How to Remember Important Stuff

I'm moving again.  (Just to another complex in Lafayette.  I no longer have a roommate so I had to find a single-bedroom apt.)  I've always disliked moving, and the biggest chore of it for me has always been my books.  I have quite a few.

As I was, for the second time in 10 months, packing them all into cardboard boxes, I thought for a second about the possibility of selling or donating them, but I immediately decided I couldn't.

It's not because I'm emotionally attached to stuff. I have on numerous occasions given away some of my favorite books to friends.  My philosophy about that is somewhat utilitarian: if I'm not reading it right now, why not let someone else enjoy it? Loaning is an option, but I don't like burdening my friends with the guilt of never returning it.   And I've never been much of a pack rat.  I often have the opposite problem: if I don't perceive the immediate value of something, I can toss it into the trash with a zeal normally reserved for dirty diapers and junk mail.

But my books . . . my books are my pictures.  I don't take a lot of pictures.  (I have a nagging sense I'm going to regret that one day.)  My books are snapshots of my soul's journey.  They help me remember who I am, what I believe, how I've changed, who recommended this one to me, what I was going through when I read that one. 

Luckily enough for me, I now buy most of my books on Kindle, so storage won't be an issue.  I can keep all of my books, so I don't have to worry about forgetting important stuff, like who I am.  Now I just need to work on putting my camera to good use, so I don't forget other important stuff, like my friends and family.

Can an Atheist Justify Morality?

Religious people are seen by some atheists as committing an intellectual, and perhaps moral, offense by making unjustifiable claims and leading others to believe them.  They point  out that the existence of God is unfalsifiable and assert that there is not a single good reason for believing it.

It's an arguable point, worth discussing.  Personally, it strikes me as a rather cynical and dim view of humanity that the overwhelming majority of people structure their lives around a belief that there isn't a shred of evidence for.  But that's beside the point.

What I really want to point out is that many of these same atheists seem to think that unjustifiable claims are okay when it comes to talking about morality.  Sam Harris, for example, seems to constantly brush off anyone who presses him to justify his moral positions.  For instance, in response to the idea that we need some type of religion to say that what the Nazis did was objectively wrong, Harris does 3 things:

1) He says that we have, "very serviceable intuitions about good and evil and what constitutes an ethical life, and we converge on those intuitions."

2) He points out religion's role as an especially insidious source of division amongst humanity, due to its ability to locate the source of that division in a transcendent being, as a reason why religion can't possibly be a valid guide to morality.

3) He talks about the Bible's track record on slavery as an example of further proof that religion can't possibly be  a valid guide to morality.  He concludes this point by adding that even in the implausible scenario that the abolitionists were inspired by Scriptural principles, that still would not proove that the book is divinely authorized.

I just wanted to point out that not a single one of these things constitutes even an attempt to answer the question of why, in the absence of a creator God, should we value the wellbeing of ourselves and/or others.  It seems that in response, Harris and many other atheists are content to say things like, "It's obvious," and like to point out that the overwhelming majority of us just do value those things.  They claim that justification for this belief is neither necessary nor particularly useful.  Anywho who would argue otherwise obviously has some sort of mental defect and can't really be reasoned with.

That sounds great, but I'm curious as to how this is not a double standard when someone also conceives a theist who seems to have little justification for belief in God as guilty of intellectual and moral failure.  How can one person be so demanding for justification in regards to theism, yet simultaneously excuse himself from any necessity for justification in regards to ultimate moral principles?

Another claim that Harris is fond of making is that Christian abolitionists were on the losing side of a theological argument with Christian slaveholders.  While I disagree with that, it's tempting to play Harris's game.  One could make a good case that Harris and other morally-driven atheists are really on the losing side of a philosophical argument with those atheists who have embraced the cold, hard reality of moral relativism in a godless universe.

Easter Fish

I've got some fish marinating in my fridge as a type this.  Many people commemorate Easter with dyed eggs and chocolate, but I find fish to be much more suitable for the occasion.  Afterall, the Resurrection was simple, wasn't it?  It happened quietly and without fanfare.  The contrast between Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday is stark.

