You Gotta Love Stock Market Analysts

So, I'm perusing Yahoo! Finance, trying to figure out how to get rich quick the good ol' American way--by doing nothing--and the first heading I saw was this:  

Stocks Shake Off Jobs Report To End With Big Gains -- Wall Street has put an upbeat spin on the government's report that the nation lost more than a half a million jobs last month.  Stocks reversed early losses to finish sharply higher as the job numbers raise hopes that Washington will again step in to help the economy.

Big job losses is good news because it means that maybe we'll get free money?  What?  That's like saying it's good that we didn't clean our rooms because maybe now our parents will get annoyed and clean them for us and give us our allowance anyway.  

Then there's another article on how gas may go down to less that $1 (whoa!).  Purely speculative, as is just about everything but the punctuation on this site, but it's a nice idea.  Let's see, how could I capitalize in the stock market on cheap gas.  I can't buy stock in oil companies (unless, of course, you use the above logic, in which case, free money again!), so who profits from cheap gas?  Probably not Ford and GM...they're too busy trying to look not-rich.  My best answer so far is Coke and Doritos:  if you just saved at the gas pump, maybe you'll be more likely to go into the little Mart and pick up a snack!  

Does anyone out there have some oh-so-logical advice on picking up a few stocks CHEAP!!!  ON SALE!!!  EVERYTHING MUST GO!!! as they seem to be so much these days?

Why Liberalism is not Socialism

Liberalism (US version)	Socialism
Favors a multi-party system (i.e. conservatives can kick them out whenever they get enough votes)	Favors a single-party system. My way or the highway
Favors free speech	Favors acceptable speech
Favors individual social freedom	Prohibits all deviancy from the limited accepted social formula
Favors personal career fulfillment	Favors subordination of your vocational desires for the good of society
Favors total religious freedom and equality	Favors no religious freedom in order to create the greatest equality—absence of any religion
Favors taxes that require more from those who have more	Favors taxing you 100% and doling back out to you your "fair share" as determined by the government

So how is Obama a socialist again?

How Can We Possibly See Things So Differently?

I have the privilege (or disadvantage, depending on your perspective) of living in a blue state with many blue friends while having mostly red family members and many red friends as well. Unfortunately this does not allow me to peacefully wallow in my own opinion buttressed by nothing but confirmation of my inherent rightness. I'm forced to confront the reasonableness of the other side as well as the fact that generally they're just good people.

Sadly, it appears that many of my friends, family and acquaintances are not in this position and feel much freer expressing serious contempt for the "other side". And I don't think they know they are or mean to, or perhaps they are expressing contempt for "those other people"...whoever they are. Regardless of your perspective on how the country should be run, being inconsiderate of other people's ideas isn't exactly helpful. In fact, isn't the best way to listen very carefully to what the other side has to say so that you can both come up with the best of both worlds? If nothing else it's important to note that if millions and millions of people think something, shouldn't you pause to just consider it? That many people cannot be that dumb. Otherwise our society wouldn't have lasted even as long as it has.


Anyway, it'd be great if our disagreements would involve a little more listening and a lot less malevolence.

MARKET that baby!

Somebody get Bristol Palin an agent!! Or better, one for Baby Palin-Johnston. A few professional shots of the happy family sold to People magazine should get them, what, $1 million? I mean, I suppose they're not Brad and Angie, but if they market this right, they could sure have the Grocery Aisle Pile drooling. If Bristol and Hottie McHotPocket Levi Johnston know what they're doing, they'll pay for Baby Palin-Johnston's education the good ol' American way...by leveraging their total hotness, dramatic situation and the fleeting and forgetful eye of the media, which currently is batting its flirty eyelashes behind some marvelously (and rare) rose-colored lenses.

If Vanity Fair and the Hallmark Channel are your bootstraps, I suggest you pull them up. Besides, I'm looking forward to seeing that cute baby ;).

On Being Young

I think the primary way I know I'm young is that my thought life is still made up of approximately 90% future thoughts and 10% past thoughts. Having my head tilted consistently future-ward is pleasantly but exhaustively and exasperatingly active and confusing. But at this point it's preferable to gazing back at what's been. At this point I still always have the comforting, if weak, sentiment: "when I'm old I'll understand why all this happened and it will all make sense".

If only.

Response to Lieberman

Here are some of my thoughts about Lieberman's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.


A couple of overarching thoughts initially come to mind:

1) "Democrat" and "Republican" are simply labels describing a certain set of principles, which apparently are supposed to be both consistent and dichotomous (i.e. welfare state + secular public laws + over regulation of business + weak military = Democrats/Liberal, while economic individualism + strict moral laws + under regulation of business + enormous military = Republicans). Naturally we have a big country and times change, so these labels easily slide around based on the times. Why try and squeeze all of your favorite principles under the "Democrat" basket you loved in 1958 when really they fit so much better under the "Republican" basket of 2008? Lieberman seems nostalgic for Democrats of old who would most likely be Republicans today. Which, I guess, is his point.

2) Wow, was the world different 50 years ago! Since WWII (my time frame is roughly Lieberman's lifetime) nuclear weapons have been dropped, people have lived in space, the internet was invented, global airline travel has become the norm, a US president has resigned due to corruption, the US has experienced several energy/oil scares (including now), chemical weapons have been introduced, DNA testing in criminal cases has become norm and exonerated many people falsely-charged, and CNN was established.

