My wife and I swore we'd continue travelling after our first child. His first plane ride was at three weeks old, and we've done a good amount of air and land travel since then. But this month was our first international test. We planned to travel from Boise to Venice, tour Italy for ten days, and return from Rome. We also planned to hit some of the major galleries, do Vatican City, and eat out most nights. I've done some travelling, but I'll admit I was a little nervous about this one. An eleven month old boy, confined spaces for long periods, art galleries, non-existent nap times, major time changes, and a different bed most nights did not for obvious reasons inspire a great deal of peace and confidence within me.
My main purpose for writing this entry is to provide a record of my experiences for others who might be interested, but I will briefly mention that our boy did wonderfully. He did well on the planes, was perfectly happy to sleep in the backpacks in most cases, was willing to sit and eat at the restaurants, and was in general a joy to have on the trip. I won't suggest that his mother (especially his mother) and I didn't have to work a little harder than we've had to in the past, and that we didn't willingly pass up some things along the way, but I will simply say that had I to do the trip over again I would still choose to take the boy along.
Following is a list of items we found to be absolutely invaluable on the trip.
Most restaurants in Italy don't have high chairs (thanks, Greg and Patti), so we brought along Phil and Ted's MeTo chair. This turned out to be an excellent solution. It is compact enough to reasonably pack, and sturdy enough to handle a hungry, bouncing baby boy. It allows for some space so mom and dad can enjoy a meal, and the baby still gets to participate. We didn't have it with us for a couple of lunches, and the meals were not nearly as enjoyable. We didn't run into any restaurant owners who minded our attaching the chair to one of their tables. As a side note, the chair also works really well at home, and his level of comfort with it when travelling may have had something to do with his sitting in it for most meals at home as well.
Sometimes the boy got tired while we were out and about. When we could tell he was starting to get ready for a nap, we'd put him on our back in the ERGObaby carrier and carry him around for awhile. When he fell asleep, we were able to snap the hood over him to protect him from harsh light and moving objects that might wake him suddenly. We also had a larger Kelty pack with us, but he seemed to prefer sleeping in the ERGO. It may have been the proximity to us that helped him fall asleep, but at any rate, we took both packs with us most times we went out. The Kelty was more comfortable and cooler (mainly in temperature, but I'm sure to some degree also in appearance), as well as allowing for a better vantage point for the boy, so it was more successful when he wasn't tired and when we were doing a lot of walking. If it's possible to take both kinds of packs, I'd recommend it. If you can take only one, take the ERGO.
It's pretty tough to avoid large crowds in Italy in May. A few nights we came back to the hotel from dinner and we were all fairly wired from the crowds, the sights, and the newness of it all. Sometimes it was pretty tough to relax. I had Italian wine to assist me, but my wife said that wouldn't work for the child. We had however brought along a bottle of Calms Forte 4 Kids, which is a completely natural aid to relieving restlessness. We didn't use it every night, but we did use it a few nights when he wouldn't relax, and we also used it on the planes to help him sleep at important times going both ways. It worked very well, and we noticed no obvious side effects.
Hunger and fatigue are two killers on anyone, and a baby is no exception. We took some snacks with us that we could carry around (graham cracker sticks he could hold and some Cheerios) that completely saved us a few times we got caught in a place without any food readily available and the boy's blood sugar reaching desperately low levels. I'm confident we would have had several complete melt downs had he not been able to munch on something until we were able to locate food.
A set of grandparents. If you can take one along, by all means do it. You'll get a little more sleep, do a little less walking around at restaurants when the food is taking a bit too long, and get an evening or two out.
I'd prefer not to travel again without the items above, but there were also a few things we found handy, but that we'd probably be fine without.
Sticky place mats kept more than one restaurant's tablecloth from meeting an early demise, and also were nice for offering a fairly clean surface on which to place food.
A couple of little toys were good for temporary distractions, but I wouldn't take more than two or three on the next trip.
A little music was nice every now and again, especially lullabies on some evenings. We found an iPod speaker that was small enough to pack, but produced decent enough sound. It also looks like a LEGO, which is of course a perk.
We bought a Nalgene with a loop so we could easily carry it with a caribiner. We had another cup we couldn't hook to anything and we found the Nalgene to be far simpler to keep track of. It's also BPA free, naturally.
As I said in the beginning, I'd do this trip again, but the timing seemed to be good with regard to his mobility as well. He could crawl, but wasn't extremely fond of it yet. Looking back, I would think twice before taking him on a trip like this when he really wants to crawl or walk with assistance almost all the time. Obviously his walking would have also posed some major problems.
If this post helps you out on your adventures with your kid(s), I'm glad. If you've got questions, feel free to leave a comment and I'll do my best to respond before your trip is over.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Listen for the full hour
I attended a diversity training the other day. For those of you who exist outside of corporate America, this would be a training in which one is taught how to recognize, consider, and be respectful of diversity in the workplace. It was well done. Of course I went in with few expectations, so I wasn't going to be hard to please, but the day was well used afterall. I think my favorite statement came when a fellow attendee was suggesting that she didn't appreciate a fictional character we were using in an exercise because this person had chosen to home school their children due to the immoral and amoral environment they perceived in the public school system. A fellow class member proceeded to say "We must be as tolerant of the intolerant as we are of any other person." The look on the woman's face was one of pure revelation. It was as if she had never considered the idea that a white, conservative, evangelical Christian is just as "diverse" as anyone else, and worthy of the same level of inclusion and respect as would be offered to a minority, for instance. It was quite a remarkable event.
But, probably one of the more interesting tidbits I picked up was with regard to first impressions. Apparently there are studies showing that first impressions are unavoidable. That is, humans register first impressions quite naturally. However, after a first impression, a person will then spend a massively disproportionate amount of time attempting to confirm the first impression. For instance, in a one hour interview, the interviewer will commonly have a first impression in five minutes, and will spend the next fifty-five minutes attempting to prove the first impression correct. Naturally the application for the lesson was to be aware of first impressions, and not to allow them undue influence on one's decision making processes.
As soon as I heard this though, I realized how many people I've known (myself included) who apply roughly this same process to a whole array of important decisions in their life. Allow me to offer a story. Growing up in central Idaho, and even later attending high school in western Washington, I didn't have much of an opportunity to hang out with African Americans. (My black friend would later tell me to call him "black". He would say, 'I don't want to go to Africa. I've seen pictures. It looks pretty, but it's got a lot of diseases.') So, when I got to college in Texas and started spending time with a young man from Houston who happened to be black, I realized the very small amount of time I'd given to my concept of racism in America was grossly underfunded. In my lifetime I'd allotted what amounted to five minutes in an hour deciding racism no longer existed, and then spent the remaining years ignoring or discounting any information which would offer an alternate theory. Not even the L.A. riots could change my mind (though to give myself a little leeway, I was a pre-teen at the time). That's why I was simply shocked when one day my friend kept insisting racism was as active as ever, especially in the culture in which he'd been raised. I could not believe it. Surely it was extremly isolated, like maybe to the banjo country of Mississippi, I suggested. No, he told me. It's everywhere. I still couldn't believe it. Then he said, "You're from the Northwest...like a Utopia. It's not like that everywhere." The Northwest isn't a Utopia, but I most certainly had not been forced to deal with racism in my upbringing. My parents had taught me that a person's skin color was just that, I hadn't at any point in my childhood been forced to acknowledge that not everyone felt that way, and I had gone on my merry way. It wasn't until someone who knew otherwise challenged my viewpoint that I corrected my understanding, and then only after that person forcefully ripped away the filter I had so permanentally and expertly installed on my consciousness.