I find myself moved most not by a haloed, glorious Christ, kicking death in the nads and emerging from the tomb like some invincible champion, although that's pretty cool, too.  But I feel the love of Jesus most intensely on the shore of Galilee, there with just his disciples, eating fish and bread:

 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord.  Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.  This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.  (John 21:12-14) 

 In this moment, Jesus reveals his deepest concerns to his closest friends: that they would know and reciprocate his love for them, that they would take care of one another, and that they would carry his love and his teachings into all the world (vv. 15-23).  And the world forever changed, over a plate of fish and bread.

Excuse me.  I've got some cooking to do . . .

How to Love Grammar and Not Be a Jerk

Grammar is personal.  I studied English and linguistics in college, so I tend to be much more observant than most when it comes to language.  I've learned that 99% of my observations need not be vocalized, for to do so is to risk poking around a very sensitive area in the human psyche.  And I'm not even talking about correcting, as I almost never do.  Simply noting a particular linguistic idiosyncrasy or asking a question out of curiosity can quickly make someone more insecure than Snow White at a Jersey Shore pool party.  For the most part, we are blissfully unaware of the numerous ways in which our everyday speech does not meet the rigors of "correct" grammar, and we prefer to keep it that way.

As much as I would enjoy pointing out certain things or satisfying my curiosity, simply observing is enough for me.  I love grammar, and all things language-related.  From usage to etymology, from semantics to syntax, I'm just fascinated by it all.  I especially LOVE LOVE LOVE accents.  All of them. I've never quite understood why people claim to hate certain accents.  The diversity of them is every bit as beautiful as the diversity of our skin colors.  (Many people seem to think that language should be homogenized and that we should all speak a standard, accent-less form.  That is an idea particularly abominable to linguists.)

My message here is simple: it is possible to love language and not be a judgmental turd.  It's possible to believe that our education system should teach the standard, and yet not insist that everyone conform to an American Midwest, phone operator dialect.  It's possible to see or hear mistakes and let it slide.  It's possible to not have a stroke every time someone uses the word "irregardless" or mispronounces "ask".  It's possible to not equate poor spelling, improper punctuation, or particular accents and dialects with lower intelligence.  Believe it or not, it's actually possible to not like some of the rules and intentionally break them!  Writers do it all the time.

And it's IMpossible to speak 100% "correctly" 100% of the time.  Most people who claim to don't even come close, and would be astonished at how many mistakes a grammar expert could point out in a ten minute conversation.  This blog post actually has several errors that I would be willing to bet no one noticed.

Again, the message is simple:  Love grammar.  Don't be a jerk.   

Let's All Be Jerks

I hate the word bitch.

Mainly, I hate it when someone refers to a woman as a bitch. 

Maybe it's because I have a great mother and two older sisters whom I love.  Maybe it's because many of my best friends are female.  Maybe it's because the word serves no purpose other than to degrade a woman . . . for being a woman. 

Sure, it's usually reserved for women who possess, or are at least currently displaying, negative character traits.  But why does a mean woman need a different word than a mean man?  Why can't we just all be jerks? Or assholes? Or any of the numerous other words that can indiscriminately describe unpleasant people?

What's worse is that some are much more inclusive in their usage of bitch.  Many men, and even some women, will use the words bitches and women interchangeably.

This is equally offensive, bigoted, and ignorant as the word nigger.  They are both words that degrade someone based on a God-given quality.  Gender and race are attributes to be embraced and celebrated.  To do otherwise is to dishonor oneself and all of humanity, not to mention the God who created us all, the God who shaped the human form and gave it it's vast array of expressions.

This tirade may seem petty in view of the fact that so many women around the world unfortunately suffer much worse than being called a derogatory name.  However, this is one small step towards justice that everyone can easily participate in.  Refuse to use the word, and speak up when others around you do.  Perhaps we can speed the day when calling a woman a bitch is equally taboo to other forms of bigotry.    

