My thoughts of late (in books)

Lately I've had the opportunity to start reading several books. While I was in Uruguay I finished two of them, Tom Perrotta's Little Children and Samuel Wells Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics. Other than that I've picked up

Rupert Shortt's God's Advocates

Kent A. Van Til's Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market

John J. Davis' Three Views on Creation and Evolution

Ben Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism

Paul Wegner's A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results

David E. Fitch's The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies

Hugh Laurie's The Gun Seller

Richard Baukham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

I'm sure there are more that I just can't think of right now, but it seems that that's more than enough for now. I'll start with the two that I've finished.

Tom Perrotta's Little Children is the story of thirty-something parents reflecting on their suburban lives. In almost every case their lives are far from what they'd expected. There's Todd, the high school/college football superstar who's become a stay-at-home dad; Sarah, a once sexually ambiguous feminist, now mother of a three year old a girl, with a husband living a secret life on the internet; and Larry Moon, a police officer forced to retire because of mental stress, who is obsessed with a newly freed child molester living in his neighborhood. The thing to keep in mind with this novel is that the title is not merely a reference to the fact that the adult characters are linked to children because they have them or are obsessed with them. These suburbanites are children. There is a point when each character has to come to terms with reality, something they've all been avoiding in one way or another. For Sarah it's that she was not being the mother that she should have been. For Todd it's that he was still trying to be the prom king who pleases his wife in wholly superficial way while remaining ultimately unfaithful to her and their son. Not every epiphany is a clear or positive as those two, but I must say that the varying degrees of realization are a healthy representation of real people. Not everyone will be liberated by realization. In fact, things being as they are, many will never realize that their life needs some kind of scrutiny. I would recommend this novel, along with Perrotta's Election, which intersects with Little Children thematically.

Now Wells' Improvisation:

This is an interesting book on ethics by a man with pretty close ties to Stanley Hauerwas. In fact, Wells wrote the first doctoral dissertation on Hauerwas' work. Improvisation encompasses narrative in a considerable way, given that the book is a presentation of ethics using many terms and concepts from the world of improvisational acting. Wells begins by saying that improvisation is not "off the cuff". We, like improvisational actors, are not stranded on a stage with little or no preparation for the tasks. Improvisation is more about being obvious than spontaneous and unique. I suppose you could say that what Wells is recommending is that the church learn as much about its heritage, from scripture and history, as it can and establish a life that reflects that. This stands against the way that the church has dealt with ethics recently. In my experience people have challenged any and every ethically proposition with the most extreme challenge that can be imagined. Take for example the desire to be non-violent. When someone says that they don't want to commit an act of violence, even in self-defense, the response is usually, "Well what if someone broke into your home and tried to rape and kill your family?" I suppose that's a valid question on some level, but not in that situation. In fact, that's a terrible way to view ethics. If we sit around and imagine hypotheticals that would drive us into a frenzy, we'll no doubt come to the conclusion that there are no definite expectations put on us in certain situations. But, what Wells tells us is that if we commit ourselves to non-violent living and thinking when someone hasn't broken into our homes to murder our families, which is the majority of the time for most people, we will be prepared for the crunch situation in which we are challenged to do the right thing. As anyone who has interacted with other people should know, the hardest thing to make or break is a habit. And that is what we are called to do. The koinonia (shared experience) of Acts chapter two was not a spontaneous, heroic manifestation of the Spirit, it was a steady, dependable life-long manifestation of the Spirit's transformational power. Now, that's not to say that there are no spontaneous situations where we need the power of God, there are. What Wells is saying is that our responses to those moments is defined by the way we live day-to-day. It's the juxtaposition of hero and saint. Heroes thrive on those life-changing moments, saints live to serve and suffer over the long haul.

Now to the books I haven't finished yet:

God's Advocates- This is a series of interviews with some great minds in theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, etc. on the resurgence of the spiritual in the public sphere today (e.g. Rowan Williams, Stanley Hauerwas, Samuel Wells, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, etc.).

Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market- This is a tremendous book that looks at what market economics is and how it effects the poor.

Three Views on Creation and Evolution- This is a multiple perspective book debating a topic that has become pretty divisive over the last few decades. I'm hoping to find something worth reading.

