliminate all these problems, and would stop giving Kerry supporters false hope (I mean, we're still looking at at 3.5m popular vote difference here). I just don't see why all this is so complicated.
Grace & Peace

The rage of the drowning man

As always, this man is my hero for dispelling some common myths, and getting it right about what's important in the recent election victory. Click here for his brilliant insight in full.

(If you're dog tired of election jabbering, this may be your time to sign off. No offense taken. However, if you've only heard one side of the story, please read on...)

The official story of throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surging to the polls to put George Bush over the top is MYTH. Here are a few facts worth absorbing:

• Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life.
• Bush did better this year in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt.
• The President did particularly well among white Catholics, winning 56 percent of them compared with Mr. Kerry's 43 percent, despite Mr. Kerry's being the first Roman Catholic nominated for president since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
• Bush did better with people older than 60 than Mr. Kerry did. Mr. Kerry did worse with that age group than Mr. Gore did.
• He increased his share of the vote among women, Hispanics, and even city dwellers significantly from 2000, and made slight gains among both Catholics and Jews.

Here's a paragraph worth excerpting at length:

"The same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?"

though I am tired...

Though I am tired, it is a good day.

Not much to say. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

The real winner, of course, is the American people, who turned out in record numbers and awarded the first solid popular vote majority since 1988.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One sad bit of news. This man ran a great campaign and was a great candidate. Though he lost, he is a true gentleman and has earned my respect.

why America

"America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." -Alexis de Tocqueville

This quote was not written by an arrogant American, but by a Frenchman in an era when people were not afraid to say that a country might not be merely great, but also good. God is not the mascot of the Republican party. God is not a Democrat. God is not even an American, which may surprise some of you. But there is one thing I can say with certainty; God hates the murder of the innocent - whether in Darfur, Iraq, urban Los Angeles or in abortion clinics all across the country.

I read that the Iraqi death toll may approach 100,000. But we have the blood of 40 million unborn human lives running through every street in America. It stains our hands and faces and we cannot escape it no matter where we may go. We may have turned our backs on God, but in His incomprehensible grace, He has not yet turned His back on us. Someday He will answer the cries of the innocents, and woe to anyone alive when a Just and Awesome God brings a nation to account.

"Through your own fault you will lose the inheritance I gave you. I will enslave you to your enemies in a land you do not know, for you have kindled my anger, and it will burn forever." Jeremiah 17:4

We have lost our ability to speak truth because we do not believe that Truth exists. We have lost our ability to fear God. So we fear nothing.

Please, I urge you to realize the power of one of our most important gifts and VOTE.

Vote prayerfully, vote powerfully, and perhaps there is still time left to worry whether America may yet return to be great because she returns to be good.

when we settle

I have a friend who always wanted to be a rock star. Pretty common, right? But this friend was good. I mean really good. By the time he was in high school, he was playing regularly around town, the darling of several older music "veterans," and had girls fawning over him the way most boys that age only dream about.

And you probably think you know how this story ends - that he tried after high school, but couldn't quite get it together, so now he plays coffee houses with the money he makes from a low-end job, and pines for the days when he "was somebody."

But that's not quite it. Because this friend went to college, married a beautiful and talented girl by the time he was a junior, and now teaches high school science at a reputable boarding school in the South. And he never touched his music again.

It's like one day he just moved on. And he swears to me that he's happy. He has a wonderful life with his wife and new baby daughter. He has a responsible job, is respected in his community, and his wife stays home to raise their family. Sounds like the perfect life.

But I just don't get it. How could someone that loved music so much, for whom music was their passion and life, just move on like that? How is it possible, when I saw him feeding off the inspiration of the music, and the adoration of the crowds that mouthed his lyrics like he was some kind of Jim Morrison? Can someone's priorities change that much that the old things that mattered so much simply don't matter at all anymore? Is he really happy....really, way down deep, or has he somehow buried that old passion so far down that he doesn't even remember it anymore, and he's mistaking his contented, secure life for happiness? Has he really somehow "settled" for the easy road?

When someone says they're happy with their life, can we really believe them?

I mean, at one level, who am I to say otherwise? He certainly seems happy, and he has a lot to live for and enjoy in life. But part of me is so uncomfortable with the whole idea that someone can just change like that.

I guess I'm just skeptical of people who feel like they "change" dramatically at random stages of life. One example that always comes up - at 17, a lot of us thought 35 was old. But now that we're 25, we all say, "nah. 35 isn't old. I just didn't see that when I was 17." Well, I'm of the opinion that I did see that at 17, and really, 35 is old (or at least middle aged) and I should just be okay with that and age gracefully. (For those that are interested; in my rubric 0-20 is young, 30-50 is middle aged, 50-? is elderly. And I plan on keeping this rubric till I die.) Another one that comes up quite a bit is "oh, I thought I was in love before, but I never really loved anyone until _______" But in this case, the old standby "I always thought ______ made me happier than anything in the world. But I'm even better now, doing _______, than I could have imagined" is the one that makes me concerned.