As I think about this I wonder how many of us have done the same, but perhaps in the area of parenting, marriage, spirituality, politics, or maybe even our own past. Out of a lack of understaning, and an unwillingness to re-evaluate our current level of awareness, we leave ourselves incomplete. I know I for one will certainly be making every effort to spend the full hour listening and asking questions before I come to any more conclusions.
But, probably one of the more interesting tidbits I picked up was with regard to first impressions. Apparently there are studies showing that first impressions are unavoidable. That is, humans register first impressions quite naturally. However, after a first impression, a person will then spend a massively disproportionate amount of time attempting to confirm the first impression. For instance, in a one hour interview, the interviewer will commonly have a first impression in five minutes, and will spend the next fifty-five minutes attempting to prove the first impression correct. Naturally the application for the lesson was to be aware of first impressions, and not to allow them undue influence on one's decision making processes.
As soon as I heard this though, I realized how many people I've known (myself included) who apply roughly this same process to a whole array of important decisions in their life. Allow me to offer a story. Growing up in central Idaho, and even later attending high school in western Washington, I didn't have much of an opportunity to hang out with African Americans. (My black friend would later tell me to call him "black". He would say, 'I don't want to go to Africa. I've seen pictures. It looks pretty, but it's got a lot of diseases.') So, when I got to college in Texas and started spending time with a young man from Houston who happened to be black, I realized the very small amount of time I'd given to my concept of racism in America was grossly underfunded. In my lifetime I'd allotted what amounted to five minutes in an hour deciding racism no longer existed, and then spent the remaining years ignoring or discounting any information which would offer an alternate theory. Not even the L.A. riots could change my mind (though to give myself a little leeway, I was a pre-teen at the time). That's why I was simply shocked when one day my friend kept insisting racism was as active as ever, especially in the culture in which he'd been raised. I could not believe it. Surely it was extremly isolated, like maybe to the banjo country of Mississippi, I suggested. No, he told me. It's everywhere. I still couldn't believe it. Then he said, "You're from the Northwest...like a Utopia. It's not like that everywhere." The Northwest isn't a Utopia, but I most certainly had not been forced to deal with racism in my upbringing. My parents had taught me that a person's skin color was just that, I hadn't at any point in my childhood been forced to acknowledge that not everyone felt that way, and I had gone on my merry way. It wasn't until someone who knew otherwise challenged my viewpoint that I corrected my understanding, and then only after that person forcefully ripped away the filter I had so permanentally and expertly installed on my consciousness.
As I think about this I wonder how many of us have done the same, but perhaps in the area of parenting, marriage, spirituality, politics, or maybe even our own past. Out of a lack of understaning, and an unwillingness to re-evaluate our current level of awareness, we leave ourselves incomplete. I know I for one will certainly be making every effort to spend the full hour listening and asking questions before I come to any more conclusions.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Voting for Hillary
There is way too much commentary on the Democratic primary. That being said, I'd going to add my drop in the bucket. Yes, I am annoyed enough by what some people are saying to not only comment on politics, but to actually comment on a portion of politics that needs not a single piece of additional commentary at this time.
I have in recent weeks heard several different women from different parts of the country (and I think even one from another country as well, for some reason) state they are supporting Hillary because they feel they identify with her as a woman, and she with them. That is, they want her to be president because they feel she understands them.
It's debatable as to whether Hillary could actually care less about these women as individuals. Some would say she could, others that she could not. I would suggest she cares primarily about her place in history. But this is of course a meaningless line of discussion, as neither side can really prove intentions. My real issue is with this idea that women would vote for Hillary because she's a woman. What if we turned that around and I said I wasn't voting for her because she's a woman? Suddenly I become a regressive sexist. So to vote for her because she's a woman is forward thinking and logical, but not to vote for her for the same reason is backward and illogical.
In actuality though, to do either simply because of her gender is illogical. A person doesn't make a good president because of their gender, and neither do they make a poor president for the same reason. I don't want to here rehash the great debate that is currently raging around Hillary's credentials as a presidential nominee, but I do want to emphatically say that if you're backing Hillary, please do so for reasons other than the fact that she happens to be a women.
I have in recent weeks heard several different women from different parts of the country (and I think even one from another country as well, for some reason) state they are supporting Hillary because they feel they identify with her as a woman, and she with them. That is, they want her to be president because they feel she understands them.
It's debatable as to whether Hillary could actually care less about these women as individuals. Some would say she could, others that she could not. I would suggest she cares primarily about her place in history. But this is of course a meaningless line of discussion, as neither side can really prove intentions. My real issue is with this idea that women would vote for Hillary because she's a woman. What if we turned that around and I said I wasn't voting for her because she's a woman? Suddenly I become a regressive sexist. So to vote for her because she's a woman is forward thinking and logical, but not to vote for her for the same reason is backward and illogical.
In actuality though, to do either simply because of her gender is illogical. A person doesn't make a good president because of their gender, and neither do they make a poor president for the same reason. I don't want to here rehash the great debate that is currently raging around Hillary's credentials as a presidential nominee, but I do want to emphatically say that if you're backing Hillary, please do so for reasons other than the fact that she happens to be a women.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
Mars Hill and Predestination
If you're not a Christian, I'd really rather you didn't read this entry. I'd rather you not because the predestination conversation is sort of like an old family argument in Christianity and while an old family argument may be relatively harmless to family members who understand all of the background and nuances, and that at the end of the day everyone is still loved, those outside the family may not have that same level of understanding and may think the family is actually fighting (which it has in the past, but will not be here). This can at best lead to confusion from the outside party and at worst to outright dismissal of the family and its members as argumentative, bickering, haters. Obviously I don't want anyone getting that impression of Christians for any reason, and certainly not from something I've written. That being said, read on if you like, but please take the discussion as just that and kindly remember that in my opinion this is an academic issue surrounding the theology of God and should in no way distract from what Jesus said and did, which is of course the real point of it all.
I recently listened to a sermon by Mark Driscoll, head pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle. The sermon on predestination is actually part of a series they're currently doing called "Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions". The series came out of an interesting idea. The idea came about from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians. In the letter it's clear that what Paul is doing is answering a bunch of questions sent to him by the church in Corinth. Mars Hill decided to let people ask questions of it, and then everyone could vote on which ones they most wanted to hear answered, and Driscoll would teach on the top nine votes. The first was birth control, the second was on humor, and the third of the series (number seven) was predestination. As a side note, they also revisit the topic in the evening service, but allow people to send in text messages with questions. These questions are screened and then answered on the fly by Driscoll at the end of the service. I will say though that they apparently don't screen the hard questions because after the birth control sermon someone asked if aborting a pregnancy that was brought on by a rape was a sin. Driscoll answered it too. I was surprised and somewhat impressed.
I do have to say I've never actually heard anyone teach on predestination from a church pulpit. That type of talk is usually reserved for the classroom at a university or possibly some types of high schools. The fact that I've never heard anyone address this concept in church of course gives us some idea of the sensitivity of the material. Generally the topic is treated as politicians will treat the subject of abortion. They avoid it if at all possible, but if asked will provide their prepared answer and then do all they can to move to the next question. So, I was both glad and a little wary to see that someone had actually preached a sermon on the topic of predestination.
This post is not really a response to what Driscoll himself said, but rather the ideas he expressed. That is, other than the notion I have that perhaps this particular conversation is better had among Christians alone, my thoughts on this are more generally thoughts on the Calvinistic view of predestination, as that is basically what Driscoll was teaching. He happens to be a Calvinist when it comes to predestination, and so that is what he submitted as the proper way to understand the concept. I happen to disagree on a couple of points. Of course I'm not the first, so I'm just going to talk about what presents itself as clear to me and will try to remain brief.