The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism- Witherington sets out to critique three of the most influential ideologies in American Evangelical circles. This is a call to these different traditions within the Protestant church to sola scriptura, a call that is much needed.

A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results- This is a primer on Old and New Testament textual criticism.

The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies- I've only read a few pages of this book, but it seems like this will be a defense of post-Modernism in much the same vein as Carl Rashke's The Next Reformation: Why Evagelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity which was a good book but just didn't resonate with me because I think that, while post-Modernism detracts from Modernism, it does so in a way similar to a teenager pointing out their parents mistakes; they're right, but they have their own problems.

The Gun Seller- This is a fantastic novel. It's part spy novel part comedy. If you like the shows 24 and Scrubs you'll like this novel.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony- This is kind of an extension of Kenneth Bailey's essay Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels (there's an abbreviated version of this in his Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15). Here's a link to the essay, which is very provocative: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html

That's all for now.

Grace and Peace,
Jared

Laziness at the movies?

A few days ago Laura and I were talking about the Harry Potter movies that have been released so far and whether or not they've represented the books well. Let me just start by saying that as far as movies go, they're very good and very well done. The directors have made wonderful decisions with regard to the visual effects that they have to represent in these movies. These men have, so far, not fallen into the trap of using CGI gratuitously, unlike the directors of quite a few popular films in recent history (e.g. George Lucas). That said, I think my biggest criticism of these movies stems from a problem endemic in the movie industry that has existed since as far as I can remember, which is impatience.

They made the movies too soon. Only four of the seven books had been published when the first movie was released. Right now only six of the books have been published and we are several months away from seeing the fifth movie. I think that this has had an adverse effect on the way that the grand narrative, told in seven installments, is told by the film makers. There hands have been tied by not seeing the outcome of the greater story before they were able to make their representations. Much of a story's strength comes from the way that it is told. People were thrown for a loop by Chuck Palahniuk and then David Fincher when they find out that Jack (the unnamed character played by Edward Norton) was Tyler Durden. Despite the claims I've heard from a lot of people that they knew this was the case, they didn't. You, the reader or the viewer, are too immersed in what is going on right then to notice the clues. I suppose the best crystallization of my criticism is in the clues and events being together. The problem that I see the directors of these films having is that they are unable to place clues in their films with the events. If something new happens in book six that they could have alluded to in the second movie they would be crafting a better telling of the narrative.

That criticism aside, the laziness in film making is best exemplified in the brevity of movies today. Decades ago people went to movies that had intermissions. Now we go, sit for an hour and a half and then we go home. There's not real commitment on any one's part to do more than they have to. I think that the freedom J. K. Rowling and other novelists have, as story tellers, is one of the greatest appeals of reading over watching movies. though that may not be the popular consensus, I don't think we should take that as an indication of an inability on the part of people to sit in a theater for hours on end watching the same thing, despite the fact that the norm for most Americans is TV. I think that people can learn to move past their episodic adventures and appreciate stories no matter how long they are. About a month or so ago, I was listening to a podcast from Princeton University by Cornel West. The person introducing professor West made mention of his having attended a University at the age of 13. Why is that an extraordinary age for higher education? I remember when I was a child seeing the movie Parenthood and seeing a small girl who knew Japanese (at least I think it was Japanese). This was supposed to be a sign of her brilliance. Why is learning a language indicative of genius? For that matter, why is learning several languages a sign of great intelligence? In antiquity, especially under Roman rule, people with little or no education were often bilingual. And it was not uncommon for adolescents to attend Universities two or three hundred years ago.

I'm not trying to take away from West or anyone else who is a genius. The problem is that when I propose that movies be made longer to fit in the narrative that they should be telling, I told that people, especially children won't be able to sit through it. We're becoming so lazy that in another thirty years, if things continue to go the way they are now, the US will have either imploded from the strain of an ever growing economy or there will be absolutely no substance to culture. It, and the stories and art that form a large amount of it, will have been co-opted by corporations into fifteen minute cartoons surrounded by eight minutes of commercial ads. That's how I feel. I apologize for my thoughts not being organized.

Grace and Peace, Jared

To buy or not to buy...

I'm in the middle of a pretty tough decision.