Because I never want anyone to settle. I never want anyone to give up on their dreams and aspirations for the sake of security (or anything else!), and cover it up by insisting how happy they are with the way life turned out. It's especially difficult when the person really seems happy, or has really convinced himself that he's just as happy (or maybe happier) with his family, working a respectable 9-5, than he ever might have been inspiring people with music.

Is it actually settling if the person really does feel happy?

So why do we settle? And should I even care? Because it's true that things happen in people's lives, things that are unexpected, and I'm sure everyone's priorities change at one time or another. Everyone I know with kids says that it's impossible to understand true love until you've had children. So I guess this must be true, even though the love for a spouse is so intense I can't imagine anything approaching that. God certainly wants us to find contentment in Him and not in the "stuff" of life. But what about the idea of a "calling?" Can you miss your calling and still be truly happy?

All these questions running around in my head, and I can't help but feel sorry for a guy that insists that he is happier than he has ever been in his life. Then I remember how inspired I was just watching him perform. And I know how much he lived for the opportunity to move people with his music, and I just don't understand how he could give it all up and never look back. I guess I just don't understand life sometimes...what a complicated mess.
Grace & Peace-

a seredipitous Boston "fan"

I hate the thought that I might be digressing too far into the "humdrum daily routine" element with this posting, but a small story will illustrate my incurable excitement at the Red Sox recent World Series berth.

The company that I work for, Carlson Software, recently held it's annual meeting here in Maysville, KY. We brought in employees from all over the country, Los Angeles, Houston, Sarasota, Atlanta, and Boston.

One of the cool kitsch items at this meeting was a new Carlson Software hat, which, as hats go, is a real winner. Unfortunatley, all the hats were gone before my good friend BR was able to obtain one. He complained ceaselessly for two weeks at his lack of a Carlson hat, and just when I thought it hopeless, I ran across a small stash hidden away in the back of our storage room. I sent BR the hat, along with a note explaining my remarkable find, and considered the whole thing done.

Imagine my surprise two weeks later when a beautiful, high quality Boston Red Sox hat arrives in my mail, with a nice note. You see, BR is a lifelong Bostonian (with the accent to prove it) and a diehard Red Sox fan. He encouraged me with the hat to become a Sox fan, telling me, "for sure. This is our year."

So I started following Red Sox baseball, more out of curiousity than anything else. But the intruigue and sheer intensity of the recent ALCS has cemented my nascent Red Sox enjoyment (dare I say "affection"?) and propelled me into the ring as a Sox fan - even getting into arguments with various Yankees fans I run into. I've been staying up late all week to see the incredible games (all 14 innings the other night) and real baseball history in the making. Whatever you think about the teams, this is good baseball.

So, I'm incredibly excited about the Red Sox heading to the World Series this year, with the chance to end the "Curse of the Bambino" once and for all, and with their first World Series in 86 years...yes, 86 years. But a part of me feels a little guilty about this whole situation. Here I am this new Red Sox fan, enjoying and celebrating success, when thousands of Red Sox fans have been waiting year after disappointing year for a victory like this. There might be an 80 year-old man out there that waiting his whole life for this opportunity! So part of me thinks that I don't really deserve to celebrate with the "true" Red Sox fans...but I do it anyway. I just keep my enjoyment to myself, and compliment BR and all the legions of year-after-year diehards out there on their determination and the success of an incredible team. They deserve this...
Grace & Peace

taking sides

P.J. O'Rourke, correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and regular contributor to NPR and The Weekly Standard has done it again. This short piece had me rolling on the floor laughing. It is a five minute read at most. Lighten up your day and enjoy it.

Currently Playing Whole EP By Pedro the Lion

good times

Oh, how I would love for THIS to be true. And for it to totally blow up. Be the "October Surprise" or whatever. Please.

If you really enjoy political satire, JibJab is definitely for you. Plenty of fun for both sides of the aisle, and their new creation is perhaps more fun than their last! Good times, indeed.

who's your grandma?!

So much to write about. So little time.

NEWS FLASH!! The new single off the upcoming U2 Album ("Vertigo") absolutely kicks ass. Looks like the rockin' boys from Ireland have done it again. Can't wait to get ahold of the record. Check it out here.

"Developing..."

the Worship experience

While I'm not as well versed as some people, I believe that my own unique backgound (not merely evangelical, but also a strong charismatic bent) might shed some light on a different perspective.