All of these things (among others, I'm sure) have made today's world very different than 50 years ago, and the politics has had to change with it. During WWII and the first half of the cold war it was obvious who was "good" and who was "bad" and the entire country mobilized on behalf of the US military. The economy was good and the Cold War became more distant. Later on in the century things got a little more grey. Sen. McCarthy exaggerated the communist threat and damaged US government credibility. JFK was shot by a crazed individual. Nixon lied and stole, and suddenly the US government was not as angelic and trustworthy as we'd like to believe. In Vietnam the US sprayed civilians with chemicals and dropped bombs on Cambodians (who were being annihilated by Pol Pot anyway, another genocide the US government chose to selectively ignore).

Everyone agrees that the shift came with the Vietnam war. Who was to say that our patriotic "ideology" wasn't just as bad as "theirs", since we were committing atrocities as well? (Note: I totally reject the, "we weren't as bad as they were" excuse, and I think the Democrats of the 70s and today do as well.) We did not want to end up like the 1940s Germans, blindly following a secretive leader just because he says our cause is just. To protest injustice became the patriotic thing; just because the injustice was wearing an American flag does not make it somehow excusable.

The difference between today's news and news in the 1950s is that now everyone has it. CNN shows car bombs live. People blog real-time about what they are witnessing. The whole world hears rumors within a matter of seconds, and crimes at places like Abu Ghraib and Haditha cannot be covered up. US righteousness is tarnished, and to ignore our wrong-doings for causes of "freedom" and "patriotism" is to deny both.

George W. Bush's administration has done nothing but magnify the perception of government manipulation and control to an overwhelming level. To today's Democrats, Bush's actions are potentially just as dangerous as that of a terrorist organization; he has been systematically setting up rule by decree from disregarding the opinion of the international community to eavesdropping on US private calls and emails to setting up these unprecedented "signing statements", where he simply declares to Congress which parts of their laws he is not going to obey, before signing. Bombs have taken the place of words. "Ideology" obliterates any sense of the enemy's humanity and makes them monsters, unworthy to live. Essentially, the rigid, unyielding principles which drive Bush's agenda mimic nearly identically the wishes of the leaders of China and the Middle East. You are free to do whatever we want you to do.

With one major, major difference: the US still values American lives. Communist/totalitarian countries have little regard for the lives of their own civilians, let alone foreigners. But it's not a far jump from Guantanamo to holding US citizens without reason, to complete executive power. And that is what today's Democrats are fighting against.



Why Obama is the Man for the Job

Barack Obama is the Democrat of the future. He does not have a "blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet" like Lieberman exaggerates. Rather, I believe his policy is to be willing to meet with them, with standards. Obama is willing to concede the fact that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are human beings with brains and negotiable interests. Yes, perhaps Ahmadinejad's one goal in life is to clad women world-wide with burkas and build himself a personal nuclear arsenal, but if we unilaterally bomb his country, we're never going to find that out. Not talking is an ironclad way to eliminate any and all chance of understanding. Obama represents the only foreign policy that is going to work in the global auditorium: yes, he holds a stick behind his back, but he offers a basket of carrots. Hopefully the result being many more offered baskets and a room of well-fed leaders rather than bloodied, battered, and starving ones.

The reason Obama is going to work for the postmodern generation is because when he looks at the globe, he sees what every young American sees in their peer group: many colors, many faiths, many accents, many cultures with differing priorities, but all human beings who should be treated with dignity. Right and wrong "ideologies" isn't going to work these days. Fanaticism, crime, hate, bigotry, corruption: our "war" is against these vices, regardless of whether they are found under an American flag or any other.


Lieberman is nostalgic for the Democratic party of old. If he wishes to remain in a dualistic world view of good guys v. bad guys, patriots v. non-patriots, I think he will be very comfortable in the Republican party of today.

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

I recently discovered a website called Letters From Leavers. It was started by two guys as a project for a class at Fuller Theological Seminary, and still exists as a place for people to write letters to their churches. I've only read a few, but they are quite interesting. Somehow I feel like the Evangelical church doesn't want to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of people leave their churches and Christianity all the time, for a lot of different reasons. If you can't see the problem, it's hard to come up with a solution.

I'm Sorry You're Offended

This Is Just To Say
by William Carlos Williams

I have eaten

the plums

that were in

the icebox



and which

you were probably

saving

for breakfast



Forgive me

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold

Responses to Critiques of the Emerging Church, Part II.V

I just wanted to let you know that I am planning on writing a "Part III" of the Responses to Critiques of the Emerging Church" posts, but I realized I need to do a little more research. The topic for Part III is orthodox theology, which is not something one can simply whip up. Or, at least I can't. Hopefully I'll get to it in the next few weeks.

Lying is Bad

I recently had a bad experience where a group I was a part of was told something we knew to be blatantly false. Total BS, actually. It wasn't a big bad lie and I suppose nobody actually got "hurt" by its telling. But I was completely insulted. Mostly because this person did such a bad job of it ("do they really think I don't know what they're talking about?") and because the higher road would have been so much more tactful. And refreshing.

House M.D. is probably most known for the perpetual phrase, "everybody lies." I had always kind of chuckled with pity at the cynicism (as several of the other characters frequently do), thinking how much life this Thomas was missing out on by slathering everything with distrust. But I'm slowly being converted. Burying an ideal is always a particularly mournful occasion.