How to Be a Person of Depth

"Superficiality is the curse of our age…. The desperate need today is not for a greater number of intelligent people, or gifted people, but for deep people."
-Richard Foster, "Celebration of Discipline"

I've always been intrigued by people who seem to have a lot more going on under the surface than on the surface.  I'm sure most reading this will know what I'm talking about.  At least I hope you do because I'm not quite sure how to describe it.  Sometimes it's a quality that you can somehow sense upon first meeting someone.  Other times, you might perceive that a particular person wears everything on their sleeve, until you learn something surprising about them and you second-guess.

Regardless of whether it's perceptible immediately or gradually, it eventually comes out.  You realize that no matter how many questions you've asked (hometown? degree? job? aspirations? married? kids? dogs or cats? music?), no matter how much Facebook stalking you've done, you've only seen the tip of the iceberg.  Whether it's for potential romantic interest or pure friendship, you find yourself compelled to learn more about this person.

There are five things that stick out to me when I pose the question, "How do people cultivate depth in their personality and in their character?"  One is that they have deep friendships.  This may be counter-intuitive because the kind of person I've been talking about may seem coy, hidden, or mysterious.  However, this is not necessarily the case.  I think deep people can be any range of introvert or extrovert.  The key is that there's just a few people, their closest friends, who they really allow to see inside.  They value those friendships more than just about anything else in their lives, and they maintain those friendships over long periods of time, even when things like careers and geography threaten to break them up.

Ironically, solitude is the other side of this coin.  Deep people are in the habit of being alone on occasion.  When left to themselves, they find enough there.  Inside.  They are not instantaneously bored in the absence of people and iPhones.  They can read, write,watch a movie, eat, think, pray, or any number of other activities all by themselves and be perfectly okay (at least for some limited amount of time, of course. Introverts may naturally enjoy more extended bouts of solitude.  The balance is that introverts have more trouble being social, which is also needed for depth.  And that leads me to my next point.)

Deep people have a wide variety of friends.  Not necessarily a lot of friends, but there is at least some diversity among their friends and acquaintances.  Deep people enjoy good conversation.  They seek it out.  They steer small talk to deeper waters.  They want to hear an array of perspectives.  They listen attentively, and respond to what others say, rather than simply waiting their turn to interject what they've been wanting to say all along.  They well up with the joy of solidarity upon discovering points of mutual agreement, and they very carefully and gently express points of disagreement. They allow their lives to be shaped by people of varying beliefs, worldviews, backgrounds, and ethnicities.

Fourthly, deep people are grounded and stable.  They are consistent in their morals and in their ways of living.  Of course, that doesn't mean they never change.  They develop, grow, and mature in a steady direction.  They are regularly looking for ways to become a better man or woman.  They have a certain humility about them, believing that they are not the only person in the world with needs.  They of course experience pain just like anyone else, but they often recognize that their problems are trivial relative to the sufferings of so many others.  They feel a need to minimize the amount of resources they take from others, and maximize the amount they give.

Lastly, deep people have passions.  Not just fleeting hobbies and interests, but deep-seated desires to do something great with their talents.  They know the value of arts, crafts, and education.  They explore various hobbies, and when they find one they love, they stick with it and try to master it.

Oh, and one more brief add-on if I may: this should almost go without saying, but I'm saying it.  Deep people don't spill out their entire lives on social networks.  If I can go to your Facebook and Twitter and put together a basic outline of everything you did yesterday, including an approximation of your emotional state at each point, you may want to work on playing your cards a little closer to your chest.  :  ) And I say that in love because I can go overboard myself sometimes.  I'm just thinking that if you feel the need to let ALL of your Facebook and Twitter friends know that much about you, what's left on the inside?  What is there left that only your closest of friends will discover?  What will it say about our personality and character when the tip of the iceberg is all there is?  Author Richard Foster wrote that what the world needs most are deep people, and he penned those words long before the advent of social media!  If they were true then, they are even truer now. 

I Hate to Admit It, But . . .