Laura and I have been watching the History Channel a lot lately (consequently I've learned that they have shows about things other than war) and there was an episode of Modern Marvels about alternative fuels. I'm really interested in the advances in this area, I'd love to use vegetable oil or natural gas to run our car or paint that acts as a solar panel to power your house. In fact, there's a part of me that would like to cancel the cable and by some stock in one of these companies. Which brings me to my quandary.

The purpose of buying stock is to provide a company with the capital to do what they do. In turn, providing the money for a company entitles you to a portion of the profits. This is both my motivation and deterrent for wanting to buy stock in one of these "green" companies. The idea of providing just a little bit more cash to people who are trying to establish a sustainable society excites me. I want my son to grow up not realize at some point that he's caused a portion of the earth's destruction. But at the same time the mode of thinking that corporations were birthed in is one of unmitigated greed and endless acquisition. That too is something that I want my son to grow up with as little exposure to as is possible.

Maybe it seems a bit hippie of me to take such a seemingly self-righteous tone about buying stock, but every time I pass a news channel on TV talking about business they reiterate to me the cancerous nature of our economic system. There's only so far you can dig a hole before you run out of dirt. There is also only so much commerce that can be done with the limited resources when you want to make more simply to make more. I suppose I feel like I'd be grabbing my shovel and jumping farther down into the whole we're digging (I say farther because I'm already in there).

I suppose, for now, that the best course of action is to wait until I can afford to power my home, car or whatever with ecologically sound fuels. But when that times comes I hope to see the manufacturers of those products don't conduct themselves in the same slovenly and inhuman manner that characterizes the vast majority of people selling me things as though that's what I were put on earth to do.

Grace and Peace,
Jared

Political Compass

You should take this ( http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ) test. It uses a very different means of idnetifying people's political orinetation than the almost rock solid red state/blue state distinction we hear in the US. They use a graph with two different axes: social and economic. On the social axis are libertarian and authoritarian. And on the economic are left (liberal) and right (conservative). Keep in mind that liberal and conservative are not the same as what we think they are here in the US. Liberals, under this system, would actually be Republicans and conservatives would be Democrats, economically speaking.

I've taken this test several times over the past few years and I have recently undergone a pretty drastic change in the place I show up on. I need to look up where I showed up the first time I took it. That'd be interesting.

Voting is for dumbies

It’s hard to imagine that in less than a year we’ll start seeing the two major political parties in this country vying, once again, for their turn to make all of the wrong decisions in the executive branch of our nation’s government. I’m talking about the 2008 presidential election, of course. Since we’re watching the rapid approach of what will likely be another travesty, I decided to express my biggest concern with choosing the candidate for whom I want to vote.

I should start out by telling you that in the last election I voted for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. In fact that is the only party that has ever received my votes. But not long after the election I started doing some reading and thinking and I don’t think that justice is nearly as important in any libertarian as it should be. I suppose I should qualify what I mean by justice before going on. in scripture the Israelites were commanded to show kindness to the those who were weak. The picture that is painted in much of the Levitical and Deuteronomic literature could best be summed up as an ethics of need. The reason that I can write-off a whole group of people in this regard is that Libertarians are notorious for their belief in human autonomy and social compartmentalization. In their view the government and private sector (everyday life) need to be separated or liberty is lost. They believe that it is the job of the private sector to care for people in whatever ways are necessary.

I suppose I could say that I do like their use of the term liberty but there’s just too much separation between what liberty is to them and what it is to me. While they maintain that liberty is simply autonomy I belief that the evil in us and the destruction that it causes means that liberty is not found in fewer boundaries. Liberty is found when I must serve and accept the service of others. And to be perfectly honest I’m not too terribly sure that government needs to be separated from that. In fact, it seems that the best examples of the private sector these days are corporations. It we remove restraint from many (if not most) of the large corporations, the result is hardly an elevation of the democratic franchise of all people. The needs of the people for good food, clean air and healthy communities are trampled on by the desire of stock holders to make profits. That is just tyranny in private hands. I think that there are much more acceptable and thoughtful ways of thinking of liberty than to say that as long as the government isn’t crossing any lines things are fine.

And there’s my problem, it’s hard to find a party that is saying that in the US. I hope to hear some thoughts on this subject.