Tired

I think this happens to everyone. You say you're gonna blog, you're gonna be good about it and put something up there hopefully every day, but at least every week.

And then a couple of weeks go by and you just haven't had an original thought. Being tired does that, I think. But sunshine helps.

Focus on the Family Rejects Racial Reconcilation

I think most people would probably agree that it is important to "major on the majors, and minor on the minors." The problem arises when we disagree what exactly constitutes "major".

Obama's recent speech on racial reconciliation has caused a tremendous outpouring of appreciation and support from all sides. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said it was "the best political speech since John Kennedy talked about his Catholicism in Houston in 1960" and that it "was not a sound bite, but a symphony." Thomas Mann, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution called it "[a]n extraordinary speech — not because of any rhetorical flourishes, but because it was honest, frank, measured in tone, inclusive and hopeful." The International Herald Tribune quotes Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School: "This is not a reparations speech. This is a speech about saying it's time for the nation to do better, to form a more perfect union." And Margaret Carlson from Bloomberg recognized that Hillary Clinton declared that "'Words are cheap'...when she first realized that Senator Barack Obama's were anything but."

In fact, as of 2:38 p.m. on 3/20, I have only found two negative perspectives (I doubt I could ever find an neutral one). One of them is an op-ed piece by Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, who is digging unreasonably deeply to manage his conservative attack angle, and the other is Focus on the Family.

Now, I admit that when titling this post my intention was to be provocative. I obviously think that Focus on the Family is completely in support of racial reconciliation. But yesterday's CitizenLink, FotF's political activist magazine, posted an equally incendiary title: Obama Embraces 21st Century Form of Socialism. In this article, Ken Blackwell (Family Research Council Action's senior fellow for Family Empowerment) offers not one positive word towards Obama's speech other than "eloquent." Instead, Mr. Blackwell's twisted Obama's message to be a radical acceptance of government intervention in private citizens' lives. He says, "Mr. Obama again made it clear, with all his eloquence, that he still embraces these beliefs that would require dismantling the free-market system that has made our country's economy the most prosperous in all of human history."

It is articles such as these which baffle and infuriate me the most. It represents everything I detest about modern Evangelical America. While Barack Obama uses his forum to address the insidious problem of racism--a wretched sin which has plagued the U.S. from its birth--Focus on the Family chooses to gloss over this wrong to highlight a theological and political disagreement. Thus causing the precise discord against which the speech warns.

Why can't the Evangelical Right lower their holy firearms for just a moment to acknowledge the deep truth and profound Gospel implications of such a message as this? Why cannot they put aside their pet peeves about the dangers of the effects of government welfare for a brief time and contemplate the necessity for healing a deep societal hurt and fear? How does excoriating a fellow Christian's imperfections do anything but damage the message and meaning of the words of Jesus Christ?

I am sad, I am frustrated and angry...and I acknowledge that I am hypocritically and unambiguously participating in exactly the same thing I condemn here. So. I suppose I should take 10 deep breaths and start loving those fellow believers, the speck in whose eye I am not fit to remove.

Responses to Critiques of the Emerging Church, Part II

This will be a quick one.

Some people complain that "churches these days" are "too focused on the bells and whistles" and "don't preach meat" anymore. (Say that in your best granny voice...it sounds better.)

It's true that there certainly is a lot more happening visually in new churches. Video has become a major element in Sunday services, and churches have found unique ways in incorporating creative media into their worship. The worry isn't that there's too much art--the worry is that the art is supplanting the doctrine.

Actually, I don't have much to say about this, because I don't really understand the complaint. It seems to me that all denominations have their shallow churches. It doesn't matter what kind of extracurricular stuff goes on.

Personally, I really like new ways of saying old ideas. Liturgy and video coincide quite nicely into my vision of a worship service.

Do you have a different perspective? What do you think about emergent worship-styles and the messages that come with them?

Responses to Critiques of the Emerging Church, Part I

Although I'm not in any kind of "inner circle"of the emergent movement, I feel compelled to give those who are a little shout-out, and respond to some of its criticisms from my own perspective. I think that I have a basis from which to speak because I have read many of Brian McLaren's books, as well as several speeches/articles from other leaders in the movement and talked with a few emergent leaders. If you happen to be from the emerging church movement and see that I don't know what I'm talking about, please let me know.

I've heard three main critiques about those churches which call themselves "emergent". One is that their "postmodern" viewpoint is philosophically and morally relativistic, and is not compatible with God as an Absolute Authority. A second criticism is that churches focus too much on the bells and whistles of services--videocasts, hip art displays, smooth music, cool pastors--to the detriment of the actual message, which becomes a shallow "Jesus loves you". Finally, all this postmodernism leads to some unorthodox, and in some cases heretical, theology.

First I'd like to point out that "emergent" or "the emerging church" is not a denomination. Every church is different, and every person has different ideas. "Emergent" is a term that was coined to describe a lot of similar ideas and attitudes that have been developing for a few years, and I kinda like it :). Simply put, the emerging church rejects a philosophically modernist approach to Christianity (a methodological, formulaic view which accepts facts as completely absolute and knowable) and instead views the Christian faith through a postmodern lens. Faith is often described as a "conversation" or a "journey"--something always to be relearned and renewed.