I hate to admit it, but "I hate to admit it" seems to be a common phrase lately.  I've recently noticed this and have started to wonder, what makes a person "hate to admit" something?  What makes someone begin an observation by essentially stating, "I despise acknowledging the truth, but . . . "

Incidentally, the place where I've noticed this phrase most often is in political discourse. For example, when a liberal admits a good quality of a conservative, or vice-versa.  The following is a quote from a comment on a political video a friend of mine linked on Facebook:

"Ron Paul is more dangerous to this nation than Obama when it comes to foreign policy. As much as I hate to admit it."

Let's analyze that a little, shall we?  Why would this person, whom we must assume is conservative politically, hate to admit that Ron Paul is inferior to President Obama in the area of foreign policy?  I can't think of any other reason than that she prefers that anyone who is representing conservativism would in no way appear to be inferior to someone as liberal as the President.

What she's saying is that the truth is getting in the way of how she prefers to see the world.


What interests me here has little to do with politics, but rather with the way we think about truth.  In the case of this Facebook commenter, give her credit for honestly acknowledging the truth.  But it strikes me as odd that the acknowledgement is seen as something to hate.  She sees the truth as a pesky inconvenience to the way she would prefer the world to be (in this case, conservatives being superior to liberals in every regard).  


But shouldn't truth be the goal?  If it seems that, according to your beliefs, Obama's foreign policies have kept our country safer than other viable presidential hopefuls, shouldn't that be something to rejoice about?  Unfortunately, the Team Conservative vs. Team Liberal rhetoric has made this nigh impossible.  When the other team looks good, that's bad for our team, regardless of what is actually true or good. 

My First Ever Vlog!

How to Quickly Identify Cheesy Christian Movies

Cheesy Christian movies abound these days at various retail outlets around the country.  The retail juggernaut Wal-Mart has even been known to give front-entrance spotlight to these films, probably misleading innocent passers-by to think that they're normal, mainstream releases.  Of course, it doesn't help that the marketers of these films have tried to be a tad subtler in their approach, using titles that don't necessarily function as warning lables saying "This movie for Christian audiences only." They've even resorted to using actors other than Kirk Cameron in the lead roles.  However, fear not!  I have discovered a trick that will be quite useful, whether because you want to find such movies to watch or because you want to avoid them.  Here it is:

I have discovered, almost like some secret Bible code, that there is one common element in the cover design for each and every one of these movies.  Without exception, in one form or another, you will find a horizon in the background, with the bright light of the breaking sun smack dab in the middle of it.  Don't believe me?  Have a look for yourself:

Brian McLaren on The Slippery Slope

http://biologos.org/blog/confidence-and-slippery-slopes

Here's a cool, short video featuring Brian McLaren illuminating some of the problems with the good ol' slippery slope argument.

New Robert Alter Translation: Wisdom Books

As far as I can tell, Dr. Robert Alter is easily the most eminent scholar of Hebrew literature in the U.S.  His prolific career has produced numerous, highly-respected works of Hebrew scholarship (among other endeavors), not the least of which includes translations, commentaries, and studies of Hebrew scripture.  He has a keen focus on the aesthetic qualities of ancient Hebrew writings, especially the poetry, which he believes is almost entirely lost in all of our English translations.

I first encountered Alter by purchasing his translation of the Psalms a few years ago.  I didn't know anything about Hebrew poetry, but I knew enough about English poetry to know that Alter's translation is much more pleasant to read than any versions I had read previously.  I've also taken enough English poetics to know that when it comes to poetry, the aesthetic qualities aren't just for decoration.  They function as units of meaning, and are essential to conveying the emotive and semantic content of the poem.

Anway, I'm writing all of this because Alter has a new translation that just recently released--The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (A Translation with Commentary)--and I bought it immediately on my Kindle, as these are among my favorite books in all of scripture.  I was giddy with kid-in-candy-store excitement.

Here's a sample passage from Alter's rendering of the third chapter of Job:

     Annul the day that I was born
     and the night that said, "A man is conceived."
     That day, let it be darkness.
     Let God above not seek it out,
     nor brightness shine upon it.

     Let darkness, death's shadow, foul it,
     let a cloud-mass rest upon it,
     let day-gloom dismay it.