Grace and Peace,
Jared

Gather 'Round Ye Children

LongDistanceConversations

Sunday night Laura and I went to an Andrew Peterson concert in Clear Lake, Texas. It the first of two concerts that Andrew, Derek Webb, Sandra McCracken, Jill Phillips, Andy Gullahorn, Andrew Osenga and Randall Goodgame did in the Houston area for their Behold the Lamb of God Tour, the second was last night.
The first part of the concert is played “in the round”, so the audience gets a formal introduction to the different singer/songwriters participating in the collaborative effort. Derek Webb and Andy Gullahorn accompanied their wives (Sandra McCracken and Jill Phillips). That part of the concert was good enough to have continued all night, but the crux of the show followed its intermission.
“My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness” was Peterson’s way of telling the audience, “We’re going to start playing music, shut up and sing along”. Then the story starts with the invitation to gather ‘round and listen to the story of Israel’s history up-to the birth of the boy-king Jesus in humble Bethlehem. Here’s a list and description of the songs played that night:
1. Gather ‘round ye children come- this is the introduction to the narrative string of songs that Andrew Peterson has written. It’s something of a call to worship and remember the good news that makes us new.
2. Pass over us- this song re-tells the story of the first Passover where YHWH showed mercy on Israel and judgment on Egypt.
3. So long Moses- This is a string of names and stories for various leaders of the Israelite people. There is the strong anticipation, from start to finish, for a good king to lead and love.
4. Deliver us- a cry of mourning for deliverance from the bandage that we are in, that we have sold our selves into (sung by Derek Webb).
5. O come, O come Emmanuel- An instrumental song… not too much more to say about it.
6. Matthew’s begats- Matthew chapter 1 set to music.
7. It came to pass- Mary, Joseph and an unborn Jesus arrive in Bethlehem.
8. Labor of love- a very true thoughtful re-telling of what the birth of Jesus was like. In short, it was not a “silent night” (sung by Jill Phillips).
9. The holly and the Ivy- An instrumental song… not too much more to say about it.
10. While shepherds watched their flocks- A retelling of the story of God’s bringing “glad tidings of great joy” to the lowest of men.
11. Behold the Lamb of God- a call to consider our condition and Jesus remedy.
12. Theme of my song- this song alone is well worth the cost of the album. All of the contributors to the album come together for a medley revisiting the whole album. This part made me cry when I saw it live. The audience singing come let us adore him follows this.

In short, by the CD and/or the DVD, it’s amazing stuff. Or try your damnedest to see them live you won’t regret it.

Grace and Peace,
J

Baptism: A Big Pot of Trouble (For Me)

LongDistanceConversations

He are some questions and answers from Wikipedia about baptism, the p's are answers from Paedobaptists and the c's are answers from Credobaptists. Enjoy:

-Why do Christians baptize anyone at all?
P. Baptism is a sign that a person is a member of GodÂ’s covenant community.
C. Baptism is a public profession of faith. It is a symbolic way of publicly telling the world one is a Christian
-Who are the members of GodÂ’s covenant community or church?
P. Believers and the children of believers are members of GodÂ’s covenant community (or church).
C. Only those who have faith in Christ are members of GodÂ’s covenant community (or church).
-What does baptism signify and/or symbolize?
P. Baptism symbolizes cleansing and washing.
C. . Baptism symbolizes that the individual has been washed and cleansed from his sin by the blood of Jesus.
-Is baptism merely a symbol or is it a channel through which God conveys grace?
P. Baptism is not merely a symbol. It conveys grace.
C. Baptism is merely a symbol. It does not convey grace of any kind.
-If baptism conveys grace, does it convey justifying grace?
Paedobaptistsists disagree on the answer to this question. Some argue baptism conveys justifying grace, others sanctifying grace, still others say that it conveys both.
C. N/A

I hope that you guys might have some comments and responses to this.

Grace and Peace,
Jared

The Magic Words

LongDistanceConversations

It's an amazing thing to think about. God has breathed and is still breathing scripture to equip us for every good work. But how does this work? I think that the inspiration of scripture comes in a community where it is read aloud and given the chance to fully equip the people for acts of service, encouragement and (not or) love of all kinds. In short, we are given the means to serve King Jesus (the Word and Wisdom of God) by God's very words. These words are passed down over generations through the community that God shapes and molds into a people who serve others to the point of their own deaths.