Postmodern relativism
I believe there are two types of philosophy--that which philosophy Ph.D.'s contemplate and generally remains in some kind of linguistic stratosphere, and a kind of folk philosophy, which us folks generally live by. I am not a philosopher and cannot debate the abstractest of postulates, but I can construct a worldview which I hope is both logical and coherent. Therefore when I use terms like "postmodern" and "relativism", I mean the people's general understanding of such terms.

John MacArthur is one person who comes to mind when I think of strong critics of the emerging church, and relativism seems to be his favorite subject. I have heard him speak very passionately about the dangers, evils, and inconsistencies of relativism, and have often been frustrated by what I see as a simplistic and incomplete understanding. Unfortunately I think this is a common understanding among conservative Evangelicals. The primary misconception is to assume that "relativism" means "nothing is True." That is indeed a complex philosophy to hold, and one that I think few people outside academia actually hold. At least, no one I know :).

I believe emerging church Christians definitely believe in the One True God who is absolutely and finally True. As C.S. Lewis puts it, "the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other fact depend" [Mere Christianity, HarperCollins, 184). However, it is impossible for any of us to actually know that Fact or Truth completely, for two reasons. Firstly, the only way we could know It is for us to be equal to It, for us to be able to see to world as It sees us, and that is not the case. Secondly, and this is the more commonly referenced reason, we all have bias. All of us are shaped by our experiences, and our experiences are what we base our knowledge on.

Here is an illustration: A girl from Florida goes to visit a boy in Minnesota. When she gets there she says, "Wow, it is really cold outside!" The boy says, "No it's not, it's just right." Both of them are expressing the truth as it is relative to them. Naturally, that does not change the fact that it is 42 degrees F. 42 degrees is the objective, actual Truth. However, even knowledge of that Truth does not change the truth of each of their experiences. In order to know the Truth beyond their experience, they have to look at the thermometer, which would be analogous to the Bible. I think you would agree with me that the Bible is several times more complex than a thermometer, which is where interpretation comes in. I'll get to that in part III.

The same reasoning goes for "moral relativism." There is a universal law, which Jesus summed up very well in "Love God, love your neighbor." However, there is a lot of disagreement on what some of the rules to follow are and even more on how they should be implemented. Some things (like modesty, honor, and authority) are very different between cultures. Others (like the sanctity of life, sex, and personal property) are recognized almost across the board, but are treated differently, even within cultures and within Christianity itself.

What are the implications of a quasi-relativistic worldview such as this ? I believe it means you comes to Truth much more humbly. Knowledge does not completely go by the wayside; you still have all the cumulative experiences of your own life and the knowledge you've acquired from others. But you also know that there is always more to learn and experience. You will never stop on the journey growing ever closer to Truth. When someone is telling you something that you believe is wrong, instead of immediately rejecting his or her position, you carefully consider their perspective and really listen to what they have to say. Then you humbly embrace and lightly hold whatever conclusions to which you honestly come.

We will seek Truth all of our lives, but in the end it is not our knowledge, but our faith that saves us.

To be continued...

P.S.

I just wanted to make clear that what Spitzer did was not your run-of-the-mill sleaziness. He was a huge anti-prostitution zealot who was simultaneously violating his own code. It's hypocrisy and lies, and bad bad stuff.

Isn't it funny (meaning "weird") that the things people protest against most are the things they most frequently dabble in?

Spitzer, Schmitzer

Spitzer was caught making plans to visit a prostitute. And the media is freaking out!!!! I feel like the only one who is not surprised at the governor's faux pas. After all, he's a politician and a businessman. As far as I know, he's not practicing any kind of conservative religion. If he was anyone besides the governor of New York and people found out, it would be kind of sleazy, but nbd.

Of course, the real story is the fact that there is all kinds of hypocrisy going around. Spitz apparently was a big hooker-fighting kinda guy, and here he is patronizing the establishment himself. Journalists (many of whom are familiar with the business, I'm sure) are reporting on this like it's murder rather than a misdemeanor charge.

Is it bad? Sure, it's bad. It's bad for the persons involved as well as their families and society in general. (So you can see, I'm not pro-prostitution). But does a story like this deserve the panting, drooling reporters it gets? Doubtful. However, I am interested to see how long it will take for the book to come out, Uncovered: The Night I Almost Spent With Eliot Spitzer.

Mommy Brain

On Friday the NYTimes published an article entitled Maternal Instinct is Wired Into the Brain. It reported the results of a Tokyo study where 13 mothers, all with 16 month old babies, watched videos of their own babies and others both smiling and crying while they were in an MRI machine. The mothers had very different brain waves when they saw their own children than when they saw others, and a stronger reaction to cries than to smiles.

Although this is an interesting study, I was kind of surprised it got NYTimes attention. 13 women is quite a small number, and the article doesn't say that they were randomly selected. I wonder, also, if they chose babies that were 16 months old in order to skip over chances of postpartum depression?

It does seem *obvious* that mothers are "hard-wired" to love their own children (even if they can't stand anyone else's!), but my humble opinion is that laypeople should be cautious when analyzing a study of this size. Narrow, shallow scientific findings are often contorted to mean things their creators never intended them to mean, and zealots eagerly seize them to be used as bludgeons in political arguments.

On the other hand, three cheers for brain studies :). They never cease to come up with something fascinating.

The Joy of Facebook Quizzes

The complete list of Facebook quizzes I have taken (to date) follows:

• What Lost character are you? (Sawyer? Awesome!!)
  
• Which Hero are you? (Mohinder Suresh? That's kinda weird.)
  