Most fundamentally I disagree with the Calvinist view because it invalidates free will in an individual human. God clearly saw free will as being important when he gave Adam and Eve the choice to obey his command or not, which of course ultimately led to original sin, the downfall of mankind's relationship with God, death, humans who do evil, and of course eventually the Super Bowl in 2006, which was the greatest evil in history. I believe free will was so vastly important to God because love drives the universe. Without love none of it makes any sense at all. As Jack Johnson wrote, "Love is the answer,At least for most of the questions in my heart. Like why are we here? And where do we go?And how come it's so hard?" But, without an individual's free will remaining intact, how can anything like true love exist? In other words, if one has no choice but to love God, is that love? I would suggest that it is not. I would suggest that that would be closer to a slave than a son.
There is also a concept in the Calvinist view of predestination suggesting that mankind cannot choose God because of his or her depravity level. Before God, through Jesus redeems a person, that person is spiritually dead in their sin (Ephesians 2:1). Surely, their thinking goes, a dead person cannot make a decision, and so it must be that God reaches down with his strong arm of grace and raises some from their spiritual death. But, the logic continues, each person chooses to be spiritually dead, that is each of us chooses to sin. Now that everyone chooses sin is not up for debate. The Bible is pretty clear on that one. We all choose to do things that are opposite the nature of God (we hate, we lie, we are unjust, we are unmerciful, etc) and so become alienated to Him, as He (being a being of perfect goodness) cannot associate with that which is not also purely good. On this point there is little discussion. But, how is it that we as beings are able to "choose" in one direction, but not the other? If we can only choose evil, is that a choice, and if it's not a choice, can we be held accountable for it? If it is a choice and we are therefore accountable for it, mustn't we by definition have another option, and in this case mustn't that option be good? I would suggest there are a few places in the Bible that indicate we as humans have the ability to choose good over evil (Ecclesiastes 3:11, Joshua 24:15, Matt 11:28 to name just a few). In fact, at the beginning of Romans (a big predestination book) Paul spends a bit of time talking about how the godless and the wicked are going to get what's coming to them, but it didn't have to be like that. In the end however it is just because what may be known about God is "plain" and men are without excuse for their evil choices.
I recently listened to a sermon by Mark Driscoll, head pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle. The sermon on predestination is actually part of a series they're currently doing called "Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions". The series came out of an interesting idea. The idea came about from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians. In the letter it's clear that what Paul is doing is answering a bunch of questions sent to him by the church in Corinth. Mars Hill decided to let people ask questions of it, and then everyone could vote on which ones they most wanted to hear answered, and Driscoll would teach on the top nine votes. The first was birth control, the second was on humor, and the third of the series (number seven) was predestination. As a side note, they also revisit the topic in the evening service, but allow people to send in text messages with questions. These questions are screened and then answered on the fly by Driscoll at the end of the service. I will say though that they apparently don't screen the hard questions because after the birth control sermon someone asked if aborting a pregnancy that was brought on by a rape was a sin. Driscoll answered it too. I was surprised and somewhat impressed.
I do have to say I've never actually heard anyone teach on predestination from a church pulpit. That type of talk is usually reserved for the classroom at a university or possibly some types of high schools. The fact that I've never heard anyone address this concept in church of course gives us some idea of the sensitivity of the material. Generally the topic is treated as politicians will treat the subject of abortion. They avoid it if at all possible, but if asked will provide their prepared answer and then do all they can to move to the next question. So, I was both glad and a little wary to see that someone had actually preached a sermon on the topic of predestination.
This post is not really a response to what Driscoll himself said, but rather the ideas he expressed. That is, other than the notion I have that perhaps this particular conversation is better had among Christians alone, my thoughts on this are more generally thoughts on the Calvinistic view of predestination, as that is basically what Driscoll was teaching. He happens to be a Calvinist when it comes to predestination, and so that is what he submitted as the proper way to understand the concept. I happen to disagree on a couple of points. Of course I'm not the first, so I'm just going to talk about what presents itself as clear to me and will try to remain brief.
Most fundamentally I disagree with the Calvinist view because it invalidates free will in an individual human. God clearly saw free will as being important when he gave Adam and Eve the choice to obey his command or not, which of course ultimately led to original sin, the downfall of mankind's relationship with God, death, humans who do evil, and of course eventually the Super Bowl in 2006, which was the greatest evil in history. I believe free will was so vastly important to God because love drives the universe. Without love none of it makes any sense at all. As Jack Johnson wrote, "Love is the answer,At least for most of the questions in my heart. Like why are we here? And where do we go?And how come it's so hard?" But, without an individual's free will remaining intact, how can anything like true love exist? In other words, if one has no choice but to love God, is that love? I would suggest that it is not. I would suggest that that would be closer to a slave than a son.
There is also a concept in the Calvinist view of predestination suggesting that mankind cannot choose God because of his or her depravity level. Before God, through Jesus redeems a person, that person is spiritually dead in their sin (Ephesians 2:1). Surely, their thinking goes, a dead person cannot make a decision, and so it must be that God reaches down with his strong arm of grace and raises some from their spiritual death. But, the logic continues, each person chooses to be spiritually dead, that is each of us chooses to sin. Now that everyone chooses sin is not up for debate. The Bible is pretty clear on that one. We all choose to do things that are opposite the nature of God (we hate, we lie, we are unjust, we are unmerciful, etc) and so become alienated to Him, as He (being a being of perfect goodness) cannot associate with that which is not also purely good. On this point there is little discussion. But, how is it that we as beings are able to "choose" in one direction, but not the other? If we can only choose evil, is that a choice, and if it's not a choice, can we be held accountable for it? If it is a choice and we are therefore accountable for it, mustn't we by definition have another option, and in this case mustn't that option be good? I would suggest there are a few places in the Bible that indicate we as humans have the ability to choose good over evil (Ecclesiastes 3:11, Joshua 24:15, Matt 11:28 to name just a few). In fact, at the beginning of Romans (a big predestination book) Paul spends a bit of time talking about how the godless and the wicked are going to get what's coming to them, but it didn't have to be like that. In the end however it is just because what may be known about God is "plain" and men are without excuse for their evil choices.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
If you really want to, you can
Sometimes Caleb (my son) still struggles with the concept of sleeping, and more specifically with sleeping at the same time his parents are sleeping. Therefore, I somewhat often find myself bouncing on an exercise ball with him dozing in my arms and watching whatever happens to be on TV, for lack of anything else to occupy my mind at the time. I was doing this the other night and caught the Tonight Show. Jay was doing his monologue. He did a bit about the lead paint from China (I don't remember what the punch line was, but I'm sure it was full of wit) and as the audience was finishing up their laughter, the guitar guy (Kevin?) remarks that we should just make this stuff here in America. This elicited a big round of applause from the crowd. Strangely though, it was definitely the kind of applause that signals agreement, but resignation to the fact that that which is being agreed upon as good will never be...like when people applaud a speech about how money shouldn't decide an election, or how nice it would be for everyone in the world to have enough to eat every day.
This struck me as odd. In no other place do we, as individual consumers in a capitalist economy have more influence than in the marketplace. If you, as a consumer would like more goods to be made in the U.S., stop buying goods made elsewhere. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that if everyone who saw that show and agreed with Kevin's statement were to stop buying things manufactured in China and sold in Wal-Mart, and were to buy only American good from the same store, you could get a fair amount of manufacturing moved back to the U.S. in a few years. Here's the catch though (and there's always a catch), you're going to have to pay a lot more for your stuff, and you might even have to go to a few different stores to get everything you need. You might also have to sacrifice some things like movies and eating out.