     That night, let murk overtake it.
     Let it not join in the days of the year,
     let it not enter the number of months.

Alter has refreshed my love for these books, and I look forward to reading much more of his extensive body of work in the years to come.

On a side note, one of the most eminent and accessible New Testament scholars in the world, N. T. Wright, has his own translation of the New Testament forthcoming at the end of this month.  I intend to pick that up as well.

Party Poopers

What one person perceives as thinking independently, another may perceive as intellectually non-commital. For example, this often happens in religious contexts when someone holds views that diverge from traditionally accepted doctrines or official church teachings. It can also happen in the context of politics when someone doesn't think along the lines of a particular party or political philosophy. Typically, the "heretics" may characterize themselves as some sort of Socratic figures, while those that prefer to plant their feet on one side or another may see self-professed "independents" as wishy-washy, lovers of controversy and argument, or even intellectually dishonest. In her novel Middlemarch, George Eliot puts the sentiment quite elegantly in the mouth of Mrs. Cadwallader, who characterizes Mr. Brooke as "leading a roving life, and never letting his friends know his address." Mr. Brooke defends himself as simply "caring for nothing but the truth."

There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. Personally, I'll just say that I don't hide the fact that I admire and emulate Socrates. However, my point at the moment is not an all-out defense of that method. As we approach another election season, I merely want to point out that there are good reasons to disassociate oneself from the kinds of rhetoric that often characterize the conversations that people have in coffee shops, front porches, classrooms, and online communities during this time. And the thing is, I don't just believe, a priori, that if there are two or more sides to an issue, then there must be some middle ground that is better than any one side.  It is entirely possible for one side to be right.  However, in the case of conservative vs. liberal politics in the U. S., I believe that there are good reasons from history that demonstrate that, much like a see-saw, the middle ground is firmest in this particular context.

I've been reading Edward Larson's A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign. This book, just like any other book that covers early American presidential politics, handily dispels the commonly-believed myth that the Founding Fathers speak with one voice to the current woes of government. We often assume that all of our problems are, at their roots, manifestations of the fact that we have veered from the path that the Founding Fathers and the Constitution set out for us. There are innumerable problems with that assumption, foremost among them the simple fact that the Constitution itself was born of vicious argument and strife, and its ratification only happened because of compromise among people who vehemently disagreed with one another at many central points. Of course, these disagreements would be the seeds of what we now call partisan politics, which many of the founders, especially Washington, believed was a corruption of government and should be avoided if it all possible.

Larson's book chronicles the 1800 presidential race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, which gave our young nation its first taste of party ticket voting, presidential campaigning, and partisan rhetoric. One of the things I love about Larson's approach is the abundance of original quotes from the politicians involved, as well as the newspapers of the day, which I was surprised to find out were usually partisan as well. I want to provide here a select sample of these quotes that I believe demonstrate my point well enough:

“I much fear that this country is doomed to great convulsions, changes, and calamities,” Maryland Senator Charles Carroll of Carrollton, an extreme High Federalist, wrote to Hamilton in 1800. “The turbulent and disorganizing spirit of Jacobinism, under the worn out disguise of equal liberty, and rights and division of property held out as a lure to the indolent and needy, but not really intended to be executed, will introduce anarchy which will terminate here, as in France, in a military despotism.”

In private letters and conversations, Republicans began referring to Hamilton as “our Bonaparte.” “The enemies of our Constitution are preparing a fearful operation,” Jefferson warned a fellow Virginian in February 1800. “Our Bonaparte, surrounded by his comrades in arms, may step in to give us political salvation in his way.”

"It is asserted with confidence by the anti-federal party here that all your electors will vote for Mr. Jefferson as president; if such an event shall really happen, it is probable he will be chosen; of such a choice the consequences to this country may be dreadful."

“You who are for French notions of government; for the tempestuous sea of anarchy and misrule; for arming the poor against the rich; for fraternizing with the foes of God and man; go to the left and support the leaders, or the dupes, of the anti-federal junto. But you that are sober, industrious, thriving, and happy, give your votes for those men who mean to preserve the union of the states, the purity and vigor of our excellent Constitution, the sacred majesty of the laws, and the holy ordinances of religion.” Christianity means nothing to Jefferson and his friends, many articles charged: “The devil is in their hearts,” one declared.