• What city should you live in? (Tokyo. Yeah right.)
  
• Could you pass the US citizenship test? (With flying colors, baby!)
  
• Right brain v. left creativity test (Right brain--was there any question?)
  
• Dr. Phil's personality test (What? You're kidding me!)
  
• Which Jane Austen heroine are you? (That girl from Mansfield Park...I can't really remember that book.)
  
• Which American accent do you have? (Northern, of course.)
  

(I also took the "which Disney princess are you?" quiz, but I wasn't excited about letting that fact be seen on my little newsboard.) (And for the record, it was Pocahontas ;) .)

These quizzes can pretty much only be described as, well, shallow and dumb. I am surely not any of the Lost characters (thank goodness!)...and nevertheless I was thrilled when it let me know "You are Sawyer"! The awesome thing about Facebook quizzes is that it always lets you take the quiz again if you don't like your answer. The not-so-awesome thing about this particular quiz was, I loved my answer, but then when I tried to take the quiz again, it kept telling me I was Juliet! No way am I that traitorous, untrustworthy female android of Ben Linus's! This quiz sucks.

Let's take another!

And so it goes. Happy minutes spent analyzing my inner TV character. I can't think of anything better to do.

Oh, and if you want to know what my Dr. Phil's personality test result is, feel free to take the quiz yourself. I'm sure you'll figure it out :).

The Irrational American Wedding

It's that time of life. The time of life where every other summer weekend is spent traveling to a new nuptial locale. Where you suddenly notice just how many magazines are devoted to white dresses and colored fondant. Where, "What Is Your Perfect Bouquet: Take The Quiz!" is something you try your hardest not to take seriously.

Last year I think I went to 5 weddings (including my own). I'm realizing that this is actually a moderate-to-small number; some of my friends attend as many as 10 in a year! But I could go to 100 and I doubt I would get sick of it. There is absolutely no celebration like a wedding, and the American one has its fair share of quirks.

During my engagement I found a book dedicated to exploring the American wedding industry, which (thankfully) did more to balance my perspective than anything else could. When one is in the midst of a long-term wedding operation, rationality is a difficult thing to hold onto. My fellow fiancées and I occasionally remarked on the surprising pull of the industry's message. It seems odd to think that something as eclectic as a wedding can speak with the unified voice of an "industry", but I honestly think I have never heard such a powerful (yet subtle), organized (yet unaffiliated) declaration of intent. And that intent is clear: get the bride.

Oh, but we want to be gotten! We long nearly from our cribs to be captured and seduced and finally slaughtered by that beautiful and dangerous Wedding. We are brides for Halloween and frequent playground actors. We nearly drool at our former babysitter as she glides in white down the church aisle bestrewn with flower petals. We are victims, and we never had a chance.

And finally our time comes. Beset with our diamond proof of legitimacy, we slam down every wedding magazine Border's has to offer on the cashier's counter. Finally we are in that position to be able to groan with faux exhaustion about all of the decisions we have to make in the next 9 months.

But at some point, a little bit of panic does set in. What if roses aren't exactly my flower? What do roses say about me? Will people know I'm classic and not boring? What about my dresses? Are they stylish, or tacky? Does this table setting exhibit my slight bent towards the urban exotic while paying a passing contribution to my love for early American architecture? What in the world can we have besides chicken and fish!?

I should have seen it coming, but I was honestly blindsided by the inherent and extremely strong expectation by Wedding, Inc. that this day should be the Culmination and Expression of our entire Mental and Personal Identity. Needless to say, it is difficult to express a human personality in the subtleties of red velvet versus lemon raspberry.

The author of the previously mentioned wedding book made an interesting observation on the purpose of such a message. Previously (in the 1800s or 'bout then), women spent much of their teenage years needlepointing and knitting and quilting--preparing for wedding and womanhood. The wedding display was meant to express the readiness of this woman to be a wife. Nowadays we have a similar, but more modern version of this aspiration. The vendor organization, the executive decision-making in food and in color and in dress--all of these planning skills show the worthiness of the bride to take on the modern responsibilities of the American Household. Essentially, it is a crash course on project management. And an effective one at that!

I admit I was confused and beset by by the bridal lie that my honor as a bride depended on the notoriety of my place settings. But at the end of my engagement I was happily able to enjoy my wedding without being personally limited by that single (allegedly) climactic day. Yes, I chose red roses. Yes, we had a city wedding. And no, post-wedding I have not found myself suddenly bound to and limited by my choice of favors, music or cake. Instead, I have come away with something marvelously better than anything the giant, authoritative wedding industry was able to offer--a great marriage.

What is Sin?

Until somewhat recently I never really thought about this question. Sin was stuff you did that God didn't like. The obvious answer is found in the 10 commandments, but Christians don't generally limit themselves to such a short list:). The definition is often expanded to the more inclusive "being in rebellion against God." At some point as a teenager I made an even greater shift (which seemed to be viewed by many as a step in a more righteous direction) to view sin not from the perspective of things you do that are against God, but rather, anything that you do that is not in complete alignment with God's perfect will for your life. I think I got this from "be perfect like your heavenly Father is perfect" which I admit I took somewhat out of context.

It may sound holy, but the result of such a mindset is pretty distorted. What happens is that you cease to distinguish between actual "sins" (rather, you consider most thoughts and feelings to be "sinful") and fall either into a rhythm of flippancy towards grace or a sense of total despair.