I suppose this is the point though, that it's a lot easier to agree with a notion in principal, and even to applaud it as worthy of support, but then to quickly point out to yourself that it's completely impractical for you personally to actually execute such a principal in your own life. It does make one feel good to agree with something that is right, but it's somewhat frustrating to find people who are doing only that when they could with a small amount of effort actually contribute to the change of direction they claim to desire.
This struck me as odd. In no other place do we, as individual consumers in a capitalist economy have more influence than in the marketplace. If you, as a consumer would like more goods to be made in the U.S., stop buying goods made elsewhere. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that if everyone who saw that show and agreed with Kevin's statement were to stop buying things manufactured in China and sold in Wal-Mart, and were to buy only American good from the same store, you could get a fair amount of manufacturing moved back to the U.S. in a few years. Here's the catch though (and there's always a catch), you're going to have to pay a lot more for your stuff, and you might even have to go to a few different stores to get everything you need. You might also have to sacrifice some things like movies and eating out.
I suppose this is the point though, that it's a lot easier to agree with a notion in principal, and even to applaud it as worthy of support, but then to quickly point out to yourself that it's completely impractical for you personally to actually execute such a principal in your own life. It does make one feel good to agree with something that is right, but it's somewhat frustrating to find people who are doing only that when they could with a small amount of effort actually contribute to the change of direction they claim to desire.
Caleb at four months
I think it's probably time for an update to the son's pic on here. Caleb at about four months.
Friday, July 06, 2007
That's a big gorilla
It takes Microsoft two weeks to exceed Apple's quarterly earnings? Check it out.
http://software.seekingalpha.com/article/33932
http://software.seekingalpha.com/article/33932
Raising controversy
I recently had unfettered access to satellite television for several days in a row, and consequently spent a little too much time watching tv. I know that if I watch too much tv, especially some local news broadcasts, I'm going to eventually see something upon which I will have to comment. This time it came later in the trip, but I was not disappointed. I was presented with a story about a town in Oregon which has recently added some concrete posts designed to serve as barriers between pedestrians and motorists. As the article indicates, the town has raised some controversy as to whether or not the posts look like the male reproductive organ.
I think we as a society are going to at some point need to start telling people that some of the things they are worried and offended over are not in fact legitimate, and that they won't be getting their way . Is no one else in this town concerned that their citizens immediately think of a penis when they see a post with a rounded top, and then that they project their offense onto the rest of the town? Perhaps it might be time for those people to re-evaluate their thought life, their priorities, their sense of self importance, their sense of humor, and then move on to something more worthy of their time and energy.
I think we as a society are going to at some point need to start telling people that some of the things they are worried and offended over are not in fact legitimate, and that they won't be getting their way . Is no one else in this town concerned that their citizens immediately think of a penis when they see a post with a rounded top, and then that they project their offense onto the rest of the town? Perhaps it might be time for those people to re-evaluate their thought life, their priorities, their sense of self importance, their sense of humor, and then move on to something more worthy of their time and energy.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Constitutional authority
I like to think I'm not a blind patriot; that I'm not oblivious to America's faults and weaknesses when I say it is truly a great and marvelous country. I will however maintain that America is a wonder. The most recent example I've been presented with is the court ruling regarding a U.S. resident held at Guantanamo (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947948). I am continually amazed by America's passion to fight vigorously for the rights of her would be enemies. That America would have the structure and the process and the right to police herself to the point of ordering her president to release a suspected terrorist is, when looked at objectively, quite incredible. Further, I find it striking that the terrorists would like to abolish the very system which is continually working to defend their rights as humans, and that that system is forced to defend them none the less, as it would be useless to all if it failed to apply to some. This is good and correct, but remarkable from what we know of the human tendencies toward tyranny and selfishness.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
But...it's nonsense
As I'm sure everyone has heard by now, the Discovery Channel will be airing a documentary on the fourth of March called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". The makers of the documentary claim a tomb uncovered in 1980 is the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, complete with the bones of Jesus and his son. I am not here going to enumerate the details of this claim, or the reasons given for or against, as that is already being taken care of in great earnest by many other parties. I will however include a small quote from Professor Amos Kloner, who was responsible for the excavation of the tomb in 1980.
"It makes a great story for TV, but ... it's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no Jerusalem ties. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE [Christian Era]."
However, this talk of the tomb of Jesus got me thinking. Hypothetically speaking, if researchers were to all agree that this tomb is in fact the tomb of Jesus' family, and somehow they also all agreed the bones were in fact the bones of Jesus of Nazareth (I don't know how they would do this, but we're pretending, so the how is unimportant right now), would this fundamentally change my beliefs about the world?
I like to think I'm a fairly rational person. I like to think I have somewhat well thought out reasons for the things I believe, and even rationale for things which must by necessity fall into the category of "faith" (a category which every person must have, for we do not at this time have indisputable answers to all questions), which brings me to this hypothetical proposition regarding the supposed bones of Jesus.
I believe though that in answer to the question, it would not change my beliefs to a great degree. Some would say this is an intellectual cop out, that to deny such obvious evidence would be proof that religious belief is blind to the facts. I would of course disagree, and my disagreement stems from my understanding that our current wisdom is not necessarily any greater for being current. In other words, I don't think we as a collective human race are by default wiser than the people who came before us simply because we happen to be the most recent. For example, our current level of understanding regarding the workings of the human body is more advanced than at any known time in human history, but it's debatable whether we are any better at healing disease than the ancient Chinese were. What we currently consider advanced thinking in a great many areas will undoubtedly be labeled as foolish in the future, and this is simply the human condition.
In this particular case, were I to take the eye witness accounts in the New Testament, couple those with the fact that the same eye witnesses later died for their testimonies, and weigh that against expert testimony two thousand years later, I believe I would find the New Testament account more compelling.
Now I can sleep, knowing I've answered a question which was never asked.
"It makes a great story for TV, but ... it's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no Jerusalem ties. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE [Christian Era]."
However, this talk of the tomb of Jesus got me thinking. Hypothetically speaking, if researchers were to all agree that this tomb is in fact the tomb of Jesus' family, and somehow they also all agreed the bones were in fact the bones of Jesus of Nazareth (I don't know how they would do this, but we're pretending, so the how is unimportant right now), would this fundamentally change my beliefs about the world?
I like to think I'm a fairly rational person. I like to think I have somewhat well thought out reasons for the things I believe, and even rationale for things which must by necessity fall into the category of "faith" (a category which every person must have, for we do not at this time have indisputable answers to all questions), which brings me to this hypothetical proposition regarding the supposed bones of Jesus.
I believe though that in answer to the question, it would not change my beliefs to a great degree. Some would say this is an intellectual cop out, that to deny such obvious evidence would be proof that religious belief is blind to the facts. I would of course disagree, and my disagreement stems from my understanding that our current wisdom is not necessarily any greater for being current. In other words, I don't think we as a collective human race are by default wiser than the people who came before us simply because we happen to be the most recent. For example, our current level of understanding regarding the workings of the human body is more advanced than at any known time in human history, but it's debatable whether we are any better at healing disease than the ancient Chinese were. What we currently consider advanced thinking in a great many areas will undoubtedly be labeled as foolish in the future, and this is simply the human condition.
In this particular case, were I to take the eye witness accounts in the New Testament, couple those with the fact that the same eye witnesses later died for their testimonies, and weigh that against expert testimony two thousand years later, I believe I would find the New Testament account more compelling.
Now I can sleep, knowing I've answered a question which was never asked.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
My contribution
I really enjoy Weekend Update, and will sometimes watch SNL just for that portion of it. This week though I was somewhat saddened by one of its segments. It wasn't really their fault, they were just doing their job, molding satire like master craftsmen and craftswomen. The subject of the segment was Ted Haggard's "rehabilitation", and the sadness came when I realized SNL had every right to comment on it. I'm aware that every Christian in America, and possibly the world (including me) is tired of hearing and talking about Ted Haggard, but after seeing the material his rehab is providing for writers, how can they stop talking about it? Here's a little excerpt with reference to Mr. Haggard, and mind you this is after three weeks of counseling:
"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph [Rev. Tim] said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."