“Merchants, your ships will be condemned to rot in your harbors for the navy which is their protection Jefferson will destroy,” a typical Federalist editorial charged. “The temples of the most high will be profaned by the impious orgies of the Goddess of Reason, personated as in France by some common prostitute.”

“Peace or war, happiness or misery, opulence or ruin! These depend on the results of the approaching election. If the friends of liberty are zealous, the system of EQUAL RIGHTS will yet flourish,” one Republican writer exclaimed. “The political happiness of America hangs suspended upon the fruit of your activity upon the present occasion,” another added. “Rise then with Republican firmness, with energy and patriotic activity, in defense of those invaluable rights for which during the Revolution you fought and bled.”

These are just a few of the ways in which Federalists and Republicans demonized one another in the years leading up to the 1800 election. Incidentally, Jefferson won the election and served two terms as our nation's third president. And yet, [shocked face], none of the Federalist-predicted consequences, such as anarchy or military despotism, actually occurred! If I may be permitted to venture a guess, I might say that had Adams been elected, we likely would not have experienced the Republican-predicted consequences of war, misery, ruin, and the trampling of individual liberties. But that's only a guess.

Here we are 212 years later, history having repeated itself every four years since, monotonously and predictably. And I don't see any reason why it won't continue to do so, but I at least want to say that you have a choice. You can choose to participate in it, or to rise above it.

Of Gods and Men

I restarted my Netflix account, mainly because of the numerous movies I've wanted to see recently that never make it to the theaters (or Redboxes) here in Lafayette. This was the first one on my list, and I definitely wasn't disappointed. We're going to watch it in my small group Tuesday night. Check it out if you get a chance.

Only One Pearl

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.  

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.  When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

The Kingdom is a treasure, for which we forsake all things.

Except, of course, our money, and the blessings it brings.

And of course not love, or wedding rings.

And of course, we still serve our earthly kings,

For God loves the land where freedom rings.

I'll forsake all, even if it stings,

except for my right to grasp at brass rings.

"I surrender all," the congregant sings.

Except for land where the Liberty Bell rings.

 

Questioning the American Dream

Anyone who knows me knows I'm all about questioning traditional wisdom.  It's not that I believe something is automatically suspect just because it's traditional.  But neither do I want to accept it just because it is traditional. In doing such questioning, I often find that a "traditional" view may not be as traditional as it is perceived to be.  This is especially true in looking at American traditions, customs, beliefs, etc., as they are relatively young in the scope of human history.

One bit of American wisdom I've thought about recently is the idea that career aspirations are the most important thing to consider when making big life decisions.  I'm not arguing that this is definitely not true, but I do wonder if there are other things that are at least equally important, if not more.

In America, our career is our legacy.  It defines us.  What we do in our careers is what we are known by in life, and it is what we desire to be known by long after we are gone.  We invest heavy, sometimes inordinate, amounts of time and energy to advance and cultivate our careers.

Now consider how we do friendships, comparatively.  Most of us would not hesitate for a second to leave our friends for a great job opportunity.  In fact, if one were to say, "I don't want to leave my friends" as a reason for passing up an opportunity, we would see it as a sign of weakness, or it may even seem juvenile.  Only kids value friendships that highly, right?

But I'm wondering, why not value friendships at least equally highly as we do our careers?  I've learned over the past few years that just like careers, friendships and community require effort, time, energy, and years of practice to cultivate properly.  Why do we find it so easy to abandon all of that, while we find it a terrifying prospect to abandon a career path to start a new one from scratch.  If we suddenly have to up and move, well then so be it, but if our business goes bankrupt then it is utter tragedy.

