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.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
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
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
Friday, January 21, 2005
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
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
Thursday, January 20, 2005
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
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
Monday, January 17, 2005
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
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
Thursday, January 13, 2005
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:
Grace & Peace...
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.
Grace & Peace...
Sunday, January 09, 2005
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...
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...
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
(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
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
Monday, December 20, 2004
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
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
Thursday, December 16, 2004
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
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
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.)
(from a nascent friend.)
(thanks to StaciMichelle for posting this cartoon.)
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
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
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
Friday, December 03, 2004
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
"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 |
Thursday, December 02, 2004
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...
- Changes - 2pac
- The Luckiest - Ben Folds
- Color Blind - Counting Crows
- Blue in Green - Miles Davis
- Out of the Woods - Nickel Creek
- Hold Me Now - Jennifer Knapp
- Goodbye to You - Michelle Branch
- It Takes Love - Grits
- Your Love is Extravagant - Darrel Evans
- Your Body is a Wonderland - John Mayer
- If You Could Only See - Tonic
- I'm Sensitive - Jewel
- Song for a Winter's Night - Sarah McLaughlin & Jewel
- Somewhere in Between - Lifehouse
- In Your Eyes - Peter Gabriel
- Everybody Hurts - R.E.M.
- Fire and Rain - James Taylor
- Never Fit - Gandalf Murphey
- Light up my Room - Barenaked Ladies
- I'll Be - Edwin McCain
Take care of yourselves, and each other...
Grace & Peace
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
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
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
Sunday, November 14, 2004
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!
-----------------------------------
"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 |
Friday, November 12, 2004
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:
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. "
 | 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
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
Monday, November 08, 2004
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:
(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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)