He's heterosexual except for the times over the last three years when he had sex with a man? This man has lied, deceived, adulterated, and engaged in immoral conduct for years, all while leading a church and an evangelical organization and after three weeks in counseling the statement is that at least he isn't homosexual?
I could go on here, but it would turn into a rant, and that's only mildly useful, and then mostly to myself. The point of sadness came for me when I realized why SNL (and several other programs) were having such a field day with the announcement that Haggard is "completely heterosexual" after three weeks of counseling. They find it so humorous because they recognize the complexity of people and life, and are amused that Christians apparently do not. I can almost see these people sitting around chuckling at another example of Christian naivety. "Oh, you've got a serious behavioral problem in your life? Here's a pamphlet with some bullet points; that should fix you up."
Clearly, this one statement from this one situation does not define all of Christendom, but I do believe it illustrates a tendency Christians have toward the clean and simple for fear of the involved and messy.
I realize of course that in many cases pamphlets with bullet points do immeasurable good, but we've got a big, rich, complex book called the Bible because in the final analysis life and death are not described with bullet points. Christians are supposed to know that people are all broken and messed up, and that even a belief in the saving power of Jesus does not necessarily free them from their past, from their bad habits, from their heritage. It is time we Christians stopped thinking and acting like a child and started treating people both in and out of the church not as projects but as invaluable individuals who need love, patience, kindness, forgiveness, and most certainly the grace of God.
"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph [Rev. Tim] said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."
He's heterosexual except for the times over the last three years when he had sex with a man? This man has lied, deceived, adulterated, and engaged in immoral conduct for years, all while leading a church and an evangelical organization and after three weeks in counseling the statement is that at least he isn't homosexual?
I could go on here, but it would turn into a rant, and that's only mildly useful, and then mostly to myself. The point of sadness came for me when I realized why SNL (and several other programs) were having such a field day with the announcement that Haggard is "completely heterosexual" after three weeks of counseling. They find it so humorous because they recognize the complexity of people and life, and are amused that Christians apparently do not. I can almost see these people sitting around chuckling at another example of Christian naivety. "Oh, you've got a serious behavioral problem in your life? Here's a pamphlet with some bullet points; that should fix you up."
Clearly, this one statement from this one situation does not define all of Christendom, but I do believe it illustrates a tendency Christians have toward the clean and simple for fear of the involved and messy.
I realize of course that in many cases pamphlets with bullet points do immeasurable good, but we've got a big, rich, complex book called the Bible because in the final analysis life and death are not described with bullet points. Christians are supposed to know that people are all broken and messed up, and that even a belief in the saving power of Jesus does not necessarily free them from their past, from their bad habits, from their heritage. It is time we Christians stopped thinking and acting like a child and started treating people both in and out of the church not as projects but as invaluable individuals who need love, patience, kindness, forgiveness, and most certainly the grace of God.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Enemies
As we toured through the detention facility where Pol Pot's regime had imprisoned, tortured, and eventually killed thousands of people who were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong profession, or the wrong family, or the wrong place, I got to thinking about evil. To be honest it was difficult to think of much else in that place. It was as if its entirety had been saturated with evil and though most of it had gone, a pure residue remained on the ground, on the walls of the cells, and in the air. To stand in that old high school and breathe was to feel the other end of the human spectrum, the one opposite of child feeding programs, AIDS workers, good soldiers, blood drives, and free clinics; it was to feel the true breadth of human capabilities.
When I left the museum I believe I was literally in shock. It took me several weeks to recover to the point of considering what I had seen. As I began to consider it though, a somewhat odd reference came to me. In Paul's letter to the Ephesians he states that the Christian struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world. That is, those who are for good in this world are not fighting against bad people, but against purely bad spiritual authorities. I take this to mean that Pol Pot himself was not evil, but rather influenced so heavily by the entities which are evil that he was capable of the horrors we see in Cambodian history. This makes a certain amount of sense. If one takes a look back at some of the worst atrocities in human history, the people generally held responsible for those things are recorded as honestly believing they were taking good actions. Now, obviously these peoples' definition of good was mutated beyond sanity and recognition, but in their own minds they still considered their behavior and that of those under them to be somehow correct. This means they deserve our love and pity, not our hate; easy to say, nearly impossible to live. I suspect though that Jesus was in tune with the idea that there are no evil people, only people influenced to varying degrees by evil. Here's what he had to say about it:
"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty...Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you."
In addition to holding some lambs, having good hair, being nice, and claiming he was God, Jesus was a decent philosopher too.
When I left the museum I believe I was literally in shock. It took me several weeks to recover to the point of considering what I had seen. As I began to consider it though, a somewhat odd reference came to me. In Paul's letter to the Ephesians he states that the Christian struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world. That is, those who are for good in this world are not fighting against bad people, but against purely bad spiritual authorities. I take this to mean that Pol Pot himself was not evil, but rather influenced so heavily by the entities which are evil that he was capable of the horrors we see in Cambodian history. This makes a certain amount of sense. If one takes a look back at some of the worst atrocities in human history, the people generally held responsible for those things are recorded as honestly believing they were taking good actions. Now, obviously these peoples' definition of good was mutated beyond sanity and recognition, but in their own minds they still considered their behavior and that of those under them to be somehow correct. This means they deserve our love and pity, not our hate; easy to say, nearly impossible to live. I suspect though that Jesus was in tune with the idea that there are no evil people, only people influenced to varying degrees by evil. Here's what he had to say about it:
"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty...Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you."
In addition to holding some lambs, having good hair, being nice, and claiming he was God, Jesus was a decent philosopher too.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Leaving God at the farm
The Old Testament portion of the Bible has some accounts (or stories, depending on your particular outlook on such things) which can only be described as shockingly incredible. I have a few of these which always make my list of most likely to have caused personal revelation.
There's the prophetic version of "When Animals Attack" in which Elisha is strolling along on his way to somewhere, when for no recorded reason an apparently large crowd of "youths" begins to mock him with the name "bald-head". While not especially witty, the name apparently agitates Elisha, so he calls down a curse on these youths...and two bears come out of the woods and maul forty-two members of the crowd! This may be one reason we don't see wide use of the insult "bald-head" today. A few years earlier when the Israelites were on their way into Canaan, there was a fellow by the name of Balaam living there already. The details of the account are a bit long, but at one point this man is riding his donkey along a road. For various reasons God is not happy with what Balaam is doing, so he sends an angel to block the road. His donkey can see the angel, and so leaves the road to avoid running into it. Balaam beats the donkey to get her back on the road. This happens a couple of more times with the angel, the donkey avoiding it, and the beating. So then the angel allows the donkey to speak, and the donkeys says to Balaam "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" Then, Balaam was either accustomed to talking animals or more of a man than I because he didn't miss a beat and responded, "You have made a fool of me!" They actually go on to have a little conversation about the happenings of that afternoon, and this was way before the invention of any synthetic narcotics.
There is one of these accounts though which I come back to with some frequency. It comes during the time of David. The Israelites were forever fighting with a particular group of people known as the Philistines. They were sort of like high school rivals in a way, only with wars and burning cities instead of football games and pranks. At one point the Philistines have the ark of the covenant, which was essentially an elaborate wooden chest which housed the holy things of Israel, including the tablets on which God had carved the ten commandments. The ark was extremely important to Israel. I'm sure you've seen the Indiana Jones movie. The Israelites went to get it back, and it wasn't hard because the Philistines had already decided to send it away. On the way back to Jerusalem, the oxen pulling the cart carrying the ark stumbled, so a man by the name of Uzzah reached out and steadied it. He was immediately struck dead. It was the law that no one except men of a certain tribe could touch the ark or any of the holy things, but David still got angry with God for killing Uzzah. He no longer wanted to take the ark to Jerusalem, so he left it at someone's house and went home. Three months later David went back to get the ark, and took it to Jerusalem with him.