Such a definition may sound extreme, but my experience with the Evangelical church is that its teachings and actions are not far from this extreme perspective. Prayers of confession are encouraged to be given frequently--and the more frequently you confess, the fewer actual sins you can think of. But of course you know that you're probably forgetting something. After all, if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. So, you end up confessing what you could have "done better". "I'm sorry for being angry" or "for being grumpy" or even "I'm sorry that I don't love You like I should."

Is not loving God "like I should" a sin? Well, it does break the first and greatest commandment.

So where does that leave us? Sinners, of course, saved by grace. That's an easy answer. But none of us wants to be in a state of sin. After all, we're dead to sin. How can we live in it any longer? How do we know if there is a moment in time where we're not sinning?

The reason I bring this up is because I just recently read on another blog someone discussing the evils of the sin of loneliness. The idea being that if you're feeling lonely, you're not letting God fill your needs.

That may seem extreme to many of you, but why? Why is it extreme? Why is sadness not a sin if anger is? And if you think anger is not, why isn't it?

As a result of this conundrum of a question, I am a big fan of the liturgical practice of absolution of sin. Whatever the heck that sin was, it's nice to hear someone say that it is now gone.

Are You Feeling the Fierce Urgency of Now??

It's Not You, It's Me
Letter from a young, hip, cynical former Obamamaniac.
By Dahlia Lithwick, taken from Slate.com


Dear Barack:

I know it's kind of lame to break up with you on Valentine's Day. And on the Internet to boot. But it's also kind of ironic. And that's what I need to tell you. As an ironic, contrarian, so-hip-it-hurts Gen X-er, I just can't love you anymore. I can't like you because … because, well, everyone else does. And suddenly supporting you just seems soooo last week.

Last week, my hip friends were all thronging stadiums and manning phone banks for you. Now they're all blogging against you and downing water and Tylenol like they've just done 12 Obama shooters in 20 minutes and then barfed in the cloakroom.

I know this is going to sound strange, but it's not you, Barack, it's me. Really it always was me, but now it's really, really about me. I don't know when we started to feel weird supporting you, but: My friend Hanna thinks it started with that "Yes We Can," video. I mean, last week I was totally crying watching it. Now just thinking about how choked up I got gives me the creeps. I think I felt something at the time, but even if I did, I'm pretty sure I don't want to feel it anymore. Feeling inspired is soooo early-February.

Or maybe it started when everyone began madly posting last week about how you are not the Messiah. And that got me thinking. Then, when commentators started accusing me of being a venomous drone in a "cult of personality," I just needed to get out. I mean cults are soooo 1970s. And cults of personality? So totally first century.

Cult or no cult, this week I just started getting really confused about you. I mean, when people start to say that your strengths are actually weaknesses? That just makes sense, if you really think about it. I mean, what's the point of being such an inspirational speaker if all you can do is give inspirational speeches? Do better, Barack. I mean, do worse!

So I've been thinking a lot about our time together, Barack. Supporting you wholeheartedly was the best damn 14 days of my life. I liked you before liking you was cool. But now it is, so it's not. Know what I mean? At least now I can go back to being flip and cynical and edgy again. I bet you wish you could, too.

But don't be sad! My friend has a Web site: IlikedObamabeforehewascool.com. It's not much of a site, but it sure is funny. As for me, well, I just can't be comfortable liking you now that liking you is like liking an iPhone. Maybe if you can be more of a jerk or play hard to get or something? Maybe you could uninspire some of your fans? Maybe then I could believe in you again. I'm hopeful. Or at least just hopeful enough to still be cool.

Me, I'm going to roll up my sleeves and start working for the Dennis Kucinich 2012 campaign. Edgy, no? And if things start really truly going south for you, I want you to know that you can count on my future fleeting and conditional support in the months and years ahead. Yes, you can.

WebMD is RIDICULOUS

Say you have a headache. One that kind of is creeping in through the back of your neck and up to your temple. You say to yourself, "I wonder what kind of headache this is. Maybe I'll look on WebMD, to see if they have any helpful tips."

So you click on the little symptom checker guy and you enter in (truthfully) your sex and age range, and then prepare to give the WebDoc your symptoms. You click on your head and then the top of your head, and then the Doc asks you to check which of 85 options matches your symptoms. Hmm....Agitation, Anxiety, Apathy...no, more like a headache. Blackouts...wow, that sounds bad. Broken bones....COMA???? THEY'RE ASKING ME IF I'M IN A COMA???

No, I am not in a coma, but now I am suffering a little anxiety as well. I'll click on "headache" and give a little more information on where it is and how much it hurts and wait excitedly for my diagnoses. The results narrow it down a bit: I could possibly have a sunburn, caffeine withdrawal, or a stroke.

Ya gotta love the internet.

None

None

Spring is in the Air

Yeah dancing Johnny!!!
















Looks like someone asked a dumb question.

Sympathy is her Kryptonite

Poor Hillary.

I hate to say it, because I do believe those two little words are the WORST thing she possibly could ever hear. If she was to hear them spoken to her face, I think her green sugar facade would begin to melt.

And of course a large part of me is routing for her. The part of me that routes for any woman who is battling tooth and nail against the odds and is this close to actually achieving equality on a monumental level (You Go Girl!!!).