Frankly, I think Christians use the word "worship" loosely, like english speakers use the word "love." Clearly I don't "love" raspberry chocolate truffle ice cream in the same way that I love my closest friends - the emotions are much stronger with the ice cream - but I use the same word to describe both. Similarly, people often use the word "worship" to describe many different things: a life attitude toward God (as in, "I want to have a worshipful life"), an attitude of the heart (having an "attitude of worship"), but also the physical act of singing that goes on in a service ("this is the worship time").

At first glance this does not make a lot of sense, unless you impose a more fundamental definition on the whole thing, something like "an offering of adoration and devotion." In that light, the "act" of worship (the singing) becomes an offering, and so do all the other definitions used for worship. Viewed this way, the "worship" element of a church service is distinguishable from the Word and Sacrament by virtue of it's objective: the worship is what we present to God - an offering of adoration and adoration. This is why worship is often called "praise."

This type of adoration has roots back to the earliest Biblical narratives. The Old Testament is full of examples of Israelites singing the praises of God. Miriam (Moses' sister) sings an entire song of praise after the Israelites cross safetly over the Red Sea. David danced before the Arc of the Covenant when it returned to Jerusalem, and the entire book of Psalms is a compilation of songs of devotion to God, often sung by the people in a religious context. I imagine that these songs were deeply personal and emotional, and evoked a strong personal response in the singer that helped draw the singer in to that posture of worship before God.

This is essentially what bothers me so much about "traditional" worship - its complete lack of emotion. I'm sure this is not true in all situations, but in every traditional service I have attended, the "worship" segment is a bunch of people singing in a musical style they have no familiarity with, their heads buried in a book to read the lyrics, and no sense of any emotional connection to what they are doing. If there is real emotional connecting going on, it is well hidden. The most you can often get out of people is that they enjoy the comfort of tradition, or the sense of continuity with songs they sang as children. The Bible is full of so many wonderful worship stories - of hands raised and people clapping. I just can't see Miriam passing out hymnals to everyone and having them sing in an old-fashioned style a song of celebration.

This is why evangelicals (and charismatics especially) revel so much in worship, and experience such a strong connection to the divine in the act of worship. It seems that God somehow wired us to experience music emotionally (and emotively). Any musician will tell you that it is hard to really sing from your heart and not experience a powerful connection with the subject of your song. Charismatics often say that they experience God's presence more strongly in this
context than anywhere else. While "emotionalism" is always a concern, it's hard to fault that kind of passion and zeal. Those Christians who have never experienced the overwhelming presence of God in worship - where you often can't even speak, or the tears just won't stop coming, or all you can do is smile - while obviously still "Christian" in every objective sense, are missing out on a powerful and potentially life-changing element of the Christian life. It's not
"required," but would you set out to build a house, and limit yourself to only 1/2 of your tools?

These are my thoughts, and I'm happy to discuss them with anyone...let the castration begin.

Grace & Peace



Where is human nature so weak as in a bookstore?--Henry Ward Beecher

Once again the same

I recently took thespark.com's Personality Test. It's pretty amazing, takes about 20 mins, and is a lot of fun. I first took this test back in 1999, and then again in 2001, and got the same result both times. Recently I learned that the test had been updated, and the site somewhat altered, so I thought I would take it for the 3rd time, to see if my diagnosis would change.

Same result. Which is amazing considering how much the test has evolved over time! Every time I read their conclusion I think, "Wow. It's unbelievable how well they have me pegged." Same goes for several of my friends who have also taken the test. It always describes them better than I could do, and I know them pretty well!

In my recent period of self-reflection, it has been very important to take a good, clear look at myself, and to try and see myself the way others do. It's not always a pleasant experience, but it has certainly challenged me. I recommend you give the test a try, and let me know your results! I'm interested to see how you all turn out, and I'd love to keep a running list of the results. Here are mine (see if you don't agree that they describe me to a "t"):

Dominant Extrovert Abstract Thinker (aka POLITICIAN)

Like just 5% of the population you are a POLITICIAN (DEAT)--forceful, outgoing, and forward-looking. You are strong-willed and extroverted, so you enjoy interacting with other people. You aggressively pursue your goals.
Your creative style of thinking allows you to come up with unusual arguments and original ideas that appeal to others, but behind it all is an analytical mind that never forgets the bottom line. While some might see you as manipulative, your close friends know you are a talented person who deserves the best in life.
Whatever. You are manipulative. Whether you use your power for "good" or "bad", it's up to you. If you're confused what good or bad means, ask a HEALER. Like EXPERIMENTERS, you have a propensity for cheating.

Currently Playing Rainy Day Music By The Jayhawks

it's a mad, mad world...

You know that the world is weird when Iowa, Kansas, Louisana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virgina and Wyoming all have Democratic governors...and California, Connecticut, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Vermont all have Republican ones! What's up with that?!

Currently Reading Crime & Punishment By Fyodor Dostoevsky