Sometimes I relate to the way David felt when he left God on someone's farm. I have no way of physically leaving God anywhere, but I think maybe I would do it at times if I could. I probably wouldn't even go all the way out to a farm, I'd just leave him in the church parking lot, or maybe down at the neighborhood park. I'm sure any place I left him would be better for his being there, but at the time I might be too angry or confused to want to talk to him. I'm also quite sure I would go back and get him later and we'd be alright, but that time of separation would be necessary.
Even though I can't physically leave God anywhere, I am sometimes frustrated, confused, and angered by his actions (or lack of actions), just as David was. Mind you this is not an ongoing occurrence (as my pride might have it), but there are those moments when God's decisions become very personal. At these times I believe honesty to be more important than attempting to manufacture an attitude perceived as appropriate and correct, but which is in reality false, and I may emotionally remove myself from God for a season. But I believe this to be appropriate on occasion.
Without honesty I do not believe we can experience spiritual or emotional growth. In fact, I would suggest that believing there is a "correct" way to relate to God, which does not include a little raw emotion has only succeeded in the past to stagnate and embitter people. I tend to think of God as being rather understanding of the whole thing. After all, he did set the system up in the first place, and while it's clearly not exactly what he had in mind, I really expect that he still relates quite well to what's happening. He must know we can't possibly comprehend all of his ways (that's why he's called "God Almighty"), and that there will be times when our humanity gets the best of us, and we'll question him. He would know we're questioning him, and to express something other than this would be lying, which he has gone on record as disliking. No, I think God will understand if we sometimes leave him at Joe's Cafe for awhile...just as long as we come back sooner rather than later.
There's the prophetic version of "When Animals Attack" in which Elisha is strolling along on his way to somewhere, when for no recorded reason an apparently large crowd of "youths" begins to mock him with the name "bald-head". While not especially witty, the name apparently agitates Elisha, so he calls down a curse on these youths...and two bears come out of the woods and maul forty-two members of the crowd! This may be one reason we don't see wide use of the insult "bald-head" today. A few years earlier when the Israelites were on their way into Canaan, there was a fellow by the name of Balaam living there already. The details of the account are a bit long, but at one point this man is riding his donkey along a road. For various reasons God is not happy with what Balaam is doing, so he sends an angel to block the road. His donkey can see the angel, and so leaves the road to avoid running into it. Balaam beats the donkey to get her back on the road. This happens a couple of more times with the angel, the donkey avoiding it, and the beating. So then the angel allows the donkey to speak, and the donkeys says to Balaam "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" Then, Balaam was either accustomed to talking animals or more of a man than I because he didn't miss a beat and responded, "You have made a fool of me!" They actually go on to have a little conversation about the happenings of that afternoon, and this was way before the invention of any synthetic narcotics.
There is one of these accounts though which I come back to with some frequency. It comes during the time of David. The Israelites were forever fighting with a particular group of people known as the Philistines. They were sort of like high school rivals in a way, only with wars and burning cities instead of football games and pranks. At one point the Philistines have the ark of the covenant, which was essentially an elaborate wooden chest which housed the holy things of Israel, including the tablets on which God had carved the ten commandments. The ark was extremely important to Israel. I'm sure you've seen the Indiana Jones movie. The Israelites went to get it back, and it wasn't hard because the Philistines had already decided to send it away. On the way back to Jerusalem, the oxen pulling the cart carrying the ark stumbled, so a man by the name of Uzzah reached out and steadied it. He was immediately struck dead. It was the law that no one except men of a certain tribe could touch the ark or any of the holy things, but David still got angry with God for killing Uzzah. He no longer wanted to take the ark to Jerusalem, so he left it at someone's house and went home. Three months later David went back to get the ark, and took it to Jerusalem with him.
Sometimes I relate to the way David felt when he left God on someone's farm. I have no way of physically leaving God anywhere, but I think maybe I would do it at times if I could. I probably wouldn't even go all the way out to a farm, I'd just leave him in the church parking lot, or maybe down at the neighborhood park. I'm sure any place I left him would be better for his being there, but at the time I might be too angry or confused to want to talk to him. I'm also quite sure I would go back and get him later and we'd be alright, but that time of separation would be necessary.
Even though I can't physically leave God anywhere, I am sometimes frustrated, confused, and angered by his actions (or lack of actions), just as David was. Mind you this is not an ongoing occurrence (as my pride might have it), but there are those moments when God's decisions become very personal. At these times I believe honesty to be more important than attempting to manufacture an attitude perceived as appropriate and correct, but which is in reality false, and I may emotionally remove myself from God for a season. But I believe this to be appropriate on occasion.
Without honesty I do not believe we can experience spiritual or emotional growth. In fact, I would suggest that believing there is a "correct" way to relate to God, which does not include a little raw emotion has only succeeded in the past to stagnate and embitter people. I tend to think of God as being rather understanding of the whole thing. After all, he did set the system up in the first place, and while it's clearly not exactly what he had in mind, I really expect that he still relates quite well to what's happening. He must know we can't possibly comprehend all of his ways (that's why he's called "God Almighty"), and that there will be times when our humanity gets the best of us, and we'll question him. He would know we're questioning him, and to express something other than this would be lying, which he has gone on record as disliking. No, I think God will understand if we sometimes leave him at Joe's Cafe for awhile...just as long as we come back sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Gravy
I have a friend who is very kind and intelligent, and luckily also very resourceful because the automobile he owns can just barely be classified as such. The tires are bald, the paint is oxidized, the driver side wing window is shattered and patched by duct tape, and the rear window is completely missing (I understand it just popped out on the highway one day and was completely atomized). Actually, several months after the window mishap I noticed he had replaced it with a shower curtain, cut to size and taped in place. The curtain lasted for perhaps six months, and was as I recall actually slashed by some unidentified rascals in the end. No further effort was made to repair the window. He describes the car by saying, "It's not just an eye sore, it's also a health hazard." I told him five years ago he needed to get a new ride because there was no way that one was making it through the winter. When I see he has managed to actually drive it somewhere yet again, I remind him that each successful start is just gravy.
I received an email today from another friend of mine. Her dad had just gotten out of a seven hour surgery to remove his colon and the cancer which had overtaken it. She is staying with him for a few days because he can now do nothing for himself and is in extreme pain most of the time.
I'm not sure why my friend's email reminded me of my other friend's car, but it did. Perhaps it's because I know, though I am not always conscious of it, that each day this world and I exist together is really just gravy. Maybe I'd actually like someone to remind me each time I get out of bed (though probably not in person because that'd be more creepy than anything else) how no one is promised tomorrow, but in this particular case it was graciously given to me in all its weight and beauty.
"But life," one might say "day in and day out is not weighty and beautiful, it's ugly and meaningless." I don't agree with that conclusion and I think it's based on some misunderstandings, but that discussion is too large for this space, and is better had in person anyway. Suffice it to say Jesus loves changing things (as evidenced by the names of Peter and Paul), and given a chance I'm sure he would love to change this perspective on life as well.
I realize of course the vast number of times and ways in which this idea has been expressed. I'm even aware of how cliche most of those expressions have become. However, I do not believe the concept to be less worthy for its frequent repetition, and even though I know it is unrealistic and perhaps even unproductive to think one can constantly carry such an idea in the forefront of their consciousness, I still can't help but believe that even an occasional recollection of something as grand as the preciousness of another sunrise refreshes the natural nobility and honor of a person's soul. It is such a soul that can truly carpe diem.
I received an email today from another friend of mine. Her dad had just gotten out of a seven hour surgery to remove his colon and the cancer which had overtaken it. She is staying with him for a few days because he can now do nothing for himself and is in extreme pain most of the time.
I'm not sure why my friend's email reminded me of my other friend's car, but it did. Perhaps it's because I know, though I am not always conscious of it, that each day this world and I exist together is really just gravy. Maybe I'd actually like someone to remind me each time I get out of bed (though probably not in person because that'd be more creepy than anything else) how no one is promised tomorrow, but in this particular case it was graciously given to me in all its weight and beauty.
"But life," one might say "day in and day out is not weighty and beautiful, it's ugly and meaningless." I don't agree with that conclusion and I think it's based on some misunderstandings, but that discussion is too large for this space, and is better had in person anyway. Suffice it to say Jesus loves changing things (as evidenced by the names of Peter and Paul), and given a chance I'm sure he would love to change this perspective on life as well.
I realize of course the vast number of times and ways in which this idea has been expressed. I'm even aware of how cliche most of those expressions have become. However, I do not believe the concept to be less worthy for its frequent repetition, and even though I know it is unrealistic and perhaps even unproductive to think one can constantly carry such an idea in the forefront of their consciousness, I still can't help but believe that even an occasional recollection of something as grand as the preciousness of another sunrise refreshes the natural nobility and honor of a person's soul. It is such a soul that can truly carpe diem.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The Reel world
We went to see "Stranger Than Fiction" the other night. It's playing at the Reel (also known as the Dx3 (dollar times three) Theatre, or sometimes just Ghetto), though it was only released a couple of months ago. This means people were no longer paying full price to see it, so it was re-heated and served again at a discount. As a frequenter of the Reel I've become somewhat familiar with the pattern. If a movie stays in the regular theatres for a long time, it's probably worth the few bucks to go see it on the big screen, and it will be what is expected. However, if a movie moves quickly from the full price theatre to the one where sound and picture together on the first try is a happy surprise, that movie is a bit of a gamble. On the one hand the simple fact that the majority of Americans did not find it appealing arouses some curiosity, but on the other hand a movie that not even Americans were bored enough to watch raises some suspicions. In this case though the movie does indeed feature Mr. Will Farrell, so I figured we had the odds on our side.
I'm not going to review the film because next to another Christian self-help book, another movie review is the last thing anyone needs. But, I will say it's better than average and probably worth seeing.
I think the theme of the movie is something like "our lives are wonderful and beautiful because of the simple things around us, like a smile from someone you love, or a tree, or a cookie, or a watch." This is a worthy enough thought, made better only by answering the question of why this is so, but there is also a sub-theme along the lines of "doing what you've always wanted to do, and not doing what you don't want to do leads to a more fulfilling and complete life." This I think goes along with a more general theme running through much of American entertainment which makes the claim that doing what you want to do is more noble and admirable than doing what you don't want to do, which I think just dovetails nicely into the human propensity for selfishness.
I am all for an excellent life, lived fully and well. But I don't agree with the notion that a life well lived must necessarily include all manner of activities thought to be desirable at the time, or that it must preclude anything felt to be dreary or unappealing. Certainly life consists of a mix of these things (sometimes in a greater degree one way or the other), and the mindset that "carpe diem" means avoiding or abandoning undesirable activity in favor of something deemed to be more glorious can lead only to discontentment or irresponsibility, or both. Attempting to gain complete satisfaction and fulfillment from any object, including an event or an occupation or a lifestyle is, in the words of a wise man, just "chasing after the wind".
In the end we find that almost no work is more inherently noble or glorious than another, once we remove mankind's perceptions from the equation and see only the heart with which the work is undertaken. Put another way, it is not the work which makes a person noble, honorable, or glorious, but rather a person who has always the ability to make nearly any work noble, honorable, and glorious. There are obviously occupations which are exceptions to this, but I believe they are few and rare. I would also submit that persons have a much greater chance of shaping things in this manner should they have a personal acquaintance with the essence of glory, honor, and nobility; which just makes Jesus's invitation to friendship all the more appealing.
I'm not going to review the film because next to another Christian self-help book, another movie review is the last thing anyone needs. But, I will say it's better than average and probably worth seeing.
I think the theme of the movie is something like "our lives are wonderful and beautiful because of the simple things around us, like a smile from someone you love, or a tree, or a cookie, or a watch." This is a worthy enough thought, made better only by answering the question of why this is so, but there is also a sub-theme along the lines of "doing what you've always wanted to do, and not doing what you don't want to do leads to a more fulfilling and complete life." This I think goes along with a more general theme running through much of American entertainment which makes the claim that doing what you want to do is more noble and admirable than doing what you don't want to do, which I think just dovetails nicely into the human propensity for selfishness.
I am all for an excellent life, lived fully and well. But I don't agree with the notion that a life well lived must necessarily include all manner of activities thought to be desirable at the time, or that it must preclude anything felt to be dreary or unappealing. Certainly life consists of a mix of these things (sometimes in a greater degree one way or the other), and the mindset that "carpe diem" means avoiding or abandoning undesirable activity in favor of something deemed to be more glorious can lead only to discontentment or irresponsibility, or both. Attempting to gain complete satisfaction and fulfillment from any object, including an event or an occupation or a lifestyle is, in the words of a wise man, just "chasing after the wind".
In the end we find that almost no work is more inherently noble or glorious than another, once we remove mankind's perceptions from the equation and see only the heart with which the work is undertaken. Put another way, it is not the work which makes a person noble, honorable, or glorious, but rather a person who has always the ability to make nearly any work noble, honorable, and glorious. There are obviously occupations which are exceptions to this, but I believe they are few and rare. I would also submit that persons have a much greater chance of shaping things in this manner should they have a personal acquaintance with the essence of glory, honor, and nobility; which just makes Jesus's invitation to friendship all the more appealing.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Life in my own hands
I took my life into my own hands last Saturday, and went to Target. I was there fairly early, which I think was the sole reason for my survival, but it was still touch and go. During my escape I found myself in line behind a woman writing a check, and not just writing a check but writing a check to supplement a gift card. The gift card did not cover the cost of her goods, and in a vain attempt to accelerate the process she performed some mental math and wrote the check before the difference had been calculated. The computer disagreed with her about how much the check should be worth, so the cashier called a manager to find out if they could give the woman three dollars back. The manager was not immediately available, and after waiting long enough for the manager to begin making her way toward us, the woman wrote another check for the proper amount.
I will be the first to admit that watching this spectacle was like watching someone tell a very long, humorless joke, complete with nervous laughter, but with the added pain of knowing that I could not leave that place of quiet chaos until the joke was finished. However, I was still a little surprised when I suddenly heard very audible expletives being muttered behind me. The man just a person back from me apparently found the joke to be not only humorless, but cause for enough anger to growl some words generally reserved for times much more desperate than these. As I say, I was a little taken aback by this and so shared my experience with my wife later that day. She said that she had heard a man in a coffee shop tell another man that he gets angry this time of year because his wife always "outdoes" him in their gift exchange.
Now, I'm not one who would claim to be capable of explaining the "reason for the season", at least not the reason for America's season, with all of her very confusing Santa, Things, Jesus, Economy, Love, Objectors messaging. But, I think it would be safe to say that audibly cursing in Target and being angry with your wife for "outdoing" you do not fall into anything loosely defined as the "reason".
It would be pretty easy to finish up here with a little admonition to remember the spirit of Christmas over the next few days (and from what I understand the spirit of Christmas to be, that's probably a fine idea), but I think I'm going to be so bold as to suggest that we define that a little. Let's take the opportunity over the next few days to discover (or re-discover) those things which last forever; our relationships with people. After all, what was the original Christmas greeting if not a joyful proclamation of the value of every human life? So, should you somehow find yourself in a large retail store, or (may you have strength) at the mall on the evening of the twenty-fourth and you feel tensions are becoming too high, I would encourage you to jump up onto the nearest checkout counter or bench and shout, "Joy in heaven, and on earth, peace and goodwill toward everyone!" It's a wonderful thing to hear, and who knows, maybe it will lead to a scene from a musical...which I for one would really like to see.
I will be the first to admit that watching this spectacle was like watching someone tell a very long, humorless joke, complete with nervous laughter, but with the added pain of knowing that I could not leave that place of quiet chaos until the joke was finished. However, I was still a little surprised when I suddenly heard very audible expletives being muttered behind me. The man just a person back from me apparently found the joke to be not only humorless, but cause for enough anger to growl some words generally reserved for times much more desperate than these. As I say, I was a little taken aback by this and so shared my experience with my wife later that day. She said that she had heard a man in a coffee shop tell another man that he gets angry this time of year because his wife always "outdoes" him in their gift exchange.
Now, I'm not one who would claim to be capable of explaining the "reason for the season", at least not the reason for America's season, with all of her very confusing Santa, Things, Jesus, Economy, Love, Objectors messaging. But, I think it would be safe to say that audibly cursing in Target and being angry with your wife for "outdoing" you do not fall into anything loosely defined as the "reason".
It would be pretty easy to finish up here with a little admonition to remember the spirit of Christmas over the next few days (and from what I understand the spirit of Christmas to be, that's probably a fine idea), but I think I'm going to be so bold as to suggest that we define that a little. Let's take the opportunity over the next few days to discover (or re-discover) those things which last forever; our relationships with people. After all, what was the original Christmas greeting if not a joyful proclamation of the value of every human life? So, should you somehow find yourself in a large retail store, or (may you have strength) at the mall on the evening of the twenty-fourth and you feel tensions are becoming too high, I would encourage you to jump up onto the nearest checkout counter or bench and shout, "Joy in heaven, and on earth, peace and goodwill toward everyone!" It's a wonderful thing to hear, and who knows, maybe it will lead to a scene from a musical...which I for one would really like to see.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
A little closer
We just returned from a very big trip. At least, it felt really big; and I guess in terms of miles traveled and the difference between the world we live in and the one we entered, it was in fact quite big. A group of us traveled to Southeast Asia with the goal of bringing a little Christmas cheer to people who might not find it so easy to be cheerful, mainly kids who live on the street or in an orphanage of some variety. Very kind people donated money to our trip, both for our travel costs as well as for gifts and activities we could provide for the children. The generosity of these people was sincerely overwhelming and we are very grateful for their wonderful hearts. In case you're curious, the trip was amazing.
But I'm not quite ready to write about most of my experiences there; about the kids who live at the garbage dump, the detention facility where the Pol Pot regime imprisoned, tortured and murdered hundreds of their countrymen (and millions across the country), the beggars who have lost limbs to landmines, spirit houses that very poor people buy because they believe it will keep evil spirits out of their home, and the kids on the street who have only other kids to watch over and protect them. No, I'm not ready because those are very hard things and the jet-lag is severe.
However, I will say I am honored and privileged to have been a part of this adventure. I am honored to have been able to, with the incredible assistance of others help make kids laugh and smile, and perhaps bring them a little hope in some cases. I am privileged because having seen this other world affords me the invaluable opportunity of adjusting mine just a little closer to real.
But I'm not quite ready to write about most of my experiences there; about the kids who live at the garbage dump, the detention facility where the Pol Pot regime imprisoned, tortured and murdered hundreds of their countrymen (and millions across the country), the beggars who have lost limbs to landmines, spirit houses that very poor people buy because they believe it will keep evil spirits out of their home, and the kids on the street who have only other kids to watch over and protect them. No, I'm not ready because those are very hard things and the jet-lag is severe.
However, I will say I am honored and privileged to have been a part of this adventure. I am honored to have been able to, with the incredible assistance of others help make kids laugh and smile, and perhaps bring them a little hope in some cases. I am privileged because having seen this other world affords me the invaluable opportunity of adjusting mine just a little closer to real.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
A whole lot bigger
Sitting in a waiting room the other day, I picked up a Time magazine. I don't really mind waiting rooms because they're relaxing, quite, and give me a chance to catch up on my pop-publication reading. The really annoying part of the doctor visit is when they move me from the cozy waiting room with good entertainment, to the little exam room without a window or anything decent to read, and then proceed to make me wait there. I would really much prefer if they just let me do all the waiting in the room built and named for doing so, instead of using a completely inappropriate place for the activity.
But, as I was saying, I picked up Time. They had a really fascinating article in which they documented a debate between a top atheist scientist (Richard Dawkins) and a top Christian scientist (Francis Collins). It was fairly short for the topic at hand, but a very good read none the less. Both of the men in the article are clearly brilliant and at the top of their profession, but one happens to attribute some of the inexplicable to the God of Judeo/Christian tradition, and the other does not. Reading the article would not, I don't believe bring anyone to move from one camp to the other. That is, a Christian reading the article would probably agree with the statements made by the Christian scientist as being perfectly logical and feasible, which they would be for a Christian, while an atheist would likely find the atheist's position more probable and legitimate.
However, a statement at the end of the article was very striking. Dawkins is explaining that he doesn't necessarily rule out any sort of intelligent design, he just doesn't buy into the god put forth in traditional Christianity as being that designer. He postulates that it could be the god of some other planet, or aliens, or something entirely different, and then he says, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." Yes.
To believe that one can understand God is to remove the real, powerful, vibrant romance and adventure of this life. Is one capable of knowing God? Absolutely; God himself promised us that. But, to suggest that we might actually understand him will drive people to either confused despair or crushing boredom, depending on whether they realize they will never reach the supposed goal, or falsely believe they reached it long ago. No, Dawkins is right; God is a whole lot bigger than that. Catching little glimpses of that incomprehensible size and majesty is what makes this life an honor and a pleasure to live.
But, as I was saying, I picked up Time. They had a really fascinating article in which they documented a debate between a top atheist scientist (Richard Dawkins) and a top Christian scientist (Francis Collins). It was fairly short for the topic at hand, but a very good read none the less. Both of the men in the article are clearly brilliant and at the top of their profession, but one happens to attribute some of the inexplicable to the God of Judeo/Christian tradition, and the other does not. Reading the article would not, I don't believe bring anyone to move from one camp to the other. That is, a Christian reading the article would probably agree with the statements made by the Christian scientist as being perfectly logical and feasible, which they would be for a Christian, while an atheist would likely find the atheist's position more probable and legitimate.
However, a statement at the end of the article was very striking. Dawkins is explaining that he doesn't necessarily rule out any sort of intelligent design, he just doesn't buy into the god put forth in traditional Christianity as being that designer. He postulates that it could be the god of some other planet, or aliens, or something entirely different, and then he says, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." Yes.
To believe that one can understand God is to remove the real, powerful, vibrant romance and adventure of this life. Is one capable of knowing God? Absolutely; God himself promised us that. But, to suggest that we might actually understand him will drive people to either confused despair or crushing boredom, depending on whether they realize they will never reach the supposed goal, or falsely believe they reached it long ago. No, Dawkins is right; God is a whole lot bigger than that. Catching little glimpses of that incomprehensible size and majesty is what makes this life an honor and a pleasure to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)