But don't you get the feeling that she wants this just a little too much? That she, in some ways, is closer to G.W. Bush than any other candidate in her prophetical desire to lead her people? For Obama or McCain or Huckabee there is a quite decent forseeable future, even if it doesn't include "Hail the Chief". But I have a sneaking suspicion that for Hillary, her horizon lies quite close. Her life does not continue beyond this last passionate pursuit. Which, even if she did win, would be a little sad. Her life's purpose would be over like a quick and destructive tornado leaving her with (most likely) a few trophies, perhaps, several blurry memories, an unspecified number of stress-related health issues, a crazier marriage than she already has now, and probably more regrets than she expected. To be the first woman president could be amazing, but it could also be over-priced.

Poor Hillary.

Theology of Sorrow

A little while ago I had a rather ambitious urge to write a book discussing a potential "Theology of Sorrow". I even got so far as to write an introduction! Who knows whether it will ever get beyond that. In any case, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts about God and us and sorrow, and how they interact. I've pasted my rough introduction below, to incite your comments:


I’d like to make it clear from the start that I am no theologian. Perhaps that should prohibit me from calling anything I say a “theology”. But hopefully I will be forgiven since God has indeed granted me a mind with which to study Him, however amateur its process may be.

It has come to my attention that the current Christian discourse—or at least the circle of discourse to which I am privy—has many “theologies of” (fill in category). An extensive theology of poverty, for example, or Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body, regarding issues of marriage and sexuality. The theology of suffering is another area given to extensive discussion. These are called “theologies” because they are sincere attempts to reconcile human situations with God’s character.

Poverty and suffering are naturally common topics because on the surface they seem so disconnected with two of God’s most popular characteristics: love and omnipotence. But when we examine the life of Jesus, we see God’s process of identifying with us rather than fixing us.

One of the Bible’s most familiar passages on the suffering of Jesus is in Isaiah 53:3; He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Being “familiar with suffering” is something some churches practically encourage nowadays. Not being ridiculed?—you’re probably not witnessing enough. Not under spiritual attack?—seems the devil doesn’t think you’re enough of a threat to him! On a more positive note, I have heard several sermons preached on the topic of “passion”, emphasizing the fact that the Latin root of our modern-day word originally meant “suffering”. (This is apparent some contexts, for example, “the passion of the Christ”.) The implicit message being: in order to be a passionate Christian, suffering must be a major component of one’s life. Although these messages may tend to encourage the listener towards false martyrdom, the point here is that there are indeed messages about it. People are talking about suffering in the context of being Christ-like, and are grappling with whatever implications that may have.

But Isaiah does not let suffering alone describe the Servant. He is also a “man of sorrows”. Personally, I don’t believe those two features share an obvious connection. One can be suffering cheerfully or angrily or defiantly. Or sorrowfully. And Isaiah identifies Jesus as being a man of sorrows. In the next few pages I would like to explore the implications of this trait of Jesus’, and what it means for the expectations of Christian life and our relationship with God.

New Favorite Quote

Last week my husband, Ben, and I went to see Shakespeare's "As You Like It" with our good friends the Murgatroyds. I came away with a renewed appreciation for Shakespeare's WACKY sense of humor. Here, for your pleasure, is my new favorite quote:

"I can suck melancholy out of a song as a weasel sucks eggs."

I find this funny on so many levels. I'll leave you to guess which levels those are;).

Can a person be both a Christian and a Democrat?

I'm always surprised when I hear this question posed, not only because the answer seems so obvious to me, but because the total opposite answer seems so obvious to the other person! For the record, I would like to state that my response to that question is a resounding, "Yes!".

Now, on to the issues.


Abortion
Firstly, I don't believe that abortion is the defining issue between Republicans and Democrats. There are actually millions of Democrats who would define themselves as pro-life. (In contrast, a good percentage of Republicans are pro-choice, showing that party affiliation itself does not define a person as "pro-life" or "pro-choice".) According to Democrats for Life,
"43% of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion 'destroys a human life and is manslaughter'", and 50% believe that "in general it is morally wrong to have an abortion." Many Democrats are angry at the way pro-choice extremists have hijacked the party platform.

Although the label "Democrat" in no way equals "pro-choice", I do see a difference in pro-life Republican and pro-life Democratic attitudes towards the issue itself. Republican rhetoric tends to lean heavily on accusation for the deed, while Democrats seem to show more compassion for the woman in the position of making such a terrible choice. In my experience, Republicans see Democratic compassion towards a pregnant woman considering an abortion as making light of the evil of "baby killing". Not only is this unbiblical, but it hurts the position of Republicans, who are seen as cold-hearted and uncaring of women. Republicans are seen as valuing an unborn child with no earthly experience more than a grown woman with years of life experience. Some would argue that the woman's quality of life should be valued over that of an unborn child. I am not arguing that here. I am saying that, at the very least, every effort should be made to identify with the predicament of a woman caught with a life-changing, possibly traumatic choice on her hands.


Gay Marriage
I do not actually believe that there are many Democrats who are unequivocally supportive of "gay marriage". I put this in quotes to distinguish it from civil unions, because the gay community sees a big distinction there. To be given the right to marry would be to have their relationship publicly legitimized, while a civil union, although identical in content, has a second-class connotation. Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are in favor of civil unions, but not marriage. (I do wonder why they make this distinction--I suppose it is to cater to those who would like to think of themselves as open-minded, but continue to be squeamish when it comes to the word "marriage". I don't think that, for them, there is a religious reason.)