Some people chalk scripture up to a story or stories about the history of a tribal people in the ancient Near East, which it certainly is. But, scripture’s power comes from some place else. Scripture’s power comes from the same place that our very lives do; God’s breath. We don’t bring its life to it with our ingenuity or instincts to thrive. God makes scripture alive by breathing life into it.

I think I’ll end this little blog up in the same way that liturgical churches respond to the reading of the Holy Writ: Thanks be to God!

Words, words, words.

LongDistanceConversations

Last week I finished a book called "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?" by William G. Dever. This archaeologist reinforces what I've been learning for the past couple of years; the Bible is not a history book. It most certainly is a history of a people in the ancient Near East. But we'd do better to understand it as an imaginative telling of history. Tat may seem frustrating to some (myself included) but ultimately the issues of social justice and subverting oppressive authorities in the name of YHWH lies at the heart of the OT.

In my opinion this affords us the opportunity to view our faith in much more realistic terms. Rather than beating the drum of literalistic foolishness where the earth is 7,000 years old and dinosaurs don't quite fit, we ca embrace what scholarship has to say. We can engage the world around us instead of hiding in the wilderness on our compunds.

Okay, so I'm exagerating a bit. But, the fact still remains that we'll do better by wrestling with our faith, even if we wind up a little hurt at the end of the night, than we will being idiots believing in fairy tales. Does that mean that I don't believe in things like the bodily resurrection of Jesus? No, I still believe that. In fact none of the essential elements of my faith are lost by saying that the Flood, Exodus and quite a few other OT things didn't take place in the same way or scale that the Bible says. I believe that there was a monotheistic group in Canaan who posed a social, political and reliious threat to the rulers of their day. That group eventually became Israel, a nation totally different from the pagan world around it that cried out for and yielded a messiah (king), lord and savior to deliver them from these wicked kings and emperors. But that king ended up doin for the world what so many only wanted for themselves.

That's an incredibly over-simplified way of telling that tory. But we all get the point; truth is bigger than facts.

Grace and Peace

My favorite movies

LongDistanceConversations

Last night I was trying to make a list of my favorite movies, and the common thread (thematically) for most of them seemed to be characters finding their humanity (typically their manhood) by fighting the accepted or developing definitions in their culture at large. Two such examples are Fight Club and Good Will Hunting.

In both of these movies there is a degree of frustration with normative manliness that is dealt with violently. But interestingly enough I don't see the acts of violence themselves (whether it's Will lashing out at a former schoolmate who "kicked the shit out of me.." or the brutality of the fight clubs) as carrying any expectation of vicory over the world around theses men. The violence portrayed in Good Will Hunting looks like pent-up anger toward life that gets the best of Will. This despite, maybe even because of, his daunting intelligence. In Fight Club the violence is aimed at a goal, but it is not direcly related to toppling the consumer culture that has de-humanized western culture.

In the end the answer seems to be a letting go. Will needs to realease his guilt and fear of failure. For Jack (Edward Norton in Fight Club), and his entire generation, it's necessary to release the ideal to be perfect. In essence these two movies are very similar thematically. And I think that the themes are best summed up by Tyler (Brad Pitt in Fight Club) "I say, let's evolve. Chips fall where they may."

It's time to move on from the desire to be refined and perfect. Maybe humanity needs to have a few crags and crevaces, lending rough edges to our lives and interaction. The picture painted of intended humanity in the Bible may be care-free, but I think much of that stems from the lack of polish applied to YHWH's image (i.e. humanity).

If this post seems, in any way, disjointed, I apologize sincerely. I was really just brainstorming. But it would be slightly more than ironic were I to polish this particular post too much.