 Again, I'm not trying to argue that careers aren't that important, just that we should perhaps be a little more willing to consider other things as well.  Maybe something is wrong with the way we do friendship if we see it as such an easy sacrifice to make for our careers.  Maybe it's possible to establish our legacy and define ourselves by our friendships and communities, and not just by what we do for a living.

insidious

I was sitting at Starbucks today (I wonder how many entries in the blogosphere start with that phrase?  Hold up, brb . . . okay, a quick Google search for the phrase "I was sitting at Starbucks today" turns up 784 results.  "I was sitting in Starbucks today" gives us an additional 212.  Great, almost 1,000 people have started a blog with the same phrase I just did.  Way to be original, Ken.  Let's start over.)

I was reading Catch-22 today (0 hits on Google.  Much better!), at Starbucks, when I came across the word insidious.  The reference was to some type of insidious disease.  I had a vague notion of the connotation of the word, but I wasn't sure I knew exactly what it meant, so I plotted my cursor down to it on my Kindle and used the handy-dandy, built-in dictionary feature.  A definition magically appeared at the bottom of the screen:

Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.

I was immediately struck by the beauty of this word.  (I studied linguistics in grad school, and I've long been fascinated with words, language, communication, etc.)  How marvelous, I thought, that this word, already quite sonorous in its phonetic qualities, with its efficient compaction of four whole syllables into a relatively small verbal space, and not too shabby-looking on paper either, could have such a precise meaning.

I clicked to view the full entry for the word and learned that it came from the Latin parts in-, meaning "on" and sedere, meaning "to sit".  In exercising some etymological imagination, I thought about how this elegant English word apparently evolved from the simple idea of something sinister just sitting and waiting patiently to strike. I was all the more amazed.

I think I have a new favorite word.

Be Careful

This two-word imperative, "Be careful," is shorthand in the world of Christian jargon.  It's what one Christian tells another when they believe that the other is on the vaunted "Slippery Slope."  It means, "I can't say what you're doing is wrong, but I don't like it, so what I'll do is tell you that it might eventually lead you to do something wrong."  There is an implication that one wrong will lead to more and more wrongs, until the poor slippery-footed Christian is accelerating down the slope, aka "backsliding," until one day they are no longer living for Christ and most likely are on their way to Hell.

Be careful.  Two words,  well-intentioned, but full of heavy implications incongruent with the ease with which they're spoken.

Most Christians, if asked, will say they are okay with people asking honest questions.  What they often mean by that is, they are okay with the kinds of questions that kids ask in Sunday school.  But ask a question like, "How do you reconcile an eternity of conscious torment with the idea of a just God," then you might be told to be careful.  The message is that some questions are good, but others might lead us to heresy, backsliding, bad doctrine, or maybe even Hell itself.

This also leads me to wonder, why do we rarely see the 'danger' of becoming too conservative?  Was that not the problem of the Pharisees, that they were unable to stop exalting their own ideas to the status of holy writ?  And yet, rarely does anyone say, "Be careful there brother.  If you become a pre-Millennialist, you might find yourself on a slippery slope to being a crazy religious zealot."

This baffles me.  Why do people think that it rains only on one side of the hill?  It almost seems that we have this underlying assumption that of the two choices, it's obviously better to become too conservative than too liberal.  I disagree.  I dare speculate that Jesus might have disagreed also, judging by the severity of his warnings to the religious establishment of his day.  But that's somewhat beside the point.  I'm not trying to debate which side is more slippery so much as I am advocating getting rid of the slippery slope rhetoric altogether.

The Apostle Paul told the Phillipians to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."  This encourages me to believe that it's okay that I am working things out, as long as I properly revere Christ and his teachings.  Until I lose the fear and trembling, I will reject the notion that I am in danger because of my questioning.

How Stories Make You a Better Person

You should never read just for "enjoyment." Read to make yourself smarter! Less judgmental. More apt to understand your friends' insane behavior, or better yet, your own. Pick "hard books." Ones you have to concentrate on while reading. And for god's sake, don't let me ever hear you say, "I can't read fiction. I only have time for the truth." Fiction is the truth, fool! ~John Waters

The waters saw you, God,
   the waters saw you and writhed;
   the very depths were convulsed.
 The clouds poured down water,
   the heavens resounded with thunder;
   your arrows flashed back and forth.
 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,
   your lightning lit up the world;
   the earth trembled and quaked.
 Your path led through the sea,
   your way through the mighty waters,
   though your footprints were not seen.