I believe that Christians who hold a traditional view of Scripture (i.e., the majority of it being textually literal) cannot hold the homosexual lifestyle to be God's ideal. However--and this is where the difference lies--it is not the role of a secular state to dictate the lifestyle choice of those who do not hold Scripture in high regard. In fact, it is the duty of the state to treat everyone with equality and justice, regardless of their religious or family choices.

Of course, this does not include situations that are obviously harmful, such as abusive relationships. Some, such as Dr. Dobson, have argued that homosexual relationships are indeed harmful to everyone around them. I find his apocalyptic analysis to be at best speculative and at worst, dangerous. He seems to have very little faith in the power of good families, if he is so afraid at their imminent downfall. If the traditional family is indeed "better" than any other kind, I believe society will not be blind to that. But in the meantime, the traditional family is not going to collapse solely because a gay couple marries and moves in next door.

This is a much longer conversation, and cannot be fully fleshed out in summary form.


Secular Public Education (Separation of Church and State)
Very simply, to force religious ideas on those who do not hold them is, eventually, to have contrary religious ideas forced on you. The oppressor will eventually become the oppressed.

Immigration
I don't see how this a Biblical issue. Personally, I would like to see immigration quotas raised dramatically, so that it would be easier to get a legitimate visa into the US.

Social Welfare (including health care)
The arguments generally are whether it is the job of the church or the government to provide for the poor. I happen to believe one would fail without the other, and that they are both vitally important.

For Republicans, the argument usually comes down to the fact that 1) it is wrong for the government to tax my hard-earned money just to give it to those who haven't earned it, and 2) those who are taking welfare checks are working the system and don't want to become legitimate members of society. They quote Paul who saying, If you don't work, then you don't eat. I haven't seen any statistics on this, so this is pure speculation, but I have a hard time accepting the fact that everyone who gets welfare checks or food stamps isn't working. Sure there are those with flexible morals who like to con the system, but there are those people in every tax bracket. Potential misuse is not alone a reason to completely disband a program.

As far as biblical support goes, Israel itself had its own form of community welfare. Ruth was herself a benefactor. Israel also had laws against charging interest or selling food at a profit, and had a system for canceling debts.

Jesus's oft mis-quoted phrase, "The poor will always be among you" is in no way excusing our responsibility towards the poor. Quite the opposite! Jesus is commenting on the beautiful gift of worship the woman has lavished on him, and reminding his disciples of the many opportunities they will have to serve the poor in the future, after Jesus's short time on earth had come to an end.

Justice for the needy is, I think, the primary value of the Democratic party, and I find this to be completely in line with the God of scripture.


Capital Punishment
As much as some would like to say that the death penalty is quite obviously supported by scripture, I do not see it. Perhaps I'll blog on this later, but I think both sides are quite easily supported by various verses.



There are, I think, many other differences, but I'll leave it at this for now. Even if you (speaking to Conservatives) disagree with all of my argument, I hope I have made a case that a true, Bible-believing Christian can indeed hold all of these opinions.

Finally, I would like to point out that no set of beliefs can get one into Heaven. It is only the blood of Christ which saves.

Cake or Death

The Today Show had a spot not long ago on this apparently FABULOUS chocolate cake that EVERYONE wants from epicurious.com. It's just an old fashioned Double Chocolate Layer Cake, but (as of this post) it has 1,094 reviews! That's a lot of people eating chocolate cake:). It gets 4 "forks", according to the website's rating system. I haven't tried it myself yet, but my mouth waters just thinking about it. You should try it! The world could always use a piece of chocolate cake:).

Let's try this again

So once again I am going to try to start blogging. I've done this several times, and each time I never got past the first post. I couldn't see the point of rambling on about my own ideas or experiences--who would actually care? Heck, I don't usually even care ;).

But recently I've been doing a lot of commenting on other people's blogs, and thought it would be nice to try to bring a few amateur commentators here. It's so much better when we actually have a discussion. In that vein, I'm going to try to leave every post with a question. Feel free to give your perspective.

Of course, I don't assume a rousing discussion is going to take place anytime soon, so in the meantime, I will commence talking to myself.

Those of you who know me know that I've come from a pretty traditional American Evangelical Christian background. Throughout college I had several mind-opening experiences (which haven't stopped--in fact, they continue to come all the time) and my world view has changed, if not dramatically, certainly noticeably. And yet, I still felt (feel) the need to interact with my past. I found Focus on the Family's blog for single 20somethings, Boundless, to be great in that regard. Here, finally, was a forum with which I could discuss some of the demons I felt were lurking in my closet. I could get some intelligent Christian feedback on many of the issues I'd been wrestling with the for past few years.

Unfortunately, a lot of the feedback I got wasn't very Christian-like. Which I thought was really a bummer! More than anything I wanted to interact with the "Christian Right" in a way that would bring light to both side's point of view. In the editor's most recent post, the question was raised as to whether the conservatives on the blog (which I suppose is Boundless's target audience) are bothered by all of the liberal opinions. Which kind of made me feel rejected, a little. Like that was a club that I wasn't a part of, even though I have pretty orthodox views on Scripture.

Another surprising thing was the disconnect between what kinds of statements people thought were "inflammatory" or not. Are liberals and conservatives really that much from another planet?

So, here's the question: What do you think? Are you liberal/conservative, and are you offended by the other side? What offends you, and what do you think it would take for the two sides to come together?