Grace and Peace,
Jared

Share the well

So, here I am in Manta, Ecuador for the next couple of months. When I flew here we stopped for a night in Quito. And as I looked out the windows of my hotel room at the mountains that surround this frenetic city, I was reminded of the words to a Caedmon's Call song:

High above the Valley of Quito
An old man and his bride grow roses
Red and yellow, white and golden
And to him they are precious as children

Their daughter, she moved to America
One more brick in the tower of Babel
She has a son they've never seen at all
And they're praying they raised her well

On the mountain high
They will live and die
As time just slips away
And the children grow
In the God they know
As time just slips away

A man, his bride, his children, and his roses
Planted in faith and watered in tears
Honey, that's all they have, and they're happier here
Than any of my friends back home
They've met Jesus and they really know Him

On the mountain high
They will live and die
As time just slips away
And the children grow
In the God they know
As time just slips away

Now I'm back at home, all alone, and trying to find my thoughts
About that old man, so inspiring, but the TV's always on
And the phone, it won't stop ringing, and these bills, they keep on screaming
To pay for all the things that we have never really needed
And I wonder what he's doing right now
Maybe walking through his simple field and thinking about how
God has blessed him so
A man, his bride, his children, and his roses

On the mountain high
They will live and die
As time just slips away
And the children grow
In the God they know
As time just slips away


I've thought about those lyrics before coming to this country. But somehow, staring out of a window, with the thin air barely filling my lungs, wondering if I'm looking at that old man's home hit me with all the reality I'd missed before. It makes me think aobut the nature of our experiences, in the (post)modern, 21st century US. We leach on to movies, music, books and TV as our own knowledge and understanding. And in turn we alienate oursleves from actually experiancing. I want to go find that man and his wife. I want to smell his roses and look down at the valley. I don't know if I ever will, but the idea is inspiring.

Grace and Peace,
Jared

People as characters

LongDistanceConversations

I was just listening to Ebert and Roeper's podcast, and I was led to think about flat characters. It seems that some movies portray charters in a stale and "flat' manner. And these movies are rightly criticized for doing that. But many of us, myself especially, are only concerned with the main characters in a film. Maybe that's a symptom of our self-centered nature. It may just be that we're so short-sighted that we can only focus on one person at a time. In life that person just happens to be us.

LongDistanceConversations

LongDistanceConversations

I'll be gone for a week to Las Vegas and I'm not sure if I'll have interent access. So, just talk amongst yourselves. Here I'll give you a topic: corporate corruption is both corporate and corrupt; discuss.

Female Characters

LongDistanceConversations

I just read an article in Time magazine about an author named Curtis Sittenfeld (a woman despite what her name may lead you to think) who has, to date, written two novels centered around unconventional female characters. I say that her characters are unconventional because they're described as realistically awkward. This is hardly something that happens very often, typically in movies and novels women are characterized as beautiful but awkward. One can only assume that the rules of convention apply to beauty, and in Sittenfeld's words "when a female character feels insecure, and then all the other characters are saying, 'but you're so awesome, you're so funny, you're the best!' you almost know that it's false insecurity." I don't think that I've come across that too much in novels, per se. I've been fortunate enough to read incredible authors like Jean Rhys, Chuck Palahniuk and Brett Easton Ellis; whose female characters are incredible. But I will say that in movies Sittenfeld's comments ring true. But I've been watching Shopgirl (which is a tremendous novella, by Steve Martin) and I must say that in both the book and the movie, the characterization of Mirabelle is incredible. I would have to say that pain and loneliness that she is shown to live with, are not only authentically feminine; they're human. I know that I may not necessarily qualify to comment on what is feminine, but her pain and loneliness is not generic. It really isn't something that you could put anyone into and still come out with a great story.

A lot of this comes back to the fact that there are differences between men and women. Obviously there are biological differences. But there are different psychological and physical needs within relationships as well. This is something that, in the struggle for equality between the genders, has been forgotten. We've replaced equality with same-ness. Because of the drive inherent within feminism to achieve equality without totally rethinking the power structures. It seems to me like we're trying to renovate a house infested with termites, and not replace a single piece of wood. Women are told from childhood on that they need to be self-reliant and not ever depend on a man. This is, of course, in reference to money. So what results is women who are educated, skilled and most certainly financially independent. Their scared to death of commitments, children and any type of devotion to someone other than themselves. In short, you get the four prattling heads of Sex and the City. Vile women who have ultimately been robbed of essential pieces of their femininity all because we're too dumb to see that equality and same-ness are mutually exclusive.