 You led your people like a flock
   by the hand of Moses and Aaron. (Psalm 77:16-20)

The author of Psalm 77 understood very well the power of stories.  He writes in a  time of great despair, wondering if God has abandoned him.  The verses quoted above come after he makes a deliberate choice to recount the faithfulness of God in the past.  Retelling this story gives him enough hope and strength to press on through his moment of despair.

We do this all the time.  We are shaped by our experiences.  We can feel overwhelmed by the various struggles that arise in our lives, until a close friend is good enough to say, "Do you remember that time when you were sure you were going to fail, but you so admirably pressed on, and you succeeded?"  Or until we remind ourselves, "I've been here before.  I can do it again."

Often times, it's other people's stories that give us strength.  As the Psalmist shows us, remembering God's faithfulness can inspire us.  Similarly, a hero is someone whose story motivates us to make our own stories better.  Like people in extreme cold who share each other's body warmth, we are permitted to share in each other's stories, so that even when our own experiences and memories aren't sufficient, we are not doomed to utter self-reliance.  This is part of the in-built grace of existence.  When we make bad decisions, we don't have to be fated to increasingly bad character.  We can be rescued.

The beauty of fiction then is that great stories don't even have to have actually happened.  We have a trove of "experiences" that we can draw from, even where we lack personal experiences, and even where we lack real life heroes.  As long as we have access to these stories, we are never abandoned.  There's always something "out there," telling us, "You can do this."  "It's not impossible."  "This is the right thing to do."  "You have what it takes."

My favorite stories all serve this purpose for me.  For example, (at the risk of oversimplification), The Lord of the Rings is my bravery.  The Narnia books are my sense of wonder and awe.  Lost is my sense of the power and value of community.  The Catcher in the Rye is my compassion.  Harry Potter is my belief in sacrificial love.  The Gospels are my faith and hope in the victory of God over evil.  The list could go on.

Read.  Read books that matter.  Watch movies and TV shows that tell great stories.  Pure entertainment is fine on occasion, but challenge yourself to seek out the good stuff more often than you gobble up the lowball stuff.  Do it to make yourself a better person.

iPod Education: TapQuiz Maps

If asked, could you pick out the country of Qatar on a map of the Middle East?  What about the province Nunavut on a Canadian map?  Or the nation of Belize in Central America?

I can!  And no, not because I'm smarter than you.  It's because I've recently discovered the power of apps for the purpose of self-education.  If you have any type of portable Apple device, there are some great apps you can get that will enrich your life much more than Angry Birds.  One app in particular that I've found to be very effective is called TapQuiz Maps.  You pick a region of the world you want to learn, and it quizzes you by naming a country and then letting you point to where you think it is. 

The best part is, this app is free AND contains no ads! (At least none that I've noticed thus far.  If they are there, they're very non-intrusive.)

I've only had this map app for a few days, and I'm already able to identify all the countries of the Middle East and Central America, and all the provinces of Canada.  Next challenge:  the vaunted Eastern Europe!



Most of us have had the embarrassing experience of hearing about a war or natural disaster in some country or another and realizing you have no idea where in the world that country is.  Comedian Paul Rodriguez once joked that "war is God's way of teaching us geography."  With this app, you don't have to wait until war breaks out in Estonia to know where it is.

Quick Quote

Just a quick post for now.  I was reading the March edition of Christianity Today and there was an interview with a religion professor named T. David Gordon, who recently authored a book titled, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal.  There was one quote in the interview that really stuck out to me.  Gordon is essentially asked, what's the problem with church music sounding like modern pop if it helps bring people into church?  His response was

". . . it's like reaching the rich young ruler by throwing money at him."

He says much more in the interview of course, but that particular line really arrested me.  Gordon is comparing the music played in contemporary evangelical worship services to something as superficial and dishonest as bribery.  Something to think about . . .