A friend once shared this analogy with me: men and women are like flowers and trees, which are both equal to one another. Flowers are beautiful, sweet smelling wonders within the world. And trees are rugged, sturdy things that we can build homes and boats with. But the pragmatic quality of a tree is no more valuable than that of a flower's aesthetic quality. Don't be fooled, like I was initially, into thinking that either of these plants is meant to represent a specific gender. It's not a one-for-one exchange; just a loose representation.

I suppose my point is that culturally femininity is completely misunderstood. And that this is reflected in the movies and novels that our culture creates. Mother hood is rarely ever specifically the focus of much attention. I would hope that much of feminism's attempts t reconstruct our world in a much more equitable way without robbing women or men of their god given identities would filter into the popular conscience. Maybe then high school girls would not feel the need to make sexuality into a commodity because Kim Catrell (sp?) does.

Homeschooling?

A few of you reading this may know part of our story. But, I will try to elaborate, if at all possible, in a condensed fashion.

When we got married, we were pretty much set on doing what most ignorant American parent does -- putting our kids in public schools. Honestly, homeschooled kids were just weird, and all the private schooled kids that I knew were morally "worse" than the public schooled ones. Thus, the beginning of our misappropriated journey. We began with the assumptions that our kids should be "cool" (not weird) and "moral."

Then, we started reading books. Not Jesus-touch-me-make-my-life-easier Christian books, but big, frustrating books. Around this time, we also started paying attention to quite a few believers from all over who were coming to much different conclusions than we had on parenting and education.

Probably the nail in the coffin of public or private school was our relationship which was formed while in Seattle with Phil and Jen Schmidt. They had decided to homeschool their kids, and we were intrigued. We had several conversations with them, and started reading the books they read. We both decided we would pursue the path toward homeschooling our boys. We had already been doing some catechizing and Cyn had been teaching the boys to read. So, it was perfect timing. They were pre-"gradeschool" age.

We sought out what we perceived to be the most biblical homeschooling curriculum we could find, and we began. I was working 60 hours a week around this time, so Cyn was doing the majority of the actual "teaching." If you asked her to this day, she wouldn't have traded that time for anything. She loved it.

Over a few months' time, we started trying to connect with some other local homeschoolers. We thought it would be good to gain some wisdom from those who had been doing it already. And, in reality, these were some of the strangest people around. Maybe they had figured out their "theology" but it seemed to have died in 1950. We visited a few local churches that had solid homeschooling families within them, and continued to be frustrated.

We also realized that we had become increasingly arrogant toward those who disagreed about the education of their children. We had all the answers, right...we had read all the books they hadn't. So, they were stupid, and we had it all figured out. We continued to make wise cracks at public schools, and in reality probably created more distance between ourselves and those coming from different perspectives than was necessary. So, the acquaintances we were left with were these weird homeschool people.

Then, we started talking a lot more about being intentional and "missional" in everything we do. Instead of bashing the government, maybe we should be involved. Instead of railing on public education, maybe we should be incarnational.

So, obviously, there were a lot of tear-stained conversations about the transition from what we assumed would be an oasis to what we assumed would be irresponsible.

One major understanding was that making the change would entail much more responsibility. Ultimately, we are responsible for the education and "bringing up" of our kids. The goal of "education" is not to make our kids good Americans. So, obviously, we may have to fight against a lot of things that we completely disagree with. But, rather than throwing stones from the outside, we have chosen to work with and for, from the inside.

Our hope is that as much as we can, we will be involved in the school system and our kids' friends' parents' and teacher's lives. We will help where we can. And, we will not naively think that a humanistic system is going to either "poison" or "save" our kids.

It's easy to assume we know someone's motivation for doing something. If our motivation for putting our kids in public schools was to "socialize" them or "educate" them properly or because we need a daycare, then we would be in sin. But, if our motivation is to be on God's mission in a specific time and a specific place for His glory, then I believe we are on the right track.

(I'm sure there will be more to come of this...)

TheFarSideOfCrazy

TheFarSideOfCrazy

So the new American Idol is a seventy-two year old man, huh? What's that all about?

Raising Cain I: Education

LongDistanceConversations

I've been thinking a lot about what I'll do in certain situations when I have children lately. One of the things that keeps coming up in conversations is education. It's generally accepted that people should send their children to the public schools provided by the government. But, I tend to disagree with that as an axiom. Compulsory education is not the only way to educate children. In fact, there are quite a few arguments in favor of alternative methods. I by no means have all of the answers when it comes to this particular topic. But I do have somethings to say. I won't write an essay here laying out what I think in detail. I'd rather that come out of dialogue. So, here's an essay that I find intersting:

http://www.spinninglobe.net/condunces.htm

And don't be shy. The spectrum of people that have been invited to this blog consists of experienced parents, unmarried people who have thought about this and one very skilled educator working on a PhD in curriculum theory (whom I happen to know is not a fan of John Taylor Gato.) So no one here can use the excuse of ignorance.

Here it is...old but good

I posted this on mySpace and wanted (and was encouraged) to post it where people might care and even react and respond. So here goes.....

Pop culture frustrates me daily

Everyday I am reminded how much our society has lost it's f-ing mind as a whole. Even my very own friends irritate me with their ignorance to the world sometimes. I even irritate myself. We all sit around and shoot the shit and talk politics and world affairs. Some seem to care, some don't. But those of us that do, get all heated about it and then proceed with our lives and do nothing. And I become frustrated because with what little I do to do the things I feel I should be, seems never to be enough to counter the disgusting mounting pop-culture God that is marketed everday in our homes, on the streets and to our youth. So many are taught of this spiteful God who does not tolerate the"filth" of our world. The message of loving in faith has been buried with those who once taught it. Occasionally I come across an individual or community that seems to have their shit straight. It pleases me pink to find others in this world that feel our love and care for folks is our duty as a community of faith. I was driving past a rather large church the other day and their flashing billboard showing their message of the week said, "Who invented sex?" Where have we (as a church) gone wrong when people stop searching for true community and start going for a catchy-little-poppy message for an hour every Sunday. That is not what Christ taught. Then the argument comes up that Christ taught in parables. But his message was not some cutsey life lesson to better yourself and find happiness. It was about living together in faith during our time here and getting the heck out there and loving on others and showing the purest of pure loves to all, not just those who seem to deserve it. We were not taught to pick and choose. We were taught to love all, even those it is our human desire to hate. So, as I sit frustrated with discussion after discussion that shows that so many around me do not see what I do, I am also left reminding myself that all I can do is try to tell them and to love them even if they do not listen or care to hear. Some of the greatest lovers of people I have met are not "of faith" and some of the most lost have claimed the Lord as their guide. I am just trying to do the best I can to love the way He did, though I fail miserably sometimes.

Peace

TheFarSideOfCrazy

Within my lifetime there has not been a single day when the United States military has not been engaged in some sort of activity in a country outside of itside borders. In fact, the same is true of really any generation in the past century. I don't think that this says something solely about American or western culture. The fact is that not a day goes by when there isn't some form of violence, be it on a large or small scale. Hate plagues every nation, culture and ethnicity.

I only bring this up because today I started watching a DVD called Peace. It was a bit unsettling that the entire video was pretty typical anti-war/Bush stuff. As much as I respect Howard Zinn I think that it's a bit naive for him to talk about the ameerican people as though they are essentially good. As though there were a time when America and the people who lived within its borders were peaceful and content to live with what they had. Instead I see a group of people waiting to accept the propaganda that their leaders were presenting them with. The subjigation of Native Americans was not monopolized by the Federal government. There were plenty of people who needed little help in hating, killing and the land of the indigenous people on this continent. Just like today many Americans take quite easily to hating Mexicans for whatever reasons they can muster.

The fact is that no culture has every been peaceful. And I don't jsut mean non-violent either. People everywhere are capable of terrible atrocities. And they wuite often make good on that capability. There seems to be a persistent cloud of darkness hanging over the world. There is no thoughtfully layed out plan to eliminate the evil that makes violence persists. That may sound a bit depressing. But I really don't think that it is. I hope for the day when the creator god YHWH re-creates his world and permanenly puts an end to the violence that plagues his creatures, and the other abusive and dehumanizing representations of evil.

More on this to come...

I'm sorry, but this makes me mad. Oh